Would punitive damages be justified in the following case? Holmes was injured in 1999 when his Ford Explorer, equipped with its original Firestone radial tires, rolled over. A Web site posted by Public Citizen, a non-profit consumer advocacy group, included a “Chronology of Firestone/Ford Knowledge of Tire Safety Defect” which described Ford and Firestone memos and letters, and actions taken by governmental agencies, which showed that Firestone knew about the tread separation problem long before the tires were recalled.

“Ford and Firestone were experiencing problems with these tires in other countries with warm climates during the 1990s. The first lawsuit alleging a tread separation of this tire on an Explorer was filed in 1992. In 1996 there were memos from two different state agencies in Arizona warning state employees that these tires were suffering tread separations, and that Firestone was replacing some of the tires.” Should Holmes be allowed to re-open his case to argue for punitive damages? Holmes v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 891 So.2d 1188 (Fl. 2005). Source: Fred Baron, “President's Page: Firestone/Ford Makes the Case for the Tort System,” 36 Trial 9 (November 2000). Excerpted with permission of TRIAL

(November 2000). Copyright by the Association of Trial Lawyers of America; Fred Baron.