It was developed as Ford's entry into the small car marketplace. Learn all about the history of the 1971-1980 Ford Pinto. The Ford Pinto was completely engulfed in flames and the accident resulted in the death of the three young girls. Ford Pinto design engineering issues Quick notes-The Ford Pinto was an automotive safety engineering failure.-Repositioning the fuel tank and adding a rubber bladder could have prevented many injuries and deaths. What happens when you get rear-ended in a Ford Pinto? Part of the court’s reasoning was that Ford knew about the dangers, but pushed the Pinto onto an unwitting consumer market anyway. The Pinto caught fire, burning Gray to death and leaving Grimshaw with severe injuries. But something went terribly wrong along the way. But what the company doesn’t say is that successful lobbying by it and its industry associates was responsible for delaying for seven years the adoption of any NHTSA crash standard. The Ethical Dilemma in the Ford Pinto Case On August 10, 1978 three young girls died in a 1973 Ford Pinto after being stuck from the rear by a driver in a van. At the heart of the Pinto saga was a 1973 cost-benefit analysis paper called “Fatalities Associated with Crash Induced Fuel Leakage and Fires” submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). At the trial, company officials attempted to paint Elwell as a disgruntled employee, but his testimony was supported by videotapes of General Motors’ own crash tests. For a time, the car was a major success, selling 328,275 cars in its first year on sale. Pressures from foreign competition and the looming rise in gas prices incentivized Ford’s upper management to cut the Pinto’s delivery time in half. The suits might have bankrupted the company, so we kept our mouths shut for fear of saying anything that just one jury might have construed as an admission of guilt. The Ford Pinto was rushed into production in August of 1970 by Ford’s new president, Lee Iacocca, insisting that without a suitable alternative to the VW Beetle the Japanese would “capture the entire American subcompact market." Eager to have its subcompact ready for the 1971 model year, Ford decided to compress the normal drafting-board-to-showroom time of about three-and-a-half years into two. We don’t charge a fee unless you win, so call right away to get started. Also Ford felt the public wanted to maintain an inexpensive product and that extra safety features, though only an additional $11 per … Its success enhanced the reputation of Lee Iacocca - until an estimated 500 deaths and hundreds of injuries were linked to a faulty design that made the … Nevertheless, it illustrates the type of reasoning that was probably used in the Pinto case. In another detail that seems ominous today, the Pinto’s initial release date was September 11. Before long, the Pinto’s defective design began causing serious injuries — and fatalities. The Pinto was a subcompact car manufactured by the Ford Motor Company for the model years 1971–1980. Now the conspiracy begins. “Ford made an extremely irresponsible decision,” concludes auto safety expert Byron Bloch, “when they placed such a weak tank in such a ridiculous location in such a soft rear end.”. The prosecutor of Elkhart County, Indiana, chose to seek an indictment against Ford Motor Company for reckless homicide and criminal recklessness, claiming that the cause of the deaths was the design of the Pinto and Ford's failure to "remove the car from the highways" before August 10, 1978. In the early 1970s, Lee Iacocca was president of the Ford Motor Company. The Pinto’s fuel tank ruptured and the car exploded in flames. Don Nicholson (May 28, 1927 – January 24, 2006) was an American drag racer from Missouri. Taken together, these design choices meant that if a Pinto was ever rear-ended, it was extremely easy for its fuel tank to be punctured and cause a massive fire. Ford has crash-tested Pinto more than 40 times at over 25 mph and all of them resulted in ruptured tank. Iacocca wanted the company to produce a car that would be cheap and compact. If you are a vehicle owner, search for recalls by your Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). […] Don’t get me started on the Chevy saddle tank trucks, Of course, even at the conservative end of the spectrum, 27 preventable fatalities caused by a car with a propensity to explode and burn is still 27 too many. But later, the Pinto would gain a newer, darker sort of fame as one of the worst and most dangerous vehicles ever built. Source: Pinterest. This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. While that may have been alright if additional precautions were taken to compensate, just the opposite was true: the gas tank had virtually no reinforcements protecting it. We don’t know for sure, but an internal report, “Fatalities Associated with Crash-Induced Fuel Leakage and Fires,” reveals the cost-benefit reasoning that the company used in cases like this. Or a fiery death? Ethical Dilemma – Ford Pinto Fire Case On August 10, 1978, three teenage girls died horribly in an automobile accident. The company also points out that in every model year the Pinto met or surpassed the government’s own standards. The impetus for Ford’s making the Pinto came from Iacocca himself, who wanted to achieve a 2,000/2,000 car: a vehicle that would weigh less than 2,000 pounds and … There was a time when the “made in Japan” label brought a predictable smirk of superiority to the face of most Americans. In Detroit, worry was fast fading to panic as the Japanese, not to mention the Germans, began to gobble up more and more of the subcompact auto market. The only Pintos to pass the test had been modified in some way–for example, with a rubber bladder in the gas tank or a piece of steel between the tank and the rear bumper. However, people didn’t know that until Mother Jones magazine published a stolen copy of an infamous memo that was sent out to all senior management at the Ford Motor Company. Thus, Ford knew that the Pinto represented a serious fire hazard when struck from the rear, even in low-speed collisions. In 1968, Ford executives decided to produce the Pinto. The smallest American Ford vehicle since 1907, the Pinto was the first subcompact vehicle produced by Ford in North America. On June 9, 1978, Ford agreed to recall 1.5 million Ford Pinto and 30,000 Mercury Bobcat sedan and hatchback models. During the 1970s there were many documented cases of Ford Pintos bursting into flames as a result of rear-end collisions. On August 10, 1978, a tragic automobile accident occurred on U.S. Highway 33 near Goshen, Indiana. Did you know that Ford Motor Co. in 1973 circulated a memo amongst senior management concluding in a cost-benefit analysis that it would be less expensive to alter production of autos known to be susceptible to firey explosions from leaking gas tanks than to pay victims for catastrophic burn injuries or deaths resulting from the defect? In an effort to produce a stylish but affordable subcompact automobile with a low operating cost, Ford Motor Company management made a questionable decision regarding the positioning of and protection for the fuel tank. The Ford Pinto is a subcompact car that was manufactured and marketed by Ford Motor Company in North America, sold from the 1971 to the 1980 model years. The impetus for Ford’s making the Pinto came from Iacocca himself, who wanted to achieve a 2,000/2,000 car: a vehicle that would weigh less … On June 9, 1978, Ford agreed to recall 1.5 million Ford Pinto and 30,000 Mercury Bobcat sedan and hatchback models. In May 1972, Lily Gray was traveling with thirteen year old Richard Grimshaw in a 1972 Pinto when their car was struck by another car traveling approximately thirty miles per hour. At the trial, General Motors contended in its defense that when a drunk driver struck seventeen-year-old Shannon Moseley’s truck in the side, it was the impact of the high-speed crash that killed Moseley. The Ford Pinto in … On August 10, 1978, eighteen-year-old Judy Ulrich, her sixteen-year-old sister Lynn, and their eighteen-year-old cousin Donna, in their 1973 Ford Pinto, were struck from the rear by a van near Elkhart, Indiana. I'd say both. Ford stopped building Pintos in 1980, and Ford chairman Henry Ford II fired Iacocca on July 13, 1978. Since then, however, the Department of Transportation has determined that GM pickups do pose a fire hazard and that they are more prone than competitors’ pickups to catch fire when struck from the side. The lawsuits brought by injured people and their survivors uncovered how the company rushed the Pinto through production and onto the… On June 9, 1978, Ford agreed to recall 1.5 million Ford Pinto and 30,000 Mercury Bobcat sedan and hatchback models. Up until the […] How exactly did Ford reach that conclusion? Can a dollars-and-cents figure be assigned to a human being? The Ford Pinto scandal is now part of the lore of American culture. Known inside the company as “Lee’s car,” after Ford president Lee Iacocca, the Pinto was to weigh no more than 2,000 pounds and cost no more than $2,000. -The Ford Pinto was an automotive safety engineering failure. The small and economical Pinto… The scandal and the trial . In the 1960s and 1970s, the typical car took 43 months to design and build; the Pinto had just 25. The 1971-1980 Ford Pinto was a marketing success however it faced a fire controversy during its run. Find 8 used Ford Pinto in Los Angeles, CA as low as $7,395 on Carsforsale.com®. Ford officials faced a decision. As reports of fire-related deaths in Pintos began to come in from the field and as further crash tests re-affirmed the danger of the fuel-tank design, Ford decision-makers made an informed and deliberate decision not to modify the design, because doing so would harm corporate profits. This is a record of safety issues for vehicles of this year, make, model and trim. However, the jury was persuaded that Moseley survived the collision only to be consumed by a fire caused by his truck’s defective fuel-tank design. The Ford Pinto is a subcompact car that was manufactured and marketed by Ford Motor Company in North America, sold from the 1971 to the 1980 model years. The Ford Pinto left a tragic legacy for Ford and the American auto industry. In other words, the Pinto was considered a deathtrap on four wheels. Ford projected a cost of $137 million to fix the problem with only a $49.5 million benefit (notice that Ford's projection was based on the prediction of 2,100 burned vehicles and 180 burn deaths). June 9, 1978, and the date when parts were available to repair the estimated. A 1977 Ford Pinto advertisement. The trial its… Should they go ahead with the existing design, thereby meeting the production timetable but possibly jeopardizing consumer safety? In 1978 Ford was obliged to recall all 1971-76 Pintos for fuel-tank modifications. To help shave off weight and bulk, the Pinto lacked the traditional bumper that would be used to cushion collisions. Ford puts the figure at 23; its critics say the figure is closer to 500. An official total of 27 deaths was tied to the vehicle, though some estimates are far higher. FORD PINTO CASEEvents in the 1970s related to the Ford Pinto automobile illustrate some of the ethical issues related to technology and safety. It quickly became obvious that corners were cut. Via History.com On August 10, 1978, three teenage girls die after their 1973 Ford Pinto is rammed from behind by a van and bursts into flames on an Indiana highway. Some observers thought not when, in February 1993, an Atlanta jury held the General Motors Corporation responsible for the death of a Georgia teenager in the fiery crash of one of its pickup trucks. Meanwhile, the Georgia Court of Appeals has thrown out the jury’s verdict in the Shannon Moseley case on a legal technicality–despite ruling that the evidence submitted in the case showed that GM was aware that the gas tanks were hazardous but did not try to make them safer to save the expenses involved. Iacocca was fired the following month. See www.autosafety.org/ford–pinto-costbenefit-memo . The prototypes all failed the 20-mph test. The quality of most Japanese products usually was as low as their price. The car was no more fire-prone than other cars of the time and its fatality rates were lower than comparably sized imported automobiles 2.2 million vehicles, six people died in Pinto fires after a rear impact. © Michael Matteson and Chris Metivier 2021, Reading: Friedman – The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits, Friedman’s Justification for Stockholder Theory, Reading: Freeman – Managing for Stakeholders, Module 3: Social Responsibility, Professionalism, and Loyalty, Corporate Social Responsibility and the Triple Bottom Line, Reading: Davis – Some Paradoxes of Whistle-Blowing, Reading: Duska – Whistle Blowing and Employee Loyalty, Reading: Arnold & Bustos – Business Ethics and Global Climate Change, Reading: Desjardins – Sustainability: Business’s New Environmental Obligation, Reading: Maitland – The Great Non-Debate over International Sweatshops, Reading: Arnold and Bowie – Sweatshops and Respect for Persons, Terrible Working Conditions and the Costs of Improvement, Module 6: Privacy, Property, and Technology, Reading: DeGeorge – Intellectual Property and Pharmaceutical Drugs, Case: Patents and the African AIDS Epidemic, Conflicting Rights and Ethical Intuitions, Reading: Arrington – Advertising and Behavior Control, Reading: Brenkert – Marketing and the Vulnerable, Case: Kraft foods Inc.: The Cost of Advertising on Children’s Waistlines, 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, 2,100 burned vehicles, $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, $700 per vehicle, (180 X $200,000) + (180 X $67,000) + (2,100 X $700) =, 11 million cars, 1.5 million light trucks. While the NHTSA determined in 197… From: Moral Issues in Business 8th ed. It broke down the costs as follows: Putting the NHTSA figures together with other statistical studies, the Ford report arrives at the following overall assessment of costs and benefits: Thus, the costs of the suggested safety improvements outweigh their benefits, and the “Fatalities” report accordingly recommends against any improvements–a recommendation that Ford followed. Driving a 1973 ford Pinto to their church for volley ball practice in Goshen, Indiana, they were struck from behind by a Chevrolet van. While driving, the car stalled and was then rear-ended. INTRODUCTION • Demand for sub-compact cars • Designed in May of 1968 by the vice-president of Ford Motor Company, Lee Iacocca • Weighed 2000 pounds, cost $2000 and manufactured in 2 years 2 3. The gas tank of the Pinto ruprured, the car burst into flames and the three teen- agers were … Ford determined that it would be much more costly to fix the problem in its entirety than to pay for the few cases that resulted from its poor design. The families sued Ford Motor Company, and in 1978 the jury awarded them over $125 million in damages, though it was later reduced to $3.5 million by the judge. Although Elwell had testified in more than fifteen previous cases that the pickups were safe, this time he switched sides and told the jury that the company had known for years that the side-saddle design was defective but had intentionally hidden its knowledge and had not attempted to correct the problem. The car was designed to compete with the growing Japanese subcompact class of cars. Ford was fully aware of all these construction problems. Ford knows the Pinto is a firetrap, yet it has paid out millions to settle damage suits out of court, and it is prepared to spend millions more lobbying against safety standards. To schedule a free, confidential consultation with an experienced Philadelphia car accident lawyer, call our personal injury law offices at (215) 709-6940, or contact us online. The Pinto automobile was marketed by Ford from 1971 to 1980 to try to feed the new American appetite for smaller cars. Fatal Ford Pinto crash in Indiana On August 10, 1978, three teenage girls die after their 1973 Ford Pinto is rammed from behind by a van and bursts … The Ford Pinto became a fiery hotbed of flames when rear-ended at a relatively low speed of … According to the sworn testimony of Ford engineers, 95 percent of the fatalities would have survived if Ford had located the fuel tank over the axle (as it had done on its Capri automobiles). THE FORD PINTO CASE . Ford Pinto Fuel-Fed Fires. However, between June 9, 1978, and the date when parts were available to repair the estimated 2.2 million vehicles, six people died in Pinto fires after a rear impact. If you or someone you love was hurt by a defective or dangerous product, you may be entitled to compensation for the damages you’ve suffered. Before producing the Pinto, Ford crash-tested various prototypes, in part to learn whether they met a safety standard proposed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to reduce fires from traffic collisions. Still, GM has rejected requests to recall the pickups and repair them. At first, the Pinto was famous for two reasons: it was small, and it was cheap. On August 10, 1978, three teenage girls died horribly in an automobile accident. Of course, even at the conservative end of the spectrum, 27 preventable fatalities caused by a car with a propensity to explode and burn is still 27 too many. Today, the […] Here is the aftermath of Ford’s decision: For its part, Ford has always denied that the Pinto is unsafe compared with other cars of its type and era. The judge reduced punitive damages to 3.5 million. The safety of the design of the Pinto's fuel system led to critical incidents and subsequently resulted in a recall, lawsuits, a criminal prosecution, and public controversy. The impact ignited a fire in the Pinto which killed Lily Gray and … In the fire that resulted, the three teenagers were burned to death. Whiplash? The authors go on to discuss various estimates of the number of people killed by fires from car rollovers before settling on the relatively low figure of 180 deaths per year. Recalls & Safety Issues. Or should they delay production of the Pinto by redesigning the gas tank to make it safer and thus concede another year of subcompact dominance to foreign companies? The action was the result of investigations Share your experiencewe will call you back with a free case review, © 2021 The Reiff Law Firm | Legal Marketing by Majux, 1500 John F. Kennedy Blvd #501 Philadelphia, PA 19102, Phone: (215) 709-6940 | Toll Free: (866) 658-6277. Despite the deaths and numerous lawsuits, GM has steadfastly denied that a problem with the design exists, and no recall was ever issued. THE FORD PINTO CASE. However, at that time, the death toll of Ford Pinto fires was at 27, a small percentage of the growing number of Pinto models on the road. With its dinkster four-cylinder engine, the Pinto was battling the Volkswagon Beetle and the Toyota Corolla for the hearts and minds of those who wanted sewing-machine engines under their hoods. Waited eight years because cost benefit analysis showed changes were not profitable. In one of the instances, an Elkhart, Indiana grand jury returned indictments. In other words, Ford decided that profits were all that mattered, and that irreplaceable human life ultimately carried a lower value than an inanimate heap of aluminum, plastic, and glass. In an effort to produce a stylish but affordable subcompact automobile with a low operating cost, Ford Motor Company management made a questionable decision regarding the positioning of and protection for the fuel tank. In 1970 Ford crash-tested the Pinto itself, and the result was the same: ruptured gas tanks and dangerous leaks. Ford puts the figure at 23; its critics say the figure is closer to 500. Ford Pinto hat happened to the Ford Pinto? Ford pinto full details and analysis report with references 1. Source: Pinterest. The side-saddle fuel tank design used in full-size GM pickups from 1973 to 1987 was found to be the cause of over 2,000 deaths through 2009, some 20 times more than those ultimately killed in Ford Pinto fires. The evidence suggests that Ford relied, at least in part, on cost-benefit reasoning, which is an analysis in monetary terms of the expected costs and benefits of doing something. In one of the instances, an Elkhart, Indiana grand jury returned indictments against Ford Motor Company for three cases of negligence from the deaths of three young women. But the Pinto had a fatal flaw, and Ford … Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company, 1981 The Pinto, a subcompact car made by Ford Motor Company, became infamous in the 1970s for bursting into flames if its gas tank was ruptured in a collision. Testing proved the Pinto was not the safest vehicle however Ford lobbied and argued that accidents and fatalities were an assumed risk of driving. A 1977 Ford Pinto advertisement. The result was the Pinto, marketed as “The Little Carefree Car.”  Ironically — and tragically — a car that was intended to capture a youthful, breezy spirit of fun would become inextricably tied to injury, suffering, and death. In the Pinto case, the Ford Motor corporate heads and engineers were responsible for producing a vehicle known to cause deaths and disfigurements; as was the young driver of the van crashing into the Pinto, causing the deaths of the three young girls. Between 1971 and 1978, the Pinto was responsible for a number of fire-related deaths. Ford Motor Company had intended to compete with other automobiles on the market that were smaller and used less gas. 27 deaths were attributed to Pinto fires (the same number of deaths attributed to a Pinto transmission problem) out of 3 million vehicles sold. Marketed as costing just a dollar per pound, the Pinto’s compact 2,000-pound frame clocked in at a modest $2,000, making the car affordable and popular. The Ford Pinto demonstrates the ethical problems faced by businesses. Ford stopped building Pintos in 1980, and Ford chairman Henry Ford II fired Iacocca on July 13, 1978. INTRODUCTION • Demand for sub-compact cars • Designed in May of 1968 by the vice-president of Ford Motor Company, Lee Iacocca • Weighed 2000 pounds, cost $2000 and … 8. At the heart of the Pinto saga was a 1973 cost-benefit analysis paper called “Fatalities Associated with Crash Induced Fuel Leakage and Fires” submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). On March 13, 1980, the jury found Ford not guilty of criminal homicide. “The Ford Pinto—the barbecue that seats four.” –Johnny Carson. The judge in the case advised jurors that Ford should be convicted if it had clearly disregarded the harm that might result from its actions, and that disregard represented a substantial deviation from acceptable standards of conduct. In 1970, the Ford Motor Company proudly debuted its newest addition to the family: the Pinto. The jury awarded Richard Grimshaw $2,516,000 in compensatory damages and $125,000,000 in punitive damages, although the trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $3,500,000. The Ford Company’s cold cost analysis revealed that debuting the hazardous Pinto as-is and simply paying for subsequent lawsuits would be cheaper than making expensive safety modifications. Between 1971 and 1978, approximately fifty lawsuits were brought against Ford in connection with rear-end accidents in the Pinto. Knew Pinto was a firetrap, yet paid out millions to settle damage suits. The fatal crash was one of a series of Pinto accidents that caused a national scandal during the 1970s. Here to Help 24/7. Although the estimated price of these safety improvements ranged from only $5 to $8 per vehicle, Ford evidently reasoned that the increased cost outweighed the benefits of a new tank design. The fucking product liability shysters set up their own “research” center and they used remote-controlled model rocket motors to turn a simple fuel leak into a fireball. Likewise in the Pinto case, Ford’s management whatever its exact reasoning, decided to stick with the original design and not upgrade the Pinto’s fuel tank, despite the test results reported by its engineers. So, after determining that the Pinto had no recallable problem, the safety agency withdrew their request. Ford Motor Company had intended to compete with other automobiles on the market that were smaller and used less gas. But why exactly was this? An accident in 1972 led to the case of Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company. The Ford Pinto Memorandum The following figures are drawn from the 1973 memorandum* written for and circulated amongst senior management at the Ford Motor Company concerning cost-benefit analysis of retrofitting or altering production of autos and light trucks susceptible to fires from leaking gas tanks after a hypothetical roll-over. In 1972, it estimated that society loses $200,725 every time a person is killed in an auto accident (adjusted for inflation, today’s figure would, of course, be considerably higher). An official total of 27 deaths was tied to the vehicle, though some estimates are far higher. The 1971 Ford Pinto was rushed into production to fight imported sub-compact cars. 9. There were various ways of making the Pinto’s gas tank safer. The “Little Carefree Car” took less than two years to be conceptualized, designed and put into production — a much more rapid timeline than the 43 months that would normally be taken. In Grimshaw, a California appellate court upheld an order for $2.5 million in compensatory damages, plus an additional $3.5 million in punitive damages. By conservative estimates Pinto crashes have caused 500 burn deaths to people who would not have been seriously injured if the car had not burst into flames. According to the sworn testimony of Ford engineers, 95 percent of the fatalities would have survived if Ford had located the fuel tank over the axle (as it had done on its Capri automobiles). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was critical of the vehicle and was quick to launch an investigation into the Pinto. The Ford Pinto was an American subcompact car produced from 1971 to 1980. Has the automobile industry learned a lesson from Ford’s experience with the Pinto? Ford not only pushed ahead with the original design but stuck to it for the next six years. Iacocca was fired the following month. The Ford Pinto has been cited and debated in numerous business ethics as well as tort reform case studies. This standard would have required that by 1972 all new autos be able to withstand a rear-end impact of 20mph without fuel loss, and that by 1973 they be able to withstand an impact of 30 mph. CASE STUDY “FORD PINTO” 1 2. Sisters Judy and Lynn Ulrich (ages 18 and 16, respectively) and their cousin Donna Ulrich (age 18) were struck from the rear in their 1973 Ford Pinto … The Pinto’s fuel tank ruptured and the car exploded in flames. Introduced for 1971, the Pinto was designed to take on the rising tide of imports that had come to dominate the entry-level market. The Pinto got a bad rap. The company is charged by the state of Indiana with three counts of reckless homicide in connection with the deaths in August 1978 of three young Indiana women. The Ford Pinto became a fiery hotbed of flames when rear-ended at a relatively low speed of 25 MPH and higher. The Pinto was unique in other ways besides its small size. In the aftermath, Lee Iacocca had this to say: “Clamming up is what we did at Ford in the late ’70s when we were bombarded with suits over the Pinto, which was involved in a lot of gas tank fires. But given that number, how can the value of those individuals’ lives be gauged? Nowadays, most people are aware that the late great Ford Pinto was widely considered to be a rolling death trap during its reign of terror from 1970 through 1980. This report was not written with the pinto in mind; rather, it concerns fuel leakage in rollover accidents (not rear-end collisions), and its computations applied to all Ford vehicles, not just the Pinto. The recall affected approximately 1.5 million Pintos with model years from 1971 to 1976 (as well as the similar Mercury Bobcat, from 1975 to 1976). What undoubtedly swayed the jury was the testimony of former GM safety engineer Ronald E. Elwell. against Ford Motor Company for three cases of …