IN STATE V. FORD MOTOR CO. (1978) AN INDIANA GRAND JURY INDICTED THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY (FORD) FOR RECKLESSLY DESIGNING AND MANUFACTURING A 1973 PINTO AND ALLOWING THE VEHICLE TO REMAIN ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY. THE CAR'S DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE CAUSED IT TO EXPLODE UPON REAR-END IMPACT RESULTING IN ITS THREE OCCUPANTS' DEATHS. AMBIGUITY IN THE CONCEPT OF CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR HOMICIDE STEMS FROM DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COMMON LAW AND LEGISLATIVE DEFINITIONS OF HOMICIDE AND USE OF SUCH WORDS AS 'PERSON' AND 'HUMAN BEING,' WHICH HAVE DIFFERENT MEANINGS. COURTS HAVE TENDED TO RECOGNIZE THE CONCEPT OF CORPORATE HOMICIDE. THE MODEL PENAL CODE OF THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE WOULD SUBJECT A CORPORATION TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY IF A PARTICULAR STATUTE EXPRESSES LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO INCLUDE CORPORATIONS, IF THE ILLEGAL ACT IS DONE BY A CORPORATE AGENT, AND IF THE ACT IS DONE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CORPORATION. IN ADDITION, FAILURE TO CARRY OUT A LEGAL DUTY WOULD RESULT IN CORPORATE LIABILITY. THE INDIANA STATUTE ON RECKLESS HOMICIDE APPEARS TO BE LIMITED TO HUMANS, AS FORD SO ARGUED. NEVERTHELESS, THE INDIANA PENAL CODE'S STATEMENT THAT A CORPORATION MAY BE PROSECUTED FOR ANY OFFENSE, IMPLIES THE OPPOSITE. THE INDIANA TRIAL JUDGE ACCEPTED THIS LATTER VIEW AND THEREFORE SET A PRECEDENT WHICH, IF AFIRMED, COULD BE NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT, BECAUSE COURTS ARE LIKELY TO RELY HEAVILY ON CASE LAW UNTIL LEGISLATIVE AMBIGUITIES ARE RESOLVED. ADVANTAGES OF THE CONCEPT OF CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY APPEAR TO OUTWEIGH DISADVANTAGES. ACCEPTANCE OF THIS CONCEPT WILL PROMOTE PRODUCT SAFETY AND THEREBY DETER RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR CONSUMER SAFETY. FOOTNOTES INCLUDING REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (CFW)