I meant to incude this passage in the last message. Actually even less costly improvements such as a bladder or a baffle in the gas tank would have prevented most of the deaths and injuries. But even the original calculation was not accurate as shown below. THere is nothing about legal costs either.
Cheers, Ken Hanly http://www.fordpinto.com/blowup.htm 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. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kenneth Campbell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 11:05 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Economics and law > Charles wrote: > > >You are probably aware that many juries ( composed largely > >on North American workers) have given such high awards > >often that the rightwing has been carrying out tort > >"reform" for a while, whereby caps are put on the amounts. > > It was my understanding that many of these awards are severely reduced > on the appellate level... which does not involved juries (hence people > outside the law). > > There is a buffer there, too, no? > > (But you are right about the political agenda behind removing in the > initial awards.) > > >Left wing lawyers (Maurice Sugar and others) played a big > >role in developing products liability law. > > I do not currently know the development of product liability law. I > would imagine it came out of the early 1900s in the US. If you have any > more research, I would appreciate it. It would be helpful to put it in > context. > > Ken. > > -- > The future is something which everyone reaches at > the rate of 60 minutes an hour, whatever he does, > whoever he is. > -- C.S. Lewis
