The first lawsuit brought against the Ford Pinto, Grimshaw v. Weights were placed in the nose of the car to help it slide under the Pinto and maximize gas tank contact. Super Stock Magazine found the fit and finish to be "superior" and were impressed with the car overall.
Ford was a landmark in product liability law as the first time a corporation faced criminal charges for a defective product, and the first time a corporation was charged with murder.
While this case is an especially devastating example of the dangers that product liability can pose to the general public, many other types of product defect cases in the United States have helped to hold manufacturers accountable for the consequences their actions can have.
The values assigned to serious burn injuries and loss of life were based on values calculated by NHTSA in Two landmark legal cases, Grimshaw vs Ford and State of Indiana vs Ford resulted from fatal accidents involving Pintos.
This was considered respectable for a subcompact car. Cost-benefit analysis was one tool used in the evaluation of safety design decisions accepted by the industry and the NHTSA. However, because of the defective fuel tank design, the vehicle burst into flames, killing Lily and severely injuring Richard.
The events surrounding the controversy have been described both as a "landmark narrative"  and mythical. While stopped the Pinto was struck by a Chevrolet van.
The car tended to erupt in flame in rear-end collisions. Design changes were made, but post launch tests showed similar results. All Bobcats were restyled with a domed hood and a taller vertical bar grille styled to look like senior Mercury models.
This placement was not a viable option for the hatchback and station wagon body styles. The fixed-barrier standard was seen by the auto industry as a significant increase in test severity. Schwartz, in a Rutgers Law Review article see Section 7. Only when considering the narrow subset of rear-impact, fire fatalities is the car somewhat worse than the average for subcompact cars.
The NHTSA investigation found that 27 deaths were found to have occurred between and mid in rear-impact crashes that resulted in fire. Ford Motor Company and State of Indiana vs.
The fuel tank was not properly constructed, and in even minor rear-end collision accidentsthe filler neck might break and release fuel, resulting in deadly fires and explosions in some accidents. The jury award was said to be the largest ever in US product liability and personal injury cases. While acknowledging this is an important legal point, Schwartz rejects the portrayal of the car as a firetrap.
The NHTSA did not indicate if these impacts would have been survivable absent fire or if the impacts were more severe than even a state of the art for fuel system could have withstood. In Augusthaving been provided with a copy of the memo by Grimshaw v. The fuel tank was completely filled with gasoline rather than partially filled with non-flammable Stoddard fluid as was the normal test procedure.
A large "bullet car" was used instead of a standard moving barrier. Lesser trimmed versions were offered in subsequent model years.
The larger inline-4 found in the Chevrolet Vega was an innovative, brand new design using an aluminum alloy block and iron head, but needed more development work as initially released.
Initially, the NHTSA did not feel there was sufficient evidence to demand a recall due to incidents of fire. The vehicle headlights were turned on to provide a possible ignition source.
The first federal standard for automotive fuel system safety, passed inknown as Section in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standardsinitially only considered front impacts.The Ford Pinto was Ford Motor Company’s entrance into the subcompact car market in the s.
With the rising popularity of imported Japanese and German Regis University College for Professional Studies | Faculty Pre Law Blog. The Ford Pinto case is mentioned in most Business Ethics texts as an example of Cost-Benefit analysis, yet in those formats any appreciation of the complexity surrounding the issues of such decisions is overly simplified.
The public understanding of the cost-benefit analysis has contributed to the mythology of the Ford Pinto case. Time magazine said the memo was one of the automotive industry's "most notorious paper trails." Ford Pinto Introduction Commercial; Case Study: Manufacturer: Ford.
CASE STUDY: FORD PINTO The case over here is that of Pinto a car launched by Ford motor company. The Ford Pinto is a subcompact car produced by the Ford Motor Company for the model years – case study report on ford company who made a car named as pinto. the presentation tells the summary of design issue and the flaws in the car and ethical issues.
Case Study of the Ford Pinto Fires The existing prestigious Ford Motor Company has been in business centuries. Ford is known as a worldwide leader in automotive technology, automotive-related products and motor vehicle services.Download