[Mick]

We put a price on human life because if we fail to, a victim's family gets nothing (the lesser reason) and society loses the deterrent effect of money penalties for behavior that can kill people.

Removing the civil liability would force us, in cases like this, to choose between doing nothing or punishing the act as a crime.  And we would struggle to gain a consensus that behavior like this should be labelled, and punished, as criminal.

Tough to criminalize a company.  In an undergraduate management (not law) class, the professor held that Ford's big mistake with the Pinto was that they misjudged what a life was worth...that when it was apparent that the Pinto's exploding gas tank would cost x number of lives, Ford's brain trust thought that $200,000 per life and $67,000 per burn injury with 180 burn deaths, 180 burn injuries and 2,300 cars damaged (at $700 per car) resulted in a risk of $49 million, whereas the replacement cost of $11 each for 11 million Ford Pintos and 1.5 million trucks was $135 million, therefore Ford thought they were justified in not fixing the tanks.  The Pinto was introduced in May, 1968.  The first legal case came in 1972, and post-death, post-appeal, the judgment was $3.5 million.  In a subsequent case, Ford was charged by the Indiana Supreme Court of criminal recklessness and negligent homicide.

Oops.

Here's the case study if you're interested.

http://users.wfu.edu/palmitar/Law&Valuat...pinto.html

[Mick]

We put a price on human life because if we fail to, a victim's family gets nothing (the lesser reason) and society loses the deterrent effect of money penalties for behavior that can kill people.

Removing the civil liability would force us, in cases like this, to choose between doing nothing or punishing the act as a crime.  And we would struggle to gain a consensus that behavior like this should be labelled, and punished, as criminal.

Tough to criminalize a company.  In an undergraduate management (not law) class, the professor held that Ford's big mistake with the Pinto was that they misjudged what a life was worth...that when it was apparent that the Pinto's exploding gas tank would cost x number of lives, Ford's brain trust thought that $200,000 per life and $67,000 per burn injury with 180 burn deaths, 180 burn injuries and 2,300 cars damaged (at $700 per car) resulted in a risk of $49 million, whereas the replacement cost of $11 each for 11 million Ford Pintos and 1.5 million trucks was $135 million, therefore Ford thought they were justified in not fixing the tanks.  The Pinto was introduced in May, 1968.  The first legal case came in 1972, and post-death, post-appeal, the judgment was $3.5 million.  In a subsequent case, Ford was charged by the Indiana Supreme Court of criminal recklessness and negligent homicide.

Oops.

Here's the case study if you're interested.

http://users.wfu.edu/palmitar/Law&Valuat...pinto.html