In this course, the factual basis of the conventional account is examined and misconceptions held by the public are identified.
The Ford Pinto case is today considered a classic example of corporate wrong-doing and is a mainstay of courses in engineering ethics, business ethics, philosophy, and the sociology of white-collar crime. The conventional account of the case holds that Ford engineers made a serious design error in locating the fuel tank behind the rear axle, leaving the Pinto vulnerable to disastrous fires in rear-end collisions. As crash-test and field data began to accumulate and reveal the danger, management made a deliberate decision not to modify the design, because doing so would harm corporate profits. Ford’s decision was based on a cost-benefit analysis that balanced human lives against corporate profits. In this course, the factual basis of the conventional account is examined and misconceptions held by the public are identified. Questions about the placement and design of the fuel tank are addressed. Data available in public records but rarely discussed by Pinto critics are presented showing that Pinto accident-fatality rates were slightly better than the average for automobiles of comparable size. The discussion is then rounded out by comments on various other criticisms that have been leveled at the Pinto, and an alternative account of the Pinto case is formulated which differs significantly from the conventional account.
This course teaches the following specific knowledge and skills: Role of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in automobile design Historical and legal development of crashworthiness as a requirement for engineering design The complexity of design considerations in locating the fuel tank Risk is defined as the probability and severity of harm Safety is defined as an acceptable risk The necessity of trade-offs between cost and risk Comparative fatality rates for subcompacts of the Pinto era Need for and use of cost-benefit analysis.
Intended Audience: for engineers concerned with ethical decision-making in making design trade-offs involving the safety of the public.
Publication Source: This course is based on the document, “Ethics: An Alternative Account of the Ford Pinto Case,” written by Mark P. Rossow, September 2015.
Civil Engneering faculty member for 27 years
Dr. Rossow is a graduate of the University of Michigan with B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees. He is a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Illinois. He taught civil engineering for over 35 years, including six years at Washington University in St. Louis and 29 years at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, where he was the Chair of the Civil Engineering Department for ten years. His areas of expertise are in civil engineering and mechanics. He has consulted for various organizations, including government agencies and an international offshore drilling company. He has published numerous technical journal articles and technical reports for a variety of governmental agencies and private sector organizations. Mark P. Rossow, PE, PhD Licensed Professional Engineer in State of Illinois License No. 062.040560 Dr. Rossow is a graduate of the University of Michigan with B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees. He taught civil engineering for over 35 years, including six years at Washington University in St. Louis and 29 years at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, where he was the Chair of the Civil Engineering Department for ten years. His areas of expertise are in civil engineering and mechanics. He has consulted for various organizations, including government agencies and an international offshore drilling company. He has published many journal articles and technical reports.
