In the 1993 case of Gary M. McKnight v. General Motors Corporation, McKnight sued General Motors (GM) for injuries he sustained when his GM-manufactured truck rolled over after a tire blowout. He alleged that the design of the vehicle was defective and unreasonably dangerous because it had a high center of gravity which made it prone to rollovers in such circumstances. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of GM, stating that under Michigan law, where GM is based, an automobile manufacturer cannot be held liable for damages if their product meets or exceeds federal safety standards at the time it was manufactured and sold - as long as those standards cover similar risks associated with its use or misuse. In this case, since there were no specific federal regulations regarding vehicle stability at the time McKnight's truck was produced by GM; therefore they could not be held responsible for his accident.

In the dissenting opinion for Gary M. McKnight v. General Motors Corporation, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a punitive damages award against General Motors (GM) was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of due process. The dissenting justices believed that GM had not been given adequate notice about what conduct could lead to such severe punishment under state law, which they saw as a violation of its constitutional rights. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "malice" in this context, arguing that GM did not act out of ill will or spite but rather made an economic decision based on available information at the time - even if it later proved harmful. Furthermore, they felt there were insufficient guidelines for juries deciding on punitive damages awards and expressed concern over potential bias against large corporations like GM in these cases.