It was long ago now. In 1972, a Ford Pinto exploded on a low-level impact with a bigger car. When the consolidated cases went to trial on damages, the jury awarded over $3 Million in damages to compensate the driver's estate and the horribly burned teenaged passenger. After the judge reduced the jury's punitive damage assessment to $3.5 Million, the judge denied Ford's motion for new trial and entered judgment for the $3+ Million in compensatory damages and $3.5 Million in punitive damages.
The trial judge refused to admit a table prepared by Ford into evidence. Ford submitted the table to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in opposition to a proposed NHTSA regulation related to rollovers. The Ford Pinto gas tank explosion did not involve a rollover, but the table Ford prepared was explosive.
The judge refused to admit the table into evidence.
The jury did not see it.
Here is a version of Ford's table which the jury did not see. The following version was prepared by FEMA for use in a course on handling burn injuries:
Source: Slide 8 of FEMA Burn Crisis and Continuity Management Powerpoint, Class Session 17, accessible online at https://training.fema.gov/hiedu/docs/bccm/bccm%20-%20session%2017%20-%20power%20point.ppt.
"$11 Cost vs. A Burn Death
Benefits and costs relating to fuel leakage associated with the static rollover test portion of FMVSS 208
Benefits
Savings: 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, 2,100 burned vehicles.
Unit Cost: $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, $700 per vehicle.
Total Benefit: 180 X ($200,000) + 180 X ($67,000) + 2,100 X ($700) = $49.5 Million.
Costs
Sales: 11 Million cars and 1.5 Million light trucks.
Unit Cost : $11 per car and $11 per light truck.
Total Cost : 12.5 Million X ($11) = $137 Million.
Ford Motor Company Internal Memorandum - 'Fatalities Associated with Crash-Induced Fuel Leakage and Fires'[.]"
It was a long time ago, now. The jury trial that is.
There was no need for a blanket secrecy order. The jury did not see this table.
Ford was not prejudiced by this evidence. It was not admitted into evidence.
The judge refused to allow this table into evidence.
The jury system worked.
That should have actually inspired confidence in the justice system in the years since then.
But that is not the point. Not really. Blanket secrecy orders, umbrella protective orders, are really about concealing the evidence, not about the integrity of the justice system.
But maybe, in the final analysis, it is all about the integrity of the justice system. You cannot trust judges and juries to protect you from public awareness of huge problems. Besides, judges and juries are likely to do the right things in the long run -- and often in the short run as well.
Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2018 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.
Comments