Talk:Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.

POV
this page doesn't seem to have a neutral POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.192.78 (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Outcome?
A collection of many details. But it lacks the main point: Wow did the court decide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.113.77.235 (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Facts section
I haven't edited a legal article before, so I may have made a mistake, but two of the Facts in the facts section were blatantly misleading and wrong, respectively. Almost all of Pinto's domestic competitors used the same fuel tank placement, and the vega, at least, had an even less structural bumper. If the Facts section is supposed to list the "Facts" as presented in the case rather than the truth then I may have made a mistake. Greglocock (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/04/the-engineers-lament


 * Under cross-examination, one of the chief witnesses for the prosecution—an automobile-safety consultant named Byron Bloch—conceded the point. In “Reckless Homicide?,” Strobel writes:


 * Bloch agreed that the American Motors Gremlin, Chevrolet Vega, and Dodge Colt had their gas tanks behind the axle; that those cars had essentially the same bumpers (“I would say that they were all bad,” Bloch said); that the Vega had no body rails at all; that all four cars had somewhat similar distances from the tank to the rear bumper; that all of them had at least some sharp objects near the tank; and that the thickness of the gas tank metal on the Pinto was in the upper one-third of other 1973 (era) cars.


 * Greglocock (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The excerpt above from Malcolm Gladwell in The New Yorker, which excerpts Strobel's book, is about testimony in the Urlich case, not Grimshaw. Strobel's book was published in 1980 and the appeal which is the subject of this article was in 1981. Hugh (talk) 07:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This article contains a number of factual errors as well as court testimony reported as fact. Basically it needs help. Springee (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Facts or legalities?
As explained above, many of the statements of fact in Grimshaw are wrong, so should we continue to promulgate them? HughD seems keen to do so. I'd be quite happy if the wording was changed so that it said "the prosecution claimed that...", rather than the current obviously incorrect and easily disproved wording. Greglocock (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I would be fine with that. WP has said that primary sources and things like trial transcripts should not be treated as a RS for fact.  Certainly this article can stand to have a number of secondary sources added.  HughD is doing due diligence as far as looking into WP standards for discussing legal cases.  That should be helpful information.  Springee (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This is not an article about the Pinto, it is an article about a court case. The appellate court opinion is not a trial transcript, or testimony at trial, it is a record of what the court found. The facts in this Wikipedia article, stated in the form "The court found..." are obviously verifiable, neutral, and true. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

It appears the scope of this article is limiting to the appeal portion of the case. The earlier versions of the article were clearly covering both the original trial and the appeal. I would suggest we re-expand the topic. Even though much of the removed materail was not correctly cited, the sections probably were worth keeping. Springee (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is now and always has been about, and I quote from the lede, "Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company (119 Cal.App.3d 757)..." Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not at all true. First, the legal case, "Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co." includes both the initial trial and the appeal.  The article in question clearly started as a description of both, "was a California case about the safety of the Ford Pinto car, manufactured by Ford Motor Company"  That part of the leed has been around since the article was created in 2009.  Only in the last few days have you decided it should only cover the appeal portion of the case.  Perhaps an appropriate question is WHY close the scope of the article?  Much of what makes Grimshaw interesting to readers is related to the background of the case, the original jury award (reduced before the appeal) and the later scholarly reviews of the case.  In any case, I've added the original case number to the article (along with the appeal number). Springee (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

NPOV tag
I'm adding a NPOV tag to the article because currently the near universal source of information on the subject is the appellate court ruling. There is no independent review or outside analysis mentioned in the article. A number of scholars have pointed out issues with the case and ruling yet they aren't mentioned in the WP article. The NPOV tag is not meant to confirm or discredit the material currently in the article but is added because the case is widely discussed in literature yet none of that discussion has made it to this article. Certainly the failure to mention Schwartz as well as Lee and Ermann and others make this a one sided article. Springee (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd have thought the court transcript was a primary source and therefore deprecated. Wiki prefers secondary sources so that the editor does not have to do the interpretation. Might be worth asking a Legal editor. Greglocock (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Quote from WP:PRIMARY  Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.  Greglocock (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course the opinion is an important source in an article on a court case. No court transcripts are cited in this article, forgive me for repeating myself. I'm sorry you do not like what the justices had to say. Hugh (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC) Some unsourced copy-pastes and close paraphrases were replaced by quotes and appropriately sourced and attributed. All the edits are obvious improvements. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hugh, accusing others of "not liking" is uncalled for. That attacks the motives of an editor who has been involved with this topic for quite some time.  The concerns raised are legitimate.  You have put a lot of effort into improving this article given it's very sorry state before you started working on it.  However, what you have done is simply paraphrased or quoted a number of passages from the court decision.  To some extent that means you are acting as an editor telling the reader what is important.  It would be better to summarize secondary sources.  Regardless, the concern is valid and implying that his concerns are based on a personal dislike of what you have added is uncivil.  Springee (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is way to focused on just the appellate portion of the case and relies too heavily on the primary source rather than secondary sources talking about the ruling. The article should be expanded to cover the entire case.  That may require a chance in the article structure.  Once more background, discussion of the original trial and external analysis is added to the article the appellate ruling play by play should be cut back.  Springee (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Good point but I'm having a hard time with all these never ending court cases on Wikipedia. If I'm a law student I know damn well not to trust Wikipedia as a source, so who are we trying to inform? Maybe the question is who are we trying to influence? To that the answer should be nobody. This should be a summary of the events and repository for people to find the facts (references).--WatchingContent (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome, and thank you for your comment. We agree that our focus here should be summarizing facts and events. Your collaboration would be welcome. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will twirl this around in the temple and propose a possible alternative.--WatchingContent (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the notation regarding how the appellate court was required to interpret facts to the beginning rather than end of that the associated section. I think we (myself,, , ) can agree that A reader should understand from the start that an appellate court has strict rules for fact finding that can result in an understanding of the facts that doesn't fit well with the historical record. Placing such information at the end of the article where it is less likely to be read is a disservice to the reader. Springee (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with that, makes sense.--WatchingContent (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Schwartz's reminder to students of Grimshaw, that care must be taken in interpreting findings of fact in an appeal, is undue here, because it is a general comment about all appellate court findings. Our article already has a one-sentence summarization of the appellate court's own reminder that the appellate court accepted the findings of the trial court. The facts presented in this article, drawn from the appellate opinion, are the consensus of the trial jury, the trail judge, the plaintiffs, Ford, and the panel of appellate judges. The long, undue excerpt from Schwartz here, positioned as a preface to our article, however intended, reads only as a pointed attempt to cast doubt in our reader's mind about facts which were not contended. Hugh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * A legal scholar, writing a law review article in a law journal felt it was important to specifically add that comment to an article about the Grimshaw case. That should be sufficient to establish the weight of the statements and make it clear the reader should keep such information in mind when reading the court's finding of fact. Springee (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * According to our article, only one legal scholar has commented on Grimshaw. Hugh (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point about the undue expert from Schwartz. That should be removed.--WatchingContent (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't quite agree. I do think the Schwartz case summary is too long.  I'm not sure about the note about appellate court findings of fact.  Given how much text has been devoted to the court's findings of fact (far more than is actually reasonable) we should make sure the warning about not taking those findings as "true" in the boarder sense needs to be loud and clear to the reader.  Please note that HughD on this article, and the related Ford Pinto, article has been trying to black wash the topic.  I think  would agree with this opinion.  His Schwartz quote, as can be seen when the quote is expanded, was an attempt to pick out the most negative sounding passage (negative with respect to Ford) as a summary of Schwartz's POV on the subject.  Several of his requests for external reviews related to the Pinto article were attempts to either keep questionable negative comments in the article or remove mitigating comments out of the article which have not gone his way, , , .  Schwartz's views on this topic are notable and his "Myth of the Ford Pinto" article is specifically about this case (with a great deal of the related background) but others should be added rather than removing his.  I would be more than open to reducing the length but history has suggested that HughD's editorial judgement on the mater would need review.  I think proposing changes here would be good before changing the article.  A shorter, neutral summary of Schwartz's views would be fine with me.  Would you be willing to give it a shot? Springee (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Again a reminder, personal remarks about an editor are a violation of our project's civility policy, please read our project's policy WP:NPA and ask at policy talk if you have any questions on it. Thank you in advance for your conformance with article talk page behavior policy. Hugh (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Speaking of policy, I have reverted your BOLD changes. Please discuss changes here.  If you don't agree perhaps an RfC or 3rd opinion would weigh in.  The comment that the finding of fact was included by a noted author on the subject when discussing the case in a legal journal.  That should be plenty of weight for inclusion given the excessive weight we have on the appellate court's finding of fact.  The Schwartz quote being used to "summarize" the case is a clear example of selective quoting.  The long quote, while admittedly long, prevents selective quoting.  Springee (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. The undue weight of one commentator is ineligible for a third opinion because we already have three opinions on the due weight of one commentator on this article talk page. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have again undone your removal of RS'ed material. The editors here  have made it clear that it is important to note that the appellate court findings of fact must be seen in context of the court case, not as stand alone fact.  This was further explained to you here  when you asked the Project Law page for an opinion.  The expansion of the Schwartz quote is also important because you were selectively quoting.  If you wish to remove the full quote rather that selective quoting we can discuss that.  If you still disagree please try an RfC.  Springee (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Good sources
Looking at Google scholar a few sources rise to the top (based on citation count and topic) with respect to this case. Schwartz has two articles. The Myth of the Ford Pinto (HughD felt this article was an apologist POV ) and possibly Deterrence and Punishment in the Common Law of Punitive Damages: A Comment. The the former is clearly very on topic and is perhaps the most detailed analysis focused on this specific case. I have yet to read the latter but it seems like it might mention the Pinto case as part of the topic's backdrop rather than as the focus of the article.

Another strong source is Kip Viscusi's ''Corporate Risk Analysis: A Reckless Act? '' download here   Springee (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Pinto Memo?
My understanding is that the document that became known as the "Pinto Memo" became known during the Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. trial. The document is not specifically concerned with the Ford Pinto, so it seems strange that it is mentioned on the Ford Pinto (this version) page but not here. Quantropy (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)