GM.

When corporate profits come up against product recalls--especially for defects that prove deadly--why are so many companies choosing to let people die?

In its ongoing scandal, executives with GM chose not to fix a deadly defect in its ignition switches. They've done it before.

In 1973, a cost-benefit analysis by GM concluded it was cheaper to pay jury awards than to eliminate fuel-fed fires. Then, GM hid the analysis from judges, juries, and the public.

Decades later, a Ft. Lauderdale jury finally saw the cost analysis and ordered GM to pay $60 million. With verdicts like that, why are GM and so many other companies still doing it? Testimony by a GM engineer in the Ft. Lauderdale trial revealed that GM saved almost $1 billion by not adding a safety device to just the cars he worked on. It was cheaper to pay verdicts than fix the cause of the fires.

The Constitution used to provide a solution by ensuring trials with juries were free to impose punitive fines for such behavior. Things have changed. Corporations now use a legal strategy pioneered by Big Tobacco, taking...