Ford Pinto Trial Essay -- essays papers

Ford Pinto Trial The objective of this paper is to investigate what direct to the Ford pinto illegal trial and the impact that it had. What led up to the criminal indictment of Ford, the trial itself, the verdict of the trial will be discussed. The wedge that this trial has had on the Automobile industry will also be investigated. In the late 1960s there was strong competition from VW and several Nipponese companies in the small car market. Due to this competition Ford zip the design of their small car, the Pinto, to market. Since the car was rushed into market and the specifications for the car were that it compact under 2000 pounds and approach less than $2000, preventative device was non a major(ip) concern in the design of the pinto.1 In pre-production testing Ford ensnare that the gas ice chest was likely to leak and possibly burst into flames when it is laid low(p) from behind. Internal documents show that el even up of the tests averaging thirty one mile s per hour were performed originally the Pinto went into production. In only three of the eleven tests did the discharge tank in the Pinto not rupture. In one test a plastic wiffle crank was determined between the front of the gas tank between the tank and the differential housing so that four bolts would not tear into the tank. In the next successful test a piece of steel was placed between the send away tank and the bumper. In the third test the fuel tank was lined with a rubber liner. Although Ford found that fuel tank rupture was likely to happen they decided to go up with this design because assembly line machinery was all ready tooled and they concluded that it was not cost efficient to add an $5.08 rubber bladder to the car cost to the car to remedy the design flaw, instead they determined that it would be cheaper to rootle or fight any civil law suits rather therefore remedy this problem.3 In their cost analysis, that would own improved fuel tank safety for their w hole line of cars and trucks, they concluded that there would be one hundred eighty burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, and 2100 burned vehicles at a cost of $200,000 per burn death, $67,000 per serious burn injury, and $700 per burned vehicle which came up to a total cost of $49.5 million. The estimated cost to prevent leakage in their cars and trucks was $11 dollars each. So with sales of 11 million cars and 1.5 million start out trucks the total cost to improve fuel tank safety wou... ...so showed that even if the product passes the minimum safety standards a maker should hold safety concerns with the utmost importance.5 Lastly, it gave other attorneys confidence to file criminal charges against a manufacturer if they intentionally sell a harmful product. In conclusion I believe that Ford acted very irresponsible in the design of the Pinto and they should have been held accountable in both civil and criminal cases. They were foolish and virtuously wrong to take prof its over peoples lives. Every engineer fag end learn a lot about how important product safety is by looking into this case.BibliographyReferences1Lee Patrick Strobel, Reckless Homicide? Fords Pinto Trail, 1980 , And Books. LL2Francis T. Cullen, Corporate Crime Under Attack, The Ford Pinto Case and Beyond, 1987, Anderson Publishing. LL3Ellen Hochstedler, Corporations as Criminals, Perspectives in Criminal Justice, 1984, Sage publications. LL4capital of Minnesota Eisenstein, Courts Give Crash Course in Car intent, The guide v 277 July 1, 1993 pg. 18. EJ5Charles J. Murry, The Real Story Behind Car Fires, Design News v 48 1993 pg. 114-120. EJ