According to the Los Angeles Times in 2010, the award "signaled to the auto industry that it would be harshly sanctioned for ignoring known defects."[120] The case has been held up as an example of the disconnect between the use of corporate risk analysis and the tendency of juries to be offended by such analyses.[121] The case is also cited as an example of irrational punitive damage awards.[122] While supporting the finding of liability, Schwartz notes that the punitive damage award is hard to justify.[123][124]