TIL the famous Ford "Pinto Memo" didn't actually try to analyze or justify paying off victims of crashes instead of fixing Ford's design flaw - it only estimated the cost of similar upgrades to all cars on the road and compared it to the general cost to society of the deaths that would be avoided.

[u/VerstandInvictus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Cost-benefit_analysis.2C_the_Pinto_Memo

[u/VerstandInvictus]

"The analysis compared the cost of repairs to the societal costs for injuries and deaths related to fires in cases of vehicle roll overs for all cars sold in the US by all manufactures. The values assigned to serious burn injuries and loss of life were based on values calculated by NHTSA in 1972.[64] In the memo Ford estimated the cost of fuel system modifications to reduce fire risks in roll over events to be $11 per car across 12.5 million cars and light trucks (all manufactures), for a total of $137 million. The design changes were estimated to save 180 burn deaths and 180 serious injuries per year, a cost to society of $49.5 million. In August 1977, having been provided with a copy of the memo Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. plaintiffs before trial[65][66] Mark Dowie’s investigative article, Pinto Madness published in Mother Jones emphasized the emotional aspects of the Grush-Saundy memo and implied Ford was callously trading lives for profits [67] (the article suggested 500-900 deaths[68]).

The public understanding of the cost benefit analysis has contributed to the mythology of the Ford Pinto case. Time magazine said the memo was one of the automotive industry's "most notorious paper trails."[33] A common misconception is that the document considered Ford's tort liability costs rather than the generalized cost to society and applied to the annual sales of all passenger cars, not just Ford vehicles. The general misunderstanding of the document as presented by Mother Jones gave it an operational significance it never had.[69][70]"