1
1. CASE OVERVIEW
1.1 The Indictment
In 1978 in Elkhart County, Indiana, three young teenage girls were tragically killed in an
automobile accident when their 1973 Ford Pinto was struck from behind by a two-ton van traveling
at a speed of at least fifty miles per hour. Due to the design of the Pinto, the collision caused the
car’s fuel take erupted into flames; all three girls were burned to death inside of the car. As a result
of the deaths, a grand jury was convened. The result was a charge for criminal homicide against
Ford Motor Company, the first ever such charge against a corporation in the United States.
1.2 Elkhart County Perspective
The Elkhart County prosecutor, Michael A. Cosentino, pursued a criminal conviction
against Ford Motor Company for the deaths of the three young ladies. The presiding judge, Harold
R. Staffeldt, indicated to the jury that they must consider whether or not Ford Motor Company
participated in, among other criteria, a “deviation from acceptable standards of conduct.” The
prosecutor attempted to answer such questions as, “What did Ford Motor Company know about
the Pinto’s safety concerns?”, and “When did they know the safety was compromised?”
Cosentino’s goal was to prove that Ford Motor Company was aware of the flaw and willingly
chose to do nothing about it. The definition of “acceptable standards” became the sine qua non of
the entire trial. From the perspective of the Elkhart County District Attorney Office, Ford Motor
Company was wholly liable for the design of the Pinto, and therefore guilty of negligence.
Cosentino, like many others, felt the deaths could have been prevented by action on the part of
Ford.
1.3 Ford Motor Company Perspective
2
The Ford Motor Company enlisted the services of James F. Neal as their chief legal counsel
for the trial. Mr. Neal was tasked with providing evidence of Ford’s adherence to safety and their
many efforts and attempts at maintaining integrity. Mr. Neal and his staff consistently made
comparisons between the Ford Pinto and other models of similar size. The Ford legal team
emphasized that Ford was adhering to the current safety standards set forth by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Mr. Neal diverted the attention away from
Ford, and instead focused on other factors that contributed to the accident: the size and speed of
the van and the condition of the highway.
2. ETHICAL PERSPECTIVE
2.1 Analysis of Ford’s Ethical Position
