|
''Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company'' (119 Cal.App.3d 757) was a California case about the safety of the Ford Pinto car, manufactured by Ford Motor Company with knowledge of design flaws that could lead to serious injury. ==Facts== A 1972 Ford Pinto hatchback stalled on a freeway, erupting into flames when it was rear-ended by a Ford Galaxie proceeding in the same direction. Lilly Gray, the driver of the Pinto, suffered severe burns to her entire body and resulted in her death by congestive heart failure. 13-year-old Richard Grimshaw, a passenger, suffered severe, permanently disfiguring burns to his entire body. Grimshaw underwent numerous skin grafts and extensive surgeries, but still lost portions of the fingers on his left hand and his left ear in the accident. Doctors estimated that Grimshaw would require many more surgeries within the next 10 years. The plaintiff's expert testified that the Pinto's gas tank was pushed forward upon impact and punctured by a flange or bolt on the differential housing. Fuel sprayed from the tank and entered the passenger compartment through the gaps between the rear wheel wells and the floor. Design of the Pinto Fuel System In 1968, Ford began designing the subcompact car that would eventually become known as the Pinto. The Pinto's styling required the gas tank to be placed behind the rear axle, instead of over the rear axle as seen in some vehicles at the time, though competitive vehicles manufactured in the USA usually located the fuel tank between the rear axle and the rear bumper, like the Pinto. This placement resulted in only 9 or 10 inches of "crush space" - far less than any other American automobile or Ford subcompact sold overseas. The Pinto's rear bumper lacked the support structures found in larger cars and in all of Ford's overseas models. An exposed flange and a line of bolt heads in the differential housing were sufficient to puncture a gas tank driven forward upon rear impact. Crash Tests Ford tested numerous prototypes and two production models of the Pinto to determine, among other things, the integrity of the fuel system in rear-end impacts. Crash tests proved that the Pinto could not meet a proposed federal regulation requiring all vehicles manufactured in 1972 to be able to resist a 20 MPH fixed barrier impact without significant fuel spillage, nor the proposed regulation requiring vehicles manufactured in 1973 to resist a 30 MPH impact. The Cost to Remedy Design Deficiencies Design changes that would have enhanced the fuel system at very little cost include: → Longitudinal side members: $2.40 ea. → Cross members: $1.80 ea. → Shock absorbing "flak suit" for the fuel tank: $4.00 → Tank within a tank and placement of the tank over the rear axle: $5.08 to $5.79 → Nylon bladder within the tank: $5.25 to $8.00 → Placement of the tank over the rear axle with a protective barrier: $9.95 → Substitution of rear axle with a smooth differential housing: $2.10 → Protective shield between differential housing and fuel tank: $2.35 → Improvement and reinforcement of rear bumper: $2.60 → Additional 8" crush space: $6.40 Equipping the Pinto with a reinforced rear structure, smooth axle, improved bumper, and an additional 8" crush space would have made the fuel tank safer in a 34-38 MPH crash with a car the size of the Ford Galaxie. Adding a bladder or tank within a tank configuration to those improvements would have made the Pinto safe in a 40-45 MPH impact. Placing the tank over the rear axle would have made the Pinto safer in crashes at 50+ MPH.〔Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. 119 Cal.App.3d 757〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|