Kari Harrison
603482050
ENGR 185 EW
The Ford Pinto: An Engineering Ethics Case Study
In the 1960s and 1970s, several international automobile companies began
producing affordable compact cars. The Ford Motor Company, not wanting to miss out
on this emerging market, began production of their new compact: the Pinto. Shortly after
the car was released, several accidents led to the discovery that if a Pinto was struck from
behind by another vehicle traveling at more than 30 mph, the gas tank would ignite. The
controversy aroused from Ford deciding that it would be more cost effective to leave the
Pinto “as is” than to recall and fix the known problem.
The defect in the Ford Pinto was in the placement of the gas tank. It was located
behind the rear axle, and was not strong enough to withstand a collision. Mother Jones
magazine published a Pulitzer Prize winning article in 1977 in which they discussed the
safety issues associated with the Ford Pinto. According to their research, if a Pinto was
hit from behind at 30 miles per hour, the back of the car would buckle. This could cause
the gas tank cap to be torn away from the tank, causing gas to leak. More gas would be
spilled if the tank hit the differential housing, as it contained four protruding bolts that
could puncture the tank again. At this point, any spark could ignite the gas, causing a fire
or explosion. They also determined that in collisions above 40 miles per hour, there was
1
a tendency for the passenger doors to jam, leaving the driver and passengers trapped
inside.1 This defect lead to hundreds of injuries, and several deaths.
Then president of Ford Lee Iacocca was known for undervaluing safety in
vehicles. According to Iacocca, “Safety doesn’t sell.”2 Several engineers who worked on
the Pinto were aware of the exploding gas tank problem. However, none spoke up for
fear of losing their job. “That person [who told Iacocca of the problem] would have been
fired. Safety wasn’t a popular subject around Ford in those days.”2
In May of 1972, Lily Gray and Richard Grimshaw were in an accident in their
Ford Pinto. The vehicle that struck them was traveling approximately 30 mph, and the
impact ignited the gas tank in the Pinto, killing Gray and seriously injuring Grimshaw. A
court awarded $560,000 to Gray’s family and $2.5 million to Grimshaw. At this point,
Ford performed a cost-benefit analysis. In Ford’s case, this involved determining the cost
of alerting all 11 million cars and 1.5 million light trucks verses the cost of people’s death
and injuries. This cost-benefit analysis was done as a requirement by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration. It was also the NHTSA who determined the
value of human life and suffering. According to the NHTSA, a burn death is valued at
$200,000, serious burn injuries are valued at $67,000 and the cost of a burned car was
valued at $700. Ford estimated there would be 180 burn deaths, 180 burn injuries, and
2100 burned cars. The total “benefit” in this case would add up to $49.5 million.3 Ford
estimated that the cost of replacing the gas tanks would be $11 per vehicle, which adds
up to $137 million. Based on these figures, Ford and the NHTSA determined that it was
more cost effective to not recall the Pinto.
2
Ford was under many constraints for this project that ultimately led to their
decision to not alter the Pinto. Because of the release of Japanese compact cars and the
VW Beetle, the Pinto was on an accelerated timeline. A normal vehicle production takes
43 months, while the Pinto was to be completed in just under 25 months. Because of this
timeline, the assembly line machines were designed and produced at the same time as the
vehicle’s designs were being completed. When the defect was discovered, the whole
machinery process would have to be redone in order to correct the problem. An engineer
who was questioned about safety was quoted as saying “Whenever a problem was raised
that meant a delay on the Pinto, Lee [Iacocca] would chomp on his cigar, look out the
window and say 'Read the product objectives and get back to work."2 The product
objectives according to Ford were 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
As stated earlier, safety was not a priority at Ford at that time. The motto for the Pinto
was “Limits for 2000,” meaning it was to cost less than $2000 and weigh less than 2000
lbs. Because the gas tank was located in the rear of the vehicle, trunk space was directly
affected by the size of the tank. As one Ford engineer put it, “You see, safety isn't the
3
issue, trunk space is. You have no idea how stiff the competition is over trunk space. Do
you realize that if we put a Capri-type tank in the Pinto you could only get one set of golf
clubs in the trunk?"1. The final constraint on the Pinto was money. Every company is
concerned with money, and although $11 per car doesn’t seem like a large increase, the
total of $137 million is no small figure.
When the defect was found, and it came time for Ford to make a decision, they
had multiple options. According to Ford, they chose to leave the Pinto as it was, since it
was a $90 million dollar difference in price. However this number was based on
completely changing the gas tank, an $11 increase per vehicle. At the time of the
controversy, Goodyear made a rubber bladder that would also prevent the tank from
exploding. This bladder was available for $5.08 per vehicle. Performing the calculations
with this value, it would cost Ford only $63.5 million to make the Pinto safer. This is
significantly less than the $137 million to replace the tanks. Ford never acknowledged
this as a possible course of action.
On August 10th, 1978, three women were killed in a car accident while driving in
their Ford Pinto. Many people could have been held responsible for their death. First,
the man driving the other vehicle was found to be under the influence of intoxicants.
Open beer bottles, marijuana and caffeine pills were found inside his van. After filling
their gas tank up, the gas cap was loose and with no safe place on the side of the highway,
the women pulled onto the shoulder. The state highway system could have been
responsible for providing no safe place to pull off the road. However, the prosecutor
chose to hold Ford responsible, charging them with reckless homicide and criminal
recklessness. According to the prosecution, Ford was responsible since they knew of the
4
defect and did not fix it.3
Ford’s defense was that they performed the required cost-benefit analysis, and
were in no way required by law to address the defect. While cost-benefit analysis was
their main reasoning for not making changes, there were secondary reasons as well:
1. Ford had an earlier advertising campaign based on safety that failed, therefore
safety was not a strong selling point
2. A recall would cause too much bad publicity for the company to recover from
3. At the time of the crash test, Ford was not required by law to redesign the fuel
system
4. The placement of the gas tank was customary in the automotive industry
In the end, the Ford company was found innocent of the charges.
In May of 1978, before this criminal trial even took place, the NHTSA had
determined that the Ford Pinto had a “safety defect”, and in June of that year, Ford issued
a recall. Although they were found innocent of the charges, the Ford company has never
truly recovered from the bad publicity following the case.3
Although legally and financially Ford may have made the appropriate decision,
much of the controversy arises from the ethical dilemma the company faced. Costbenefit analysis is a tool of Utilitarianism, which values the most good for the most
people. In Ford’s case, fixing the defect would cost the company, and therefore its
employees, money and time. The consumer would also then be charged more per vehicle,
and the car would not have been available as quickly. The larger part of the population
would “suffer.” Therefore, Ford’s decision to allow safety to be compromised can be
justified by Utilitarian ideals.
5
Although Utilitarianism is a good tool, it is not the best ethical framework from
which to view this case. Utilitarianism may give the greatest good to the largest number
of people, but in this case, it is comparing a person’s life to the value of time and money.
Even though less people would suffer under Ford’s Utilitarian analysis, the suffering
done by those people injured or killed in a Pinto crash is much higher than that of an
employee losing his or her job, or a costumer having to pay more for their car. Because
of this, a different ethical framework needs to be used.
If Ford’s decision is viewed in the framework of Rights ethics, then their decision
becomes less ethical. Humans have a right to safety, and a right to know how safe their
vehicle is. Ford ignored both of these rights. Conversely, one could say that Ford was
well within their right to make automobiles as they see fit. This is a case of rights in
opposition. However, most people would place the right to personal safety more highly
than the rights of a corporation.
Duty ethics is a mirror image of rights ethics. Automobile companies have a duty
to protect their customers. Consumers also have a duty to make informed and smart
decisions. Although when the Pinto was first released it was not public knowledge that
there was a defect, by the time the criminal trial took place there were several
documented cases of problems with Pinto’s exploding tanks. However, the overarching
unethical action was by the government. At the time of the Pinto’s release, the NHTSA
did not require Ford to fix the defect. It was not until several years after the car’s release
that the NHTSA issued a recall. Although it may be a company’s duty to provide a
reliable product, it is the duty of government agencies like the NHTSA to protect the
populace. In this case, NHTSA failed.
6
Under virtue ethics, Ford’s decision was completely unethical. A virtuous person
(or company) would never knowingly allow people to become injured or die. If Ford was
a virtuous company, they would have considered human life as more important than time
or money, and would have made the decision to fix the defect no matter what the cost.
Pragmatism is the act of balancing ethical reasoning and fixed rules or ideas. It
emphasizes particulars over principles, and leads to a conciliation of differences.4 Ford
probably thought they were being pragmatic in their solution. They weighed the pros and
cons of their decision, and chose what they thought was the utilitarian, correct decision.
However, while their approach may technically be correct, human life should not be
regarded as a measurable object, and therefore their comparison is flawed.
Had Ford chosen the “ethical” path, to stop production of the Pinto and fix the
defective gas tank, they may have actually saved money. The subsequent law suites from
Pinto accidents have cost the company well over their estimated $49.5 million. In fact, in
one suite alone Ford was required to pay $125 million in damages. If they had used the
Goodyear bladder, a mere $5.08 per car, $67 million total, not only would they have
saved money, they would have also saved lives.
In most ethical frameworks, Ford’s decision is unequivocally unethical. Even in
utilitarianism, their actions, while not necessarily unethical, also can not be clearly stated
as ethical. In almost any circumstance, this one included, valuing time and money over
human life can not be considered an ethical decision. While it may be the best course of
action for Ford’s company, and it may not be unlawful, knowingly putting lives in danger
is not considered ethical by any means.
However, in this case, the more unnerving decision was not made by the Ford
7
company, but by the NHTSA. A government agency should create laws that protect
people’s rights and safety. Many people, including the author of “Pinto Madness”,
believe Ford’s decision was unethical because the cost-benefit analysis “places a dollar
value on human life”1. This price however, was not decided on by Ford, but by the
NHTSA. Although Ford may not have made the most ethical decision, the determination
of how much a human is worth was not theirs.
There were many mistakes made by Ford in their development and production of
the Pinto. Most all of them could have been avoided if the production schedule had not
been accelerated to only 25 months. Even after these mistakes were made, however,
Ford had several opportunities to protect the lives of their consumers, and they chose not
to. In Ford’s opinion, the fixing of an unreliable product was not the most cost effective
choice to make. Not only did Ford not protect their consumers, government agencies put
in place specifically to protect the people were also unsuccessful. Even though under a
utilitarian framework Ford’s decision could be considered the correct one to make, under
all other ethical frameworks, this is an unethical decision. The choice to value time and
money over human life, while both a lawful and understandable decision, cannot be
considered the most ethical decision.
8
Works Cited
1. Dowie, Mark. “Pinto Madness.” Mother Jones. September/October 1977.
2. Ford Pinto. Engineering.com. 08 May 2009.
<http://www.engineering.com/Library/ArticlesPage/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleV
iew/articleId/166/Ford-Pinto.aspx>
3. Leggett, Christopher. The Ford Pinto Case: The Valuation of Life as it Applies to the
Negligence-Efficiency Argument. Spring 1999. Wake Forest University Law &
Valuation. 08 May 2009 .
<http://www.wfu.edu/~palmitar/Law&Valuation/Papers/1999/Leggettpinto.html>
4. Fleddermann, Charles. Engineering Ethics. Prentice Hall: 5 July 2007.
5. Design Defects of the Ford Pinto Gas Tank. Fordpinto.com. 08 May 2009.
<http://www.fordpinto.com/blowup.htm>
6. Disasters of the Ford Pinto. Fordpinto.com. 08 May 2009.
<http://www.fordpinto.com/blowup3.htm>
9