Where other ethical theories can provide some wiggle room with respect to actions -- Ford's attempt at a utilitarian cost-benefit analysis, for example -- human life has a special place in ethics, precisely because it cannot be replaced or repaired once taken. This categorical imperative supersedes all other philosophies because of the special status of human life. Clearly, all reasonable codes of ethics were violated in this case. In terms of the five schools of social responsibility, Ford sought to maximize profits. It did not consider a moral minimum, as it violated even the most minimal of corporate ethics codes. Stakeholders other than shareholders do not appear to have been given much consideration in Ford's decision making process, and clearly there was no demonstration of corporate citizenship for if any citizen were to choose to kill hundreds of people one would presume that act to be criminal. For whatever reason, the executives at Ford thought it reasonable to focus on maximizing profit as the only objective, ignoring all other perspectives, as they would have led to a different conclusion..

Ford was taken to court in a reckless homicide trial. In 1980, the company and its executives were found "not guilty" in the case, which involved three teenaged girls who were killed when their Pinto was struck from behind. The trial was held in Indiana, in a state court. The reckless homicide charge was a relatively new one, having been added to the state's book in July, 1978 (Dole, 1980).

At the trial, Ford brought a substantial defense team. Ford used expert testimony from an accident reconstructionist who defended the Pinto by using tests run on a variety of automobiles. The prosecution relied on attacking the credibility of Ford management and on the design of the Pinto, which it had to prove was the major contributing factor to the deaths of the girls. The court demanded a high standard of evidence, and would...

As a result, the jury was compelled into a verdict and returned a verdict of not guilty. This effectively ended legal action against Ford, whereas a guilty verdict would have spurred many further suits against the company.
There was no need for any appeal because Ford received the verdict that it needed. Ford was not found to have mens rea or actus reus, though arguably the company's managers knew their actions would result in needless deaths. As a result, it is reasonable to conclude that Ford management at least had mens rea. However, Ford was nevertheless able to escape prosecution. This was based not on Constitutional protection but on the merits of the case.

I personally do not feel that the case was adjudicated fairly. There were significant differences in the quality of the legal teams, and as a result the prosecuting team was at a disadvantage in this case. The company clearly had made a decision that would cost human life. If the Indian reckless homicide law was not sufficient to gain a successful prosecution, arguably another state or federal law should have been attempted in order to hold Ford responsible for its actions.

Works Cited:

Dole, C. (1980). Pinto verdict lets U.S. industry off hook. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved November 13, 2012 from http://www.csmonitor.com/1980/0314/031435.html

Dowie, M. (1977). Pinto madness. Mother Jones. Retrieved November 13, 2012 from http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness

Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine. Retrieved November 13, 2012 from http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html

Lako, C. (2011). Ethics for my scholars. University of Central Florida. Retrieved November 13, 2012 from http://www.bus.ucf.edu/faculty/clako/page/ETHICS.aspx