4 ms·
I think the Bookout v. Toyota case is a pretty good example of how culpability alone is an insufficient motivator and how an add process (e.g. external audit) c
by cptskippy 11y ago
I think the Bookout v. Toyota case is a pretty good example of how culpability alone is an insufficient motivator and how an add process (e.g. external audit) could have prevented a tragedy.
Michael Barr's review of Toyota's ECU code (http://www.safetyresearch.net/Library/BarrSlides_FINAL_SCRUBBED.pdf http://www.safetyresearch.net/Library/BarrSlides_FINAL_SCRUB...) showed numerous compliance issues with established industry best practices (80,000 violations of MISRA-C) and failure to even follow Toyota's much laxer internal coding standards (32% rule violation). Toyota shipped uncertified versions of their code and the design and behavior of that code prevented defect detection.
- patsplat 11y agoExternal audits meant nothing with Enron. Criminal liability is the key.
- JoBrad 11y agoI agree. The US legal system has historically been way more lenient on financial companies than automobile companies. In the case of Enron, they had a lot of financial incentive for their actions, with only the prospect of a few fines as the expected downside. I don't see that being the case for GM, Toyota, etc.
- tomtang0514 11y agoBecause they're slightly different cases considering how they begin. The GM and Toyota cases are that they screwed up. They failed to design a safe system. Meanwhile this VW case and those financial cases are that they designed the system intentionally to screw up other people. It's like accidental homicide vs murder.