Cost/benefit analysis for Pinto gas tanks

[snopes]

Comment: My philosophy professor gave us a copy of a company memo from Ford
concerning the Ford Pinto. He dated in in the 1960's. I went to research
it a little (as my father didn't believe it), and found a lot of sites
calling it a myth.

Here is a copy of what my teacher gave me.

II. Cost-Benefit Analysis: The Ford Pinto

"[At] a top secret site, more than forty times and ... every test made
at over 25 mph without special structural alteration of the car ...
resulted in a ruptured fuel tank.

"[A] later Ford Company study released by J. C. Echold, director of
automotive safety for Ford, claimed that an improved design that would
have rendered the Pinto less likely to burst into flames on collision
would not be cost-effective for society ... the costs of the design
improvement ($11 per vehicle) far outweighed its social benefits:

BENEFITS:

Savings: 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, 2100 burned vehicles.
Unit Cost: $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, & 700 per vehicle.
Total Benefits: (180 x $200,000) + (180 x $67,000) + (2100 x $700) =
$49.53 million

COSTS:

Sales: 12.5 million vehicles
Unit Cost: $11 per vehicle
Total Costs: 12,500,000 x $11 = $137.5 million

I've seen a lot of arguments ... Sites claiming that the numbers are wrong,
that this was released by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, and NOT Ford Motor Company, that the Pinto's gas tank was
NOT dangerous or that the number of deaths was dramatically lower, etc.

There was a movie about 12 or 15 years ago with Gene Hackman as a lawyer, the case was a thinly disguised version of exactly this situation. They never called it a Pinto, mind you, but the idea was the same. IIRC the movie was called Class Action, but I could be wrong.

This doesn't help with proving or disproving the numbers, but it does show this UL, true or not, has been around a long time.

[Stoneage Dinosaur]

Now I get that joke from Top Secret!

[Eddylizard]

This site quotes several court cases concerning the issue including

Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company (1981) 119 Cal. App. 3d 757 and an appeal 119 Cal. App. 3d at 813.

In which the judge cited the cost/benefit in his ruling.

ETA I've found the case on FindLaw.Com which seems to bear out more or less what the OP was saying. I can't link directly to it, but there's a link about halfway down this page (free subscription required to read case.)

[RichardM]

Given that the cause of the Pinto gas tank rupturing was a suspension bolt that was too long that got installed by accident, I doubt the numbers. The proper, shorted bolt was cheaper.

[Not_Done_Living]

I heard the same thing about the older Mustangs, where the gas tank was mounted behind the back seat. In the event of a rear end collision, the tank could rupture sending gas into the passenger cabin. It was inititially determined that the costs for a recall would be much higher then the costs for wrongful death settlements.

This was proven wrong once they actually WENT to court and lost a huge amount of money in punitive damages, and were told to go back and do the recall as well.

[snapdragonfly]

Originally Posted by Not_Done_Living

I heard the same thing about the older Mustangs, where the gas tank was mounted behind the back seat. In the event of a rear end collision, the tank could rupture sending gas into the passenger cabin. It was inititially determined that the costs for a recall would be much higher then the costs for wrongful death settlements.

This was proven wrong once they actually WENT to court and lost a huge amount of money in punitive damages, and were told to go back and do the recall as well.

Which is why enormous punitive damages when deemed to be appropriate and necessary as way to provide an incentive for a specific behavior (such as not making killer cars) are a vital and important part of our legal process, contrary to the narrow and hysterical viewpoint of the "OMG the McDonalds woman got billions for being an idiot" contingency.

[RichardM]

Originally Posted by Not_Done_Living

I heard the same thing about the older Mustangs, where the gas tank was mounted behind the back seat. In the event of a rear end collision, the tank could rupture sending gas into the passenger cabin. It was inititially determined that the costs for a recall would be much higher then the costs for wrongful death settlements.

This was proven wrong once they actually WENT to court and lost a huge amount of money in punitive damages, and were told to go back and do the recall as well.

As the owner of just such an older Mustang (1966 Fastback) I can tell you that it not only has the gas tank just like that but there is and was no recall.

[Not_Done_Living]

there is a small difference between person getting awarded milllions from ignoring common sense and not being aware of a design decision that is potentially hazardous.

Everyone knows coffee is hot and that paper cups are flimsy, and id you stick the two between your legs, you can expect to get a potentially burning splash, and can take pro-active measures to prevent this.

Not everyone would be expect to know that their car may be about to give them a potentially lethal splash of possibly flaming gasoline.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

This site quotes several court cases concerning the issue including Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company (1981) 119 Cal. App. 3d 757 and an appeal 119 Cal. App. 3d at 813 in which the judge cited the cost/benefit in his ruling.

True, there's mention that "Ford could have corrected the hazardous design defects at minimal cost but decided to defer correction of the shortcomings by engaging in a cost-benefit analysis balancing human lives and limbs against corporate profits," which addresses the overall issue of whether Ford performed an analysis of this type. It isn't clear, though, whether the specific numbers and formulae cited in the OP actually came from an actual Ford analysis or whether they were made up by someone else for illustrative purposes.

- snopes

[Chloe]

Originally Posted by Not_Done_Living

there is a small difference between person getting awarded milllions from ignoring common sense and not being aware of a design decision that is potentially hazardous.

Everyone knows coffee is hot and that paper cups are flimsy, and id you stick the two between your legs, you can expect to get a potentially burning splash, and can take pro-active measures to prevent this.

Such as not selling coffee at ridiculously high temperatures, particularly after more than 700 other people have been scalded by it, and you have had to pay them compensation. http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?eve...wPage&pg=facts

[star_splinter]

Originally Posted by Not_Done_Living

there is a small difference between person getting awarded milllions from ignoring common sense and not being aware of a design decision that is potentially hazardous.

Everyone knows coffee is hot and that paper cups are flimsy, and id you stick the two between your legs, you can expect to get a potentially burning splash, and can take pro-active measures to prevent this.

Not everyone would be expect to know that their car may be about to give them a potentially lethal splash of possibly flaming gasoline.

There was more to this story than you might think. The cup basically melted, IIRC, and the coffee was far over the legal maximum temperature. We looked at this case and others in a product liability class I took.

That said, I would imagine a cost/benefit analysis was done. It may have been faulty (clearly), but generally safety and cost are directly related, and someone has to decide where to draw the line at how much safety is "enough." There are plenty of ways to make vehicles safer, but there are just about always trade-offs. Sometimes a trade-off is made that clearly makes something unsafe, sometimes the trade-offs are reasonable. My car doesn't have side curtain airbags, for instance. It's a convertible, there's no place to put them without putting a roof on: the cost (it not being a convertible, and thus having lower sales) outweighs the benefits (safer). On the other hand, bursting into flame is a bit more serious, and it sounds like someone seriously underestimated the cost of that!

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Not_Done_Living

Everyone knows coffee is hot and that paper cups are flimsy, and id you stick the two between your legs, you can expect to get a potentially burning splash, and can take pro-active measures to prevent this.

Everyone knows that cars travel at high speeds and human bodies are fragile, and if you sit inside a moving car, you can expect a potentially fatal crash or fire, and can take pro-active measures to prevent this (such as never riding in an automobile, or never driving one faster than 5 MPH).

Therefore, common sense says that drivers and passengers are always completely responsible for any injuries that befall them, never automobile manufacturers. QED.

- snopes

[DoubleNaughtSaleen]

Originally Posted by RichardM

As the owner of just such an older Mustang (1966 Fastback) I can tell you that it not only has the gas tank just like that but there is and was no recall.

It may be the Crown Vics they're thinking of. My 00 Stang's tank is under the trunk, no recalls I've ever seen.

Now I have seen cars with tanks directly behind the seat--some foreign cars, IIRC. Now that's scary!

[RichardM]

Crown Vics and Mustangs have the gas tanks in about the same place. And so do the purpose built race cars in NASCAR (for the record, there is absolutely no part of the Chevrolet that Dale Jr. drives that came from a production car). Hanging under the rear of the car so the tank can break away in the case of a rear end crash is considered safe. Ford has developed a fire suppression system for Crown Vics used for police work. It can not be retrofitted to older cars.

[Nappy Solo]

Don't mean to hijack this thread, but a local used car dealer used to advertise $100 in asbestos traveler's checks with each used Pinto back in the days.

[Debunker]

Originally Posted by DoubleNaughtSaleen

It may be the Crown Vics they're thinking of. My 00 Stang's tank is under the trunk, no recalls I've ever seen.

Now I have seen cars with tanks directly behind the seat--some foreign cars, IIRC. Now that's scary!

Indeed, my 1973 Capri had the gas tank mounted behind the rear seat in the trunk. I thought it was a good idea - if I was rear ended the impact would have had to crush the trunk completely in order to impact the gas tank. A side impact, on the other hand...

Pintos had the gas tank under the car just ahead of the rear bumper. It didn't take much of an impact to puncture the tank.

[Illuminatus]

Originally Posted by JD65

There was a movie about 12 or 15 years ago with Gene Hackman as a lawyer, the case was a thinly disguised version of exactly this situation. They never called it a Pinto, mind you, but the idea was the same. IIRC the movie was called Class Action, but I could be wrong.

This doesn't help with proving or disproving the numbers, but it does show this UL, true or not, has been around a long time.

A variation on it was repeated in the movie Fight Club.

Anyway, the Cost vs. Loss x Probability is the standard of negligence in some cases, it comes from United States v. Carroll Towing. It's not a UL, it's Federal Court precedent.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Illuminatus

Anyway, the Cost vs. Loss x Probability is the standard of negligence in some cases, it comes from United States v. Carroll Towing. It's not a UL, it's Federal Court precedent.

But as Grimshaw v. Ford demonstrated, you don't get to escape responsibility for negligence by assigning a monetary value to human lives and plugging it into a cost-benefit analysis.

- snopes

[Illuminatus]

Originally Posted by snopes

But as Grimshaw v. Ford demonstrated, you don't get to escape responsibility for negligence by assigning a monetary value to human lives and plugging it into a cost-benefit analysis.

- snopes

Grimshaw v. Ford is a state case though, has US v. Carroll been overturned at the Federal level?