Question 1

Before the Ford Pinto case, it was an infrequent occurrence for corporations to be indicted for homicide.

Accepted Answer

Before the Ford Pinto case, corporate responsibility for deaths caused by their products or actions was not widely recognized, and indictments for corporate homicide were rare.

Question 2

Which of the following is not true regarding the "team" Cosentino built to prosecute Ford?

Accepted Answer

There is no mention of Cosentino utilizing the 185-member law firm of Mayer, Brown, and Platt.

Question 3

"Since Ford is not a living human being, it cannot possibly commit a crime like homicide. As a result, Ford's indictment should be quashed." In making this statement, what kind of argument was Ford proposing?

Accepted Answer

The argument is conceptual, as it is based on the concept of what it means to be able to commit a crime, rather than a specific legal or constitutional issue.

Question 4

Which of the following was the first American case to recognize corporate homicide?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Which of the following was the first...

Question 5

Ford contended that it could not be charged with reckless homicide because the statute violated the ex post facto clause of both the State of Indiana and the U.S. Constitution. What type of argument was Ford making?

Accepted Answer

Ford was making a constitutional argument, specifically related to the ex post facto clause of both the State of Indiana and the U.S. Constitution. This clause prohibits laws from being applied retroactively in criminal cases.

Question 6

In its attempt to quash its indictment, Ford argued that ex post facto considerations prevented it from being prosecuted. What did Ford mean by this?

Accepted Answer

The term "ex post facto" refers to a law that retroactively makes an action illegal or imposes a penalty on it. Ford argued that the conduct for which it was indicted (making the Pinto) occurred before the legal statute being used to prosecute the company was passed and made law by the Indiana legislature, and therefore, the law could not be applied retroactively to charge them. This defense is based on the ex post facto clause of the US Constitution, which prohibits the passage of such laws.

Question 7

Ford argued that the state of Indiana should not be able to bring criminal charges against the company because Ford conducts interstate commerce and is regulated by the federal government. That is, Ford argued that its indictment should be quashed because federal regulatory standards should preempt state criminal law. In making this statement, what kind of argument was Ford proposing?

Accepted Answer

Ford's argument is based on the constitutional principle of federal preemption, which holds that federal law supersedes state law in certain circumstances. In this case, Ford is arguing that federal regulations governing its business should take precedence over Indiana's criminal law.

Question 8

Which of the following is true regarding the types of punitive and compensatory damages the Ulrichs could have collected for their daughters' deaths?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Which of the following is true regarding...

Question 9

What is the purpose of allocating "punitive" damages in a civil case?

Accepted Answer

Punitive damages are designed to punish and discourage harmful behavior on the part of the defendant. By imposing significant financial penalties on companies that engage in harmful or illegal practices, the hope is that they will be deterred from engaging in these practices in the future. Additionally, the punitive damages may act as a warning to other corporations that similar behavior will not be tolerated. While compensating victims is an important consideration in civil cases, the primary purpose of punitive damages is to discourage harmful behavior and protect the public.

Question 10

Cosentino sought to have the case brought in criminal rather than civil court because there was no practical way for the Ulrichs to pursue either the distributive or the reductive goals through civil remedies.

Accepted Answer

The statement accurately reflects Cosentino's reasoning for seeking to have the case brought in criminal court instead of civil court.

Question 11

Judge Jones ruled:

Accepted Answer

Judge Jones ruled that the prosecution would have to show that Ford was reckless in its recall during that 41-day period due to the ex post facto issue. He did not rule in favor of Ford's conceptual or constitutional argument nor did he limit the conviction to the issue of a defective car.

Question 12

What was the primary result of the 1909 landmark case of New York Central Railroad v. United States?

Accepted Answer

The primary result of the 1909 landmark case of New York Central Railroad v. United States was that corporations could be held accountable for crimes of intent (i.e. crimes committed with knowledge and purpose) committed by its agents. This established the principle of corporate criminal liability in the United States legal system.

Question 13

What was Ford's strategy to prevent this case from ever coming to trial? How did they try to "quash the indictment"? In what way did Ford and its lawyers try to place an "obstacle course" in the way of the prosecution?

Accepted Answer

The answer of What was Ford's strategy to prevent this...

Question 14

In order to take on Ford, why did the prosecutor-Michael Cosentino-have to "build a team"? How was the need to build a prosecution team different from a typical homicide case Cosentino would bring to trial? Why was prosecutor a corporation a very different enterprise?

Accepted Answer

The answer of In order to take on Ford, why...

Question 15

Traditionally, in what type of court had cases in which a corporation physically harmed an individual been tried? Why in civil court? How had the law "edged" toward criminal culpability for corporations, including automakers? Still, what made this prosecution of Ford so unusual?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Traditionally, in what type of court had...

Question 16

What "conceptual arguments" did Ford make in claiming that it could not be prosecuted? How did Ford claim that because a corporation was not a living human being, it could not be prosecuted for a crime like homicide?

Accepted Answer

The answer of What "conceptual arguments" did Ford make in...

Question 17

What "conceptual arguments" did Ford make in claiming that it could not be prosecuted? How did this relate to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the idea that federal laws preempt state laws? What about the ex post facto argument that Ford's lawyers made? How did this end up limiting the prosecution's case to a 41-day window during which Ford would be criminally culpable?

Accepted Answer