FINAL CASE STUDY PAPER
Grimshaw v. Ford
FOR PURPOSES OF
THIS CASE STUDY
● NEGLIGENCE
● RISK/BENEFIT ANALYSIS
● BPL FORMULA
QUICK SUMMARY ON NEGLIGENCE
A plaintiff must prove five basic elements, including the following:
(1) the manufacturer owed a duty to the plaintiff
(2) the manufacturer breached a duty to the plaintiff
(3) the breach of duty was the actual cause of the plaintiff’s injury
(4) the breach of duty was also the proximate cause of the injury
(5) the plaintiff suffered actual damages as a result of the negligent act
QUICK SUMMARY ON RISK-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Proposes that one should weigh the risk of not taking some action from that of
the benefit of taking some action: (similar to cost-benefit analysis)
● Real future risk, as disclosed by the fully matured future circumstances when they develop.
● Statistical risk, as determined by currently available data.
● Projected risk, as analytically based on system models structured from historical studies.
● Perceived risk, as intuitively seen by individuals.
***Cost pertains more to the cost of having to take that action
QUICK SUMMARY OF BPL FORMULA
Simply put, the test says: If (Burden < Cost of Injury × Probability of occurrence), then the
accused will not have met the standard of care required.
IF B<PL = liability
IF B>PL = no liability
THE GRIMSHAW
CASE SUMMARY
On May 28, 1972, Mrs. Gray, accompanied by
13-year-old Richard Grimshaw, set out in the
Pinto from Anaheim for Barstow to meet Mr.
Gray. The Pinto suddenly stalled. A 1962
Ford Galaxie was unable to avoid colliding
with the Pinto. Both occupants had sustained
serious burns; their clothing was almost
completely burned off. Mrs. Gray died a few
days later of congestive heart failure as a result
of the burns. Grimshaw managed to survive
but only through heroic medical measures. He
has undergone numerous and extensive
surgeries and skin grafts and must undergo
additional surgeries over the next 10 years. He
lost portions of several fingers on his left hand
and portions of his left ear, while his face
required many skin grafts from various
portions of his body.
Harley Copp, a former Ford engineer testified that the highest
level of Ford’s management made the decision to go forward
with the production of the Pinto, knowing that the gas tank was
vulnerable to puncture and rupture at low rear impact speeds
creating a significant risk of death or injury from fire and
knowing that “fixes” were feasible at nominal cost.
Finally, Mr. Copp testified to conversations in late 1968 or early
1969 with the chief assistant research engineer in charge of
cost-weight evaluation of the Pinto, about the integrity of the
Pinto’s fuel system and complained about management’s
unwillingness to deviate from the design if the change would
cost money.
Answer or comment as applicable:
1) Analyze the facts presented
in the case using each of the
three ethical theories
discussed in class, namely:
utilitarianism, deontology, and
virtue ethics.
2) Based on your analysis in
question #1, explain your
recommended course of
action.
RUBRIC FOR FINAL CASE STUDY PAPER
Total = 150 points or 15%
Provides a thorough discussion of each of
the three approaches to ethical decisionmaking
80 points
Provides a thorough explanation of a
recommended course of action
50 points
Follows instructions and submits paper
timely: 1200 words due May 10, 2016
>>>>before the final exam
—DO NOT EMAIL IT TO ME—
20 points
WE ARE THE LEADING ACADEMIC ASSIGNMENTS WRITING COMPANY, BUY THIS ASSIGNMENT OR ANY OTHER ASSIGNMENT FROM US AND WE WILL GUARANTEE AN A+ GRADE
