*1 Dist., No. [Civ. 50875. First Div. Four. June 1981.] FORD COMPANY, Petitioner, MOTOR
THE SUPERIOR COUNTY, COURT OF ALAMEDA Respondent. EDELL al., CANADY et Real Parties Interest.
Counsel
Barfield, Barfield, Ruane, & Mattathias N. Smith and John Dryden H. for Petitioner. O’Reilly
No for appearance Respondent. &
Bostwick Tehin and for Bruce Robert Pfaff Real in Parties Interest. Opinion
CHRISTIAN, J. Ford Motor defendant in Company, wrongful action, death petitions this court for a writ of mandate re- requiring spondent superior court to sustain a demurrer to a cause of action seeking punitive damages.
Real in interest sued parties petitioner death of their son, a in passenger a Pinto automobile which burned when struck by another automobile. In two causes real parties sought of action compen- damages based theories of satory on In negligence product liability. a third cause of parties punitive action real on sought allega- damages tions petitioner that had acted maliciously, oppressively, fraudulently and in conscious for the of in disregard others safety marketing Pinto automobile. action,
Petitioner the third demurred to cause of that asserting puni- tive damages are not recoverable in a death action. Real to the that parties argued punitive demurrer the denial opposition equal protection guarantees death actions violates damages wrongful in the California and States Constitutions In re Paris Air (citing United 3, (C.D.Cal. 1977) 701). Crash March F.Supp. Respon- Thereafter, dent court overruled the demurrer. United States Court had been re the district court which reversed the decision of Appeals court, that court held appellate respondent lied on ac precluding California statute or Constitutions. the federal tions did not violate either 1315, den. 449 U.S. (9th cert. re Air Crash Cir. Paris court declined Respondent writ ensued. proceeding and this change ruling, concede, As in California real has been established long death action. be recovered in a 17 Cal.3d (Tarasoff Regents University of California 334, 83 Fox v. 551 P.2d A.L.R.3d P. 25]; Lange St. 118 Cal. Oakland Con. Ry. *4 (1896) 388, Aero 115 Cal. 391 P. Stencel Engi Schoettler [47 978, (1976) Cal.App.3d v. Court 56 983 neering Corp. Superior [128 (1974) Cal.App.3d Beech 38 Cal.Rptr. 691]; Pease v. Corp. Aircraft (1968) 450, Doak v. 257 Cal.Rptr. 416]; 460-462 193, The deci 1362].) A.L.R.3d 836 [65 rule done so establishing by interpreting sions this have Schoettler, 391; Pease 115 Cal. at v. supra, death statute. v. (Lange 460-462.) par Real pp. Beech Corp., supra, Aircraft receives less favorable ties out that death claimant point are un plaintiffs damages than all tort that punitive treatment other denies that this treatment disparate available to him. Real assert parties death statute. to heirs under equal protection suing requires persons of equal protection The constitutional guarantee (Reed similar Reed who receive treatment. similarly are situated 229-230, L.Ed.2d 404 U.S. situated to action is not similarly A plaintiff was created specially which right all other tort He asserts plaintiffs. which for harm statute, recover on his own behalf to right harm which recovers for plaintiff conventional tort done another. The not violat is protection guarantee him. The equal personal receive different treatment. situations ed when different persons rule denies the punitive damages contend that also parties Real dies instantaneously. who person an injured to heirs of equal protection However, behalf. on his own damages recover No heir will be able his heirs die immediately, does not person where an injured action for exemplary cause indirectly; damages to recover punitive him prior him, sustained for all loss or damages will survive distinction that the 573.) (Prob. Code, Real contend to death. § between an injured person who dies and one does instantaneously who not is irrational.
The heirs of an who dies injured person of one who does not are similarly situated. Both sue on groups may their own behalf under the wrongful death act and on behalf of the decedent (Code Proc., 377; under the Code, survival statute. Civ. Prob. § The only apparent distinction between the two is the manner in groups which their decedent died. which treats two similar
Legislation
must be
groups differently
scrutinized to assure that
the statutory classification is
justified.
level of scrutiny depends on the nature of the constitutional
interest
which is at stake. The use
suspect
classifications or the invasion of
fundamental
rights
to strictest
otherwise the distinc
subject
scrutiny;
tion between classes must
bear
simply
some rational
to a
relationship
(McGowan
valid legislative
object.
Maryland
U.S.
action to compensatory Atchison, (Justus 582.) The Legisla 19 Cal.3d covery. supra, in cases involv would be excessive recovery ture feared that apparently Court, Inc. v. Boy Manufacturing, Superior supra, death. ing (Georgie 217, 225.) Also, pur- the deterrence and retribution 115 Cal.App.3d served when the of the statute are best poses (In re personally. tortfeasor must to the victim pay exemplary damages Crash, 1315, 1323.) between Paris Air The distinction supra, and one who does not is ra an who dies injured person The statutory related to a valid legislative objective, tionally in California is constitutional on scheme for death actions Court, (Georgie Manufacturing, Superior supra, face. Inc. Boy 226; Ford Motor Company cf. Grimshaw v. Cal.App.3d 348].) Cal.Rptr. issue, A writ will court to sustain the demur- commanding respondent rer to the third cause of action.
RATTIGAN, P. Acting J.—
I concur in the on the of the judgment authority very recent sec holding by another Court of that Code of Civil Procedure Appeal tion 377 is Inc. v. (Georgie Boy Manufacturing, constitutional. That
court relied in part on California decisions it cited and described as “a long line of cases which the constitution tacitly impliedly approved (Ibid.) I do with ality” agree statute. the court’s cited, characterization of the decisions it and I view the result reached as a first holding impression the law of this state. con My currence in the present is based on that and the judgment holding current absence of conclusion. higher commanding contrary authority POCHÉ, J.—I dissent. respectfully *6 in a death case
In this recoverability punitive damages state the or less such instantaneously whether the decedent became depends upon “a cause the victim had The is in whether determining quickly. magic did, it to- (Prob. Code, if he survives of action” before he died: short, In a malicious with a measurement of punitive damages.1 gether when he when he harms property, such punishment actor to subject death, when he dis- but not nonimmediate causes or personal injury patches you straightaway. Sales, Equity by Auto Inc. v. 1Observers not constrained 937], judicial in P.2d have characterized the
Cal.2d reasoning judicial example priori of a terpretation of the statutes involved as “a classic totally involving court “which closed strangle-hold possesses” ancient rubric and the of this some of the unusual mechanics of the The facts case highlight rule. The Ford Pinto burst into flames when struck from immediately the rear. Terrance whose door was the Canady, passenger jammed by driver, O’Neal, impact, was burned to death. The without Jerry escaped serious Ford Motor conduct physical injury. Company’s creating the propensities of vehicle with known marketing type dangerous basis for the Terrance’s heirs re- punitive claim damages. may O’Neal, cover a award Ford the driver against although Jerry who was no more than two feet from Terrance at the moment of sitting with impact, personal seek such his claim. damages along injury The the opinion contention of the lead is that between distinguishing heirs of a whose instantaneous death was caused person maliciously demise was person gradual tortfeasor and the heirs of a whose more “ra- does not of the laws. Two similarly produced deny equal protection tional bases” are the distinction. suggested justify
First we are the feared Legislature recovery told that “apparently” would be excessive in cases death. This is not at all. involving apparent the law support There is no whatsoever to the belief legislative history makers had the of excessive recoveries danger concern for so-called any in death If had such worries there would be no reason to al cases.* they to recover punitive damages. low survivors of a who died person slowly A slow death is also a death case. member lead single opin- other offered only justification are pronouncement purposes punitive damages
ion
best
when the tortfeasor must
them “to the victim
pay
personal-
served
”
Truett,
eyes
(McClelland
Damages Wrongful
....
&
Survival
Punitive
585, 605-606,
Death Cases
8 U.S.F. L.Rev.
fns. 73 and
flowery
“Ultimately
graphically
More
comment comes from the federal bench:
litigation points up
absurdity
discriminatory
this
of the
classification that has been
plaintiffs
position
prove
countenanced in
If
as a
California.
these same
were
practical reality personal injuries
property damage experienced by their dece-
and/or
struggled
question
dents the entire
which we
would have
with
have
They could—through
been obviated.
under
573—without
estate distribution
P.C. §
question
punitive damages they
capacity.
different
Is
recover the same
now claim in a
701, 709,
(C.D.Cal. 1977)
F.Supp.
not a
rose still a rose?”
re Paris Air Crash
*7
(9th
revd. in In
cert. den.
It is the basis”) rejected has been (“rational explicitly each which of ales Legislature.3 writ the because the alternative petition discharge
I would deny clauses protection mandated by equal the trial court as acting in overruling States Constitutions both the California and United third action. demurrer to the cause of the Supreme of real in interest for petition hearing by Bird, Mosk, J., J., and were September
Court was denied 1981. C. be petition granted. should opinion strikingly opinion yet is odd for the to cite the final decision of 3It lead Grim Company (1981) shaw v. Ford Motor 348] highly is support on the constitutional issue involved here because that decision critical Georgie Boy upon opinion, particular, of Air relied in the and In re Paris the cases lead case, however, logic caught A flavor of “Neither Crash. Justice Tamura’s in: analyzes of the classes affected the statu the constitutional issue in terms of heirs against recovery statutory actions. A tory bar punish death-causing injury which which would tortfeasor if he inflicts does scheme punish if in simultaneous death but would not death occurs not result conceivable, realistic, legislative purpose.” explain any on the rational difficult to basis cooking, (I digestion For who want more of Justice Tamura’s careful those d. 29 is of his footnote recommended.