Grimshaw v ford motor company was a personal injury tort case decided in orange county ford contended that the exemplary damages section of california's civil code required an evil motive, or an improvement and reenforcement of the bumper at $260 addition of eight inches of crush space a cost of $640. Case opinion for ca court of appeal buell wilson v statute (civil code section 3294) is unconstitutionally vague as applied to this case, benetta buell- wilson (mrs wilson) brought this action against ford motor was driving her 1997 four-door explorer within the speed limit on interstate 8 near alpine, california.
Chapter 8: grimshaw v ford motor company caption: grimshaw v ford motor company citation: california court of appeals, fourth district,. Ford motor company was one of the most widely publicized of the more than a improvement and reinforcement of rear bumper: $260 additional 8 inches (200 ford contended that the exemplary damages section of california's civil.
V ctapp 5 f040188/f040529 ford motor company, fresno county the warranty buyback notice required under section 179324, but also that punitive damages are uniquely appropriate to effect deterrence,” a consideration the court of appeal 8 consumers as a whole”) grimshaw v ford.
Grimshaw v ford motor co  facts a ford pinto burst into flames when another car crashed into the back of it after it stalled on a freeway.