Do Firestone tire
tragedies warrant criminal charges?
by Russell Mokhiber and
Robert Weissman
-Guest Columnists-
In 1998, in Corpus Christi, Texas, 17-year-old
Matthew Hendricks was on his way to pick up his girlfriend. He was
driving a Ford Explorer. The tread ripped off one of the Ford�s
Firestone tires, causing him to lose control. He was thrown from the
vehicle and killed.
"When I was told that my son died, I felt like
someone had reached in and ripped my heart out," Vicki Hendricks,
Matthew�s mom, said in early September.
Matthew Hendricks is one of more than 150 deaths
around the world linked to Firestone tread separations. The families and
friends of those killed in these accidents want to know: what did Ford
and Firestone know about these tires and when did they know it?
Journalists, members of Congress, and trial lawyers
are seeking to provide answers. Reporters have informed us that Ford and
Firestone knew that they had a problem, but failed to notify federal
regulators. Many months ago, Ford and Firestone were ordering the recall
of problem tires in Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Asia�but not in the
United States.
Ford and Firestone knew of at least 35 deaths and 130
injuries before the federal government launched its probe earlier this
year. They knew about these cases, because they were being sued by the
families of the victims.
(The parents of Matthew Hendricks settled their case
against Firestone earlier this year.) And as a condition of these
settlements, Ford and Firestone were demanding that the lawyers who
brought these cases not speak to anyone about what they found out during
discovery.
With congressional hearings ablazing in an election
year, klieg light fever has overcome our elected officials, and the
keepers of the corporate flame, like Billy Tauzin (R-La.), Thomas Bliley
(R-Va.) and John Dingell (D-Mich.), have been transformed overnight into
clones of Ralph Nader.
There is much talk in Washington about expanding the
authority of federal enforcement officials, of increasing penalties, of
requiring auto companies to report overseas recalls to federal
authorities here in the United States.
But these reforms are being pushed by the liberal
corporate elite to put out a very hot fire that threatens not the
reputations of not just Ford and Firestone, but that also may plant the
seed of doubt in the American mind (in an election year, nonetheless)
about the ethical foundation of corporate America. (Or as Business
Week asked in a cover story, "Too Much Corporate Power?")
The families of the victims not only want the truth,
and reform, but they also are demanding justice. And justice begins and
ends with the criminal law.
Attorney General Janet Reno has said she was looking
into whether any criminal case can be brought. But when the auto safety
law was first passed in 1966, the auto companies prevented criminal
penalties from becoming law. And they have blocked criminal penalties
ever since. So why is Janet Reno blowing smoke?
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) took the floor of the
Senate recently and introduced legislation that would establish criminal
sanctions for executives who knowingly market a defective product that
kills or maims. Auto safety activists want criminal penalties for any
knowing or willful violation of the federal auto safety law. But that
doesn�t help bring justice here and now to the families and victims of
Ford and Firestone�s act of violence.
Michael Cosentino knows what this game is about.
Cosentino is the Republican prosecuting attorney for Elkhart County,
Indiana. Twenty-two years ago, Cosentino brought a homicide charge
against Ford Motor Co. for the deaths of three teenaged girls. The girls
were riding in their Ford Pinto when it was rear-ended. The doors on the
Pinto slammed shut, the gas tank split open, gas leaked out, caught fire
and the girls were incinerated.
Cosentino had been reading about a 1973 memo that
Ford executives had written about the Pinto gas tank problem. In the
memo, Ford put a price on a human life ($200,000) and a burn injury
($67,000) and calculated that the cost of saving lives and prohibiting
burn injuries by recalling the Pinto�s and fixing the fuel tank ($11
per auto) would be prohibitive.
Faced with a murder charge, Ford brought in its best
legal guns, and hired the judge�s best friend as its local counsel.
The judge in turn ruled that much of Cosentino�s evidence (including
the smoking gun cost/benefit memo) could not get to the jury, and the
jury found Ford not guilty.
We called up Cosentino and asked him if he would
consider criminally prosecuting either Ford or Firestone today. He said
the situation has yet to present itself.
E. Michael McCann, the district attorney in Milwaukee
County, knows that he will launch a criminal homicide investigation if
the situation presents itself. He has called on the county medical
examiner to search whether any recent death in Milwaukee County has been
linked to a Firestone tire tread separation. McCann has a track record
of criminally prosecuting corporations for reckless homicide. He
currently has an investigation open into the deaths of three workers who
died in a crane collapse during construction at the new Milwaukee
Brewers ballpark.
But the list of prosecutors with sufficient resources
and courage to take on America�s most powerful corporations is short.
The families of victims need to approach their local prosecutors and
demand they open criminal homicide investigations now. (If they need
advice, they should give a call to McCann or Cosentino.)
The New York Times ran a long investigative
article by Keith Bradsher. Bradsher concludes that the story of the
Firestone tire debacle is one of "missed hints and lost
opportunities." That it might have been. But it also might be one
of corporate crime and violence.
And maybe even homicide. It�s time we found out.
(Russell Mokhiber, editor of the Washington,
D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter, and Robert Weissman, editor of the
Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor, are co-authors of
"Corporate Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on
Democracy.")
|