Ford Pinto Trial Essay -- essays papers

Ford Pinto Trial The objective of this paper is to investigate what led to the Ford pinto sad 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 Impact that this trial has had on the railcar industry will also be investigated. In the late 1960s there was strong competition from VW and several Japanese companies in the small car market. ascribable to this competition Ford hurried 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 weigh under 2000 pounds and cost less than $2000, safety was non a major concern in the design of the pinto.1 In pre-production testing Ford found that the gas tank was liable(predicate) to leak and possibly bring out into flames when it is struck from behind. Internal documents show that eleven of the tests averaging thirty one miles per hour were performed befor e the Pinto went into production. In only three of the eleven tests did the force out tank in the Pinto not rupture. In one test a plastic wiffle ball was placed between the front of the gas tank between the tank and the differential coefficient housing so that four bolts would not tear into the tank. In the next successful test a piece of steel was placed between the fuel tank and the bumper. In the third test the fuel tank was lined with a gum elastic liner. Although Ford found that fuel tank rupture was likely to happen they decided to go ahead 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 f police force, instead they determined that it would be cheaper to settle or fight any civil law suits rather then remedy this problem.3 In their cost analysis, that would have improved fuel tank safety for their whole line of cars and tru cks, they concluded that there would be 180 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 full 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 light trucks the total cost to improve fuel tank safety wou... ...so showed that even if the product passes the minimum safety standards a manufacturer should hold safety concerns with the utmost importance.5 Lastly, it gave other(a) attorneys confidence to file criminal charges against a manufacturer if they intentionally sell a harmful product. In conclusion I believe that Ford acted very(prenominal) irresponsible in the design of the Pinto and they should have been held accountable in both civil and criminal cases. They were foolish and morally wrong to take profits all over peoples liv es. Every engineer can learn a lot about how important product safety is by looking into this case.BibliographyReferences1Lee Patrick Strobel, judicious 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. LL4Paul Eisenstein, Courts Give Crash Course in Car innovation, The Engineer 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