|
Post by Rev. Agave on Mar 1, 2009 17:14:18 GMT -6
Hey guys, here is a hypo based on something that really happened:
Ok, lets say that a car manufacturer learns that the gas tanks in one of its popular makes of vehicles are defective, and that it is virtually certain that some people will be burned to death because of it. So the car company does an analysis, and concludes that it would be cheaper to pay for resulting products liability lawsuits than it would to issue a massive recall. Thus, the company does not issue the recall, and as predicted, people burn to death because of the faulty gas tanks. Should the people who made the decision not to issue the recall when they knew people would die if they did not face murder charges, and if so, should they get the needle? Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Mar 1, 2009 17:49:52 GMT -6
Hey guys, here is a hypo based on something that really happened: Ok, lets say that a car manufacturer learns that the gas tanks in one of its popular makes of vehicles are defective, and that it is virtually certain that some people will be burned to death because of it. So the car company does an analysis, and concludes that it would be cheaper to pay for resulting products liability lawsuits than it would to issue a massive recall. Thus, the company does not issue the recall, and as predicted, people burn to death because of the faulty gas tanks. Should the people who made the decision not to issue the recall when they knew people would die if they did not face murder charges, and if so, should they get the needle? Any thoughts? Hypotectical my arse, this has happened a number of times with manufactures on both sides of the pond.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2009 17:53:16 GMT -6
I know this was intended to be a hypothetical question, but I remembered it was the Pinto that was the vehicle in question (I owned a 76 Pinto). Gene Hackman played a lawyer loosely based on this story. Here is an article I found: There was strong competition for Ford in the American small-car market from Volkswagen and several Japanese companies in the 1960’s. To fight the competition Ford rushed its newest car the Pinto into production in much less time than is usually required to develop a car. The regular time to produce an automobile is 43 months Ford took 25. Before production however, Ford engineers discovered a major flaw in the cars design. In nearly all rear-end crash test collisions the Pinto's fuel system would rupture extremely easily. Because assembly-line machinery was already tooled when engineers found this defect, top Ford officials decided to manufacture the car anyway, exploding gas tank and all, even though Ford owned the patent on a much safer gas tank. Safety was not a major concern to Ford at the time of the development of the Pinto. Lee Iacocca, who was in charge of the development of the Pinto, had specifications for the design of the car that were uncompromisable. These specifications were that "the Pinto was not to weigh an ounce over 2,000 pounds and not cost a cent over $2,000." Any modifications even if they did provide extra safety for the customer that brought the car closer to the Iacocca’s limits was rejected. The rush of the Pinto from conception to production was a recipe for disaster. Many studies have been concluded by Mother Jones on Pinto accident reports which have revealed conclusively that if a Pinto being followed at over 30 miles per hour was hit by that following vehicle, the rear end of the car would buckle like an accordion, right up to the back seat. The tube leading to the gas-tank cap would be ripped away from the tank itself, and gas would immediately begin sloshing onto the road around the car. The buckled gas tank would be jammed up against the differential housing (the large bulge in the middle of the rear axle), which contains four sharp, protruding bolts likely to gash holes in the tank and spill still more gas. Now all that is needed is a spark from a cigarette, ignition, or scraping metal, and both cars would be engulfed in flames. If a Pinto was struck from behind at higher speed say, at 40 mph chances are very good that its doors would jam shut and its trapped passengers inside would burn to death. Pinto Crash Test The financial analysis that Ford conducted on the Pinto concluded that it was not cost-efficient to add an $11 per car cost in order to correct a flaw. Benefits derived from spending this amount of money were estimated to be $49.5 million. This estimate assumed that each death, which could be avoided, would be worth $200,000, that each major burn injury that could be avoided would be worth $67,000 and that an average repair cost of $700 per car involved in a rear end accident would be avoided. It further assumed that there would be 2,100 burned vehicles, 180 serious burn injuries, and 180 burn deaths in making this calculation. When the unit cost was spread out over the number of cars and light trucks which would be affected by the design change, at a cost of $11 per vehicle, the cost was calculated to be $137 million, much greater then the $49.5 million benefit. These figures, which describe the fatalities and injuries, are false. All independent experts estimate that for each person who dies by an auto fire, many more are left with charred hands, faces and limbs. This means that Ford’s 1:1 death to injury ratio is inaccurate and the costs for Ford’s settlements would have been much closer to the cost of implementing a solution to the problem. However, Ford’s "cost-benefit analysis," which places a dollar value on human life, said it wasn't profitable to make any changes to the car. The product objectives were clearly stated in the Pinto "green book". This is a thick, top-secret manual containing a step-by-step production plan for the car, detailing the metallurgy, weight, strength and quality of every part in the car. These product objectives as follows: 1. TRUE SUBCOMPACT * Size * Weight 2. LOW COST OF OWNERSHIP * Initial price * Fuel consumption * Reliability * Serviceability 3. CLEAR PRODUCT SUPERIORITY * Appearance * Comfort * Features * Ride and * Handling Performance Safety is not one of the objectives and is not even mentioned in the "green book". As Lee Iacocca was fond of saying, "Safety doesn't sell." It is interesting to note that the Pinto disaster almost never occurred. In pre-production planning, engineers seriously considered using in the Pinto the same kind of gas tank Ford uses in the Capri. The Capri tank rides over the rear axle and differential housing. It has been so successful in over 50 crash tests that Ford used it in its Experimental Safety Vehicle, which withstood rear-end impacts of 60 mph. Why didn’t Ford use such a gas tank? When asked about the Pinto gas tank, a Ford engineer admitted: "That's all true (The fact that the car tends to explode in minor accidents). But you miss the point entirely. You see, safety isn't the issue, trunk space is. You have no idea how stiff the competition is over trunk space. Do you realise that if we put a Capri-type tank in the Pinto you could only get one set of golf clubs in the trunk?" The technology was available to make the Pinto a safer car. An inexpensive lightweight plastic baffle was placed between the front of the gas tank and the four protruding bolts on the differential housing. This piece of plastic prevents the bolts from puncturing the gas tank and was used in one of the only successful crash tests the Pinto underwent. In another successful test, a piece of steel was placed between the tank and the bumper to add support against the crumpling back end. The best method for improving the safety of the Pinto was to line the gas tank with a rubber bladder. Ford alleged that it would cost $11 per car to add any sort of gas tank, fire prevention device. This fact is mentioned earlier in the cost analysis and like the other Ford cost facts, is also false. The fires that occurred in Pintos could have been largely prevented for considerably less than $11 a car. The cheapest method involves placing a heavy rubber bladder inside the gas tank to keep the fuel from spilling if the tank ruptures. Goodyear had developed the bladder and had demonstrated it to the automotive industry. Crash-tests were conducted and there are reports showing that the Goodyear bladder worked very well. On December 2, 1970, Ford Motor Company ran a rear end crash test on a car with the rubber bladder in the gas tank. The tank ruptured, but no fuel leaked. On January 15, 1971, Ford again tested the bladder and again it worked. The total purchase and installation cost of the bladder would have been $5.08 per car. That $5.08 per car could have saved the lives of several hundred innocent people. The Pinto disasters that were taking place did not go unnoticed by the government. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began investigating the case shortly after the Pinto started rolling off the assembly line. The NHTSA contracted with several independent research groups to study auto fires from around the country. The studies took months, which was just what Ford wanted. The results were worse than anyone could have imagined. Robert Nathan and Associates, a Washington research firm, found that 400,000 cars were burning up every year, burning more than 3,000 people to death. Furthermore, auto fires were increasing five times as fast as building fires. Another study showed that 35 per cent of all fire deaths in the U.S. occurred in automobiles. Forty per cent of all fire department calls in the 1960s were to vehicle fires—a public cost of $350 million a year, a figure that, incidentally, never shows up in cost-benefit analyses. Also a report was prepared for NHTSA by consultant Eugene Trisko entitled "A National Survey of Motor Vehicle Fires." His report indicates that the Ford Motor Company makes 24 per cent of the cars on the American road, yet these cars account for 42 per cent of the collision-ruptured fuel tanks. Another staggering fact that was discovered was that a large and growing number of corpses taken from burned cars involved in rear-end crashes contained no cuts, bruises or broken bones. They clearly would have survived the accident unharmed if the cars had not caught fire. In 1972 the NHTSA had been researching and analysing auto fire causes for four years. During that time, nearly 9,000 people burned to death in flaming wrecks. Tens of thousands more were badly burned and scarred for life. And the four-year delay meant that well over 10 million new unsafe vehicles went on the road, vehicles that will be crashing, leaking fuel and incinerating people well into the 1980s. It wasn’t until May of 1978 that the Department of Transportation (a division of the NHTSA) announced that the Pinto fuel system had a "safety related defect" and demanded a recall. Ford agreed, and on June 9, 1978 the company recalled 1.5 million Pintos. Unlike many engineering disasters, there was no single event that caused all of the deaths and injuries related to Pinto’s. Ford had many opportunities to limit the damage done by the faulty design of the Pinto. Engineers bowed to pressure from superiors to keep quiet about the unsafe cars. As deaths and injuries continued to occur, Ford decided that it was not profitable to recall Pinto’s. www.fordpinto.com/blowup.htm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2009 17:53:43 GMT -6
Hey guys, here is a hypo based on something that really happened: Ok, lets say that a car manufacturer learns that the gas tanks in one of its popular makes of vehicles are defective, and that it is virtually certain that some people will be burned to death because of it. So the car company does an analysis, and concludes that it would be cheaper to pay for resulting products liability lawsuits than it would to issue a massive recall. Thus, the company does not issue the recall, and as predicted, people burn to death because of the faulty gas tanks. Should the people who made the decision not to issue the recall when they knew people would die if they did not face murder charges, and if so, should they get the needle? Any thoughts? Hypotectical my arse, this has happened a number of times with manufactures on both sides of the pond. He did say on something that really happened. Yes it boils down to premeditated murder. I am very conservative but I do believe that companies have a responsibility to the consumer and environment to build a safe product and stand behind it.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Mar 1, 2009 18:05:26 GMT -6
I know this was intended to be a hypothetical question, but I remembered it was the Pinto that was the vehicle in question (I owned a 76 Pinto). Gene Hackman played a lawyer loosely based on this story. Here is an article I found: There was strong competition for Ford in the American small-car market from Volkswagen and several Japanese companies in the 1960’s. To fight the competition Ford rushed its newest car the Pinto into production in much less time than is usually required to develop a car. The regular time to produce an automobile is 43 months Ford took 25. Before production however, Ford engineers discovered a major flaw in the cars design. In nearly all rear-end crash test collisions the Pinto's fuel system would rupture extremely easily. Because assembly-line machinery was already tooled when engineers found this defect, top Ford officials decided to manufacture the car anyway, exploding gas tank and all, even though Ford owned the patent on a much safer gas tank. Safety was not a major concern to Ford at the time of the development of the Pinto. Lee Iacocca, who was in charge of the development of the Pinto, had specifications for the design of the car that were uncompromisable. These specifications were that "the Pinto was not to weigh an ounce over 2,000 pounds and not cost a cent over $2,000." Any modifications even if they did provide extra safety for the customer that brought the car closer to the Iacocca’s limits was rejected. The rush of the Pinto from conception to production was a recipe for disaster. Many studies have been concluded by Mother Jones on Pinto accident reports which have revealed conclusively that if a Pinto being followed at over 30 miles per hour was hit by that following vehicle, the rear end of the car would buckle like an accordion, right up to the back seat. The tube leading to the gas-tank cap would be ripped away from the tank itself, and gas would immediately begin sloshing onto the road around the car. The buckled gas tank would be jammed up against the differential housing (the large bulge in the middle of the rear axle), which contains four sharp, protruding bolts likely to gash holes in the tank and spill still more gas. Now all that is needed is a spark from a cigarette, ignition, or scraping metal, and both cars would be engulfed in flames. If a Pinto was struck from behind at higher speed say, at 40 mph chances are very good that its doors would jam shut and its trapped passengers inside would burn to death. Pinto Crash Test The financial analysis that Ford conducted on the Pinto concluded that it was not cost-efficient to add an $11 per car cost in order to correct a flaw. Benefits derived from spending this amount of money were estimated to be $49.5 million. This estimate assumed that each death, which could be avoided, would be worth $200,000, that each major burn injury that could be avoided would be worth $67,000 and that an average repair cost of $700 per car involved in a rear end accident would be avoided. It further assumed that there would be 2,100 burned vehicles, 180 serious burn injuries, and 180 burn deaths in making this calculation. When the unit cost was spread out over the number of cars and light trucks which would be affected by the design change, at a cost of $11 per vehicle, the cost was calculated to be $137 million, much greater then the $49.5 million benefit. These figures, which describe the fatalities and injuries, are false. All independent experts estimate that for each person who dies by an auto fire, many more are left with charred hands, faces and limbs. This means that Ford’s 1:1 death to injury ratio is inaccurate and the costs for Ford’s settlements would have been much closer to the cost of implementing a solution to the problem. However, Ford’s "cost-benefit analysis," which places a dollar value on human life, said it wasn't profitable to make any changes to the car. The product objectives were clearly stated in the Pinto "green book". This is a thick, top-secret manual containing a step-by-step production plan for the car, detailing the metallurgy, weight, strength and quality of every part in the car. These product objectives as follows: 1. TRUE SUBCOMPACT * Size * Weight 2. LOW COST OF OWNERSHIP * Initial price * Fuel consumption * Reliability * Serviceability 3. CLEAR PRODUCT SUPERIORITY * Appearance * Comfort * Features * Ride and * Handling Performance Safety is not one of the objectives and is not even mentioned in the "green book". As Lee Iacocca was fond of saying, "Safety doesn't sell." It is interesting to note that the Pinto disaster almost never occurred. In pre-production planning, engineers seriously considered using in the Pinto the same kind of gas tank Ford uses in the Capri. The Capri tank rides over the rear axle and differential housing. It has been so successful in over 50 crash tests that Ford used it in its Experimental Safety Vehicle, which withstood rear-end impacts of 60 mph. Why didn’t Ford use such a gas tank? When asked about the Pinto gas tank, a Ford engineer admitted: "That's all true (The fact that the car tends to explode in minor accidents). But you miss the point entirely. You see, safety isn't the issue, trunk space is. You have no idea how stiff the competition is over trunk space. Do you realise that if we put a Capri-type tank in the Pinto you could only get one set of golf clubs in the trunk?" The technology was available to make the Pinto a safer car. An inexpensive lightweight plastic baffle was placed between the front of the gas tank and the four protruding bolts on the differential housing. This piece of plastic prevents the bolts from puncturing the gas tank and was used in one of the only successful crash tests the Pinto underwent. In another successful test, a piece of steel was placed between the tank and the bumper to add support against the crumpling back end. The best method for improving the safety of the Pinto was to line the gas tank with a rubber bladder. Ford alleged that it would cost $11 per car to add any sort of gas tank, fire prevention device. This fact is mentioned earlier in the cost analysis and like the other Ford cost facts, is also false. The fires that occurred in Pintos could have been largely prevented for considerably less than $11 a car. The cheapest method involves placing a heavy rubber bladder inside the gas tank to keep the fuel from spilling if the tank ruptures. Goodyear had developed the bladder and had demonstrated it to the automotive industry. Crash-tests were conducted and there are reports showing that the Goodyear bladder worked very well. On December 2, 1970, Ford Motor Company ran a rear end crash test on a car with the rubber bladder in the gas tank. The tank ruptured, but no fuel leaked. On January 15, 1971, Ford again tested the bladder and again it worked. The total purchase and installation cost of the bladder would have been $5.08 per car. That $5.08 per car could have saved the lives of several hundred innocent people. The Pinto disasters that were taking place did not go unnoticed by the government. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began investigating the case shortly after the Pinto started rolling off the assembly line. The NHTSA contracted with several independent research groups to study auto fires from around the country. The studies took months, which was just what Ford wanted. The results were worse than anyone could have imagined. Robert Nathan and Associates, a Washington research firm, found that 400,000 cars were burning up every year, burning more than 3,000 people to death. Furthermore, auto fires were increasing five times as fast as building fires. Another study showed that 35 per cent of all fire deaths in the U.S. occurred in automobiles. Forty per cent of all fire department calls in the 1960s were to vehicle fires—a public cost of $350 million a year, a figure that, incidentally, never shows up in cost-benefit analyses. Also a report was prepared for NHTSA by consultant Eugene Trisko entitled "A National Survey of Motor Vehicle Fires." His report indicates that the Ford Motor Company makes 24 per cent of the cars on the American road, yet these cars account for 42 per cent of the collision-ruptured fuel tanks. Another staggering fact that was discovered was that a large and growing number of corpses taken from burned cars involved in rear-end crashes contained no cuts, bruises or broken bones. They clearly would have survived the accident unharmed if the cars had not caught fire. In 1972 the NHTSA had been researching and analysing auto fire causes for four years. During that time, nearly 9,000 people burned to death in flaming wrecks. Tens of thousands more were badly burned and scarred for life. And the four-year delay meant that well over 10 million new unsafe vehicles went on the road, vehicles that will be crashing, leaking fuel and incinerating people well into the 1980s. It wasn’t until May of 1978 that the Department of Transportation (a division of the NHTSA) announced that the Pinto fuel system had a "safety related defect" and demanded a recall. Ford agreed, and on June 9, 1978 the company recalled 1.5 million Pintos. Unlike many engineering disasters, there was no single event that caused all of the deaths and injuries related to Pinto’s. Ford had many opportunities to limit the damage done by the faulty design of the Pinto. Engineers bowed to pressure from superiors to keep quiet about the unsafe cars. As deaths and injuries continued to occur, Ford decided that it was not profitable to recall Pinto’s. www.fordpinto.com/blowup.htmYes, that is exactly the case I was thinking of.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2009 18:29:44 GMT -6
No one has the right to put money before lives,the heads of the company should be held accountable for there action & not be able to be ceo,s of any companys in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Mar 1, 2009 20:04:36 GMT -6
not be able to be ceo,s of any companys in the future. That would be a small price to pay considering their calculated analysis and informed decision to let innocent people burn to death as a result of their faulty product. I'm talking about brining serious criminal charges.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Mar 1, 2009 20:09:17 GMT -6
Indeed, China would have executed them all, and probably even the janitor at the company's headquarters.
|
|
|
Post by imzadi on Mar 8, 2009 9:02:39 GMT -6
Hey guys, here is a hypo based on something that really happened: Ok, lets say that a car manufacturer learns that the gas tanks in one of its popular makes of vehicles are defective, and that it is virtually certain that some people will be burned to death because of it. So the car company does an analysis, and concludes that it would be cheaper to pay for resulting products liability lawsuits than it would to issue a massive recall. Thus, the company does not issue the recall, and as predicted, people burn to death because of the faulty gas tanks. Should the people who made the decision not to issue the recall when they knew people would die if they did not face murder charges, and if so, should they get the needle? Any thoughts? Yes they should be held liable and those who made the disision SHOULD be sent to prison for LWOP and those who KNEW but did not do anything (they did not have the seniority to call a 'recall' ) should face charges of aiding a conspiracy to murder.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Mar 8, 2009 11:25:30 GMT -6
I see you must have read Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company, 119 Cal.App.3d 757, 174 Cal.Rptr. 348 (1981).
Should Ford faced criminal charges?
Couple of points.
Well, in order to obtain capital murder (as well as RICO) charges, you would have to prove in a criminal court that the company intentionally caused the deaths with blatant disregard. This was proven in the civil trial, but criminal courts are not bound by civil courts and vice versa. As such your jury may come up with a different conclusion.
Secondly, who do you charge? The CEO? Perhaps. Anybody else under the 'failure to act' doctrine? Maybe. Such a prosecution would be very difficult to pin on one person or group of people. In addition, you would have to consider costs of such an enormous criminal case that would involve probably hundreds of witnesses. Could the crowded court system bare the additional strain?
Finally, such an application would undoubtly extend to other sectors of the economy such as pharmaceutical companies, whose products cause dangerous or fatal side effects. Another extension might be a leather tannery that dumped mass quanities of dangerous chemicals into our rivers and waterways, whcih may cause cancer clusters. Should these face capital murder charges as well? I would think so under the precedent you established with the car scenario.
In conclusion, should there be capital murder charges? In theory, I would say yes; however, in reality I would say no because, as stated above, such a prosecution would be very hard and costly. So, the case probably should stay in civil court, and let the punitive damages punish the company.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Mar 8, 2009 11:26:35 GMT -6
Indeed, China would have executed them all, and probably even the janitor at the company's headquarters. Yes, China executed two over the recent tainted milk issue.
|
|
|
Post by Royd on Mar 8, 2009 12:58:44 GMT -6
It is a balance of the cost of risk over recall.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Mar 8, 2009 17:01:35 GMT -6
No one has the right to put money before lives,the heads of the company should be held accountable for there action & not be able to be ceo,s of any companys in the future. Yet everybody does it. For example, people who drive automobiles do not put new tires and windshield wiper blades on there cars every month. Neither do they have the brakes checked every six months. Of course, if money really didn't matter, they would have two cars so that one could be in the shop for safety checks while the other one was being driven.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Mar 8, 2009 17:04:21 GMT -6
Indeed, China would have executed them all, and probably even the janitor at the company's headquarters. Yes, China executed two over the recent tainted milk issue. Were they both janitors?
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Mar 8, 2009 17:35:32 GMT -6
|
|