This case analysis report discusses the legal and ethical issues raised by the conduct of Ford Motor Company ("Ford") in connection with its design, manufacture, marketing, public relations and other activities relating to the Ford Pinto.
In a series of civil tort suits filed in the 1970s, the most important of which was Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company, 119 Cal.App.3d 757, 174 Cal.Rptr. 348 (1981), Ford was adjudged liable for compensatory and punitive damages arising out of injuries and fatalities involving Ford Pintos which caught fire after rear-end collisions on the highways. The primary legal issues in those cases, once the placement of the Pinto's fuel tanks above the rear axle's were proven to have been a causal link in the fires, were: (i) Ford's degree of responsibility under a strict liability theory for product defects which created safety hazards but which may not have violated then existing federal safety standards; and (ii) whether and to what extent Ford's knowledge of the safety hazards involved was sufficient to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. In addition, Ford was indicted in September 1978 and tried in an Indiana state court on three felony counts of reckless homicide in connection with the three other Pinto related fatalities but was acquitted on March 13, 1980 by a jury. That case raised a number of novel issues concerning the liability of Ford as a corporation for the criminal consequences of its failures in the area of automotive safety.
The Ford Pinto case raised a series of troubling ethical issues. Did Ford management or its engineers consciously design the Pinto's fuel tank system in such a way as to ignore reasonable consumer safety concerns? If it did not do so initially, did it do so after conducting crash tests and before introducing the Pinto on the market? Was it unethical to utilize a fuel tank system design which met minimal legal standards even if it posed significant risks of dea...