How do people who claim the free market solves all problems explain the Ford Pinto case?

Ford purposefully used an engine in a car known to have a high risk of exploding and killing the driver despite having a better engine because they did a cost-benefit analysis and found that using the cheaper engine would outweigh the cost of any legal fees due to people harmed from the dangerous engine.

"Although Ford had access to a new design which would decrease the possibility of the Ford Pinto from exploding, the company chose not to implement the design… The company defended itself on the grounds that it used the accepted risk/benefit analysis to determine if the monetary costs of making the change were greater than the societal benefit… This risk/benefit analysis was created out of the development of product liability, culminating at Judge Learned Hand's BPL formula, where if the expected harm exceeded the cost to take the precaution, then the company must take the precaution, whereas if the cost was liable, then it did not have to."

https://users.wfu.edu/palmitar/Law&Valuation/Papers/1999/Leggett-pinto.html

Free market in America is forcing the competition to close or imposing tarrifs. That way, you can force people to buy inferior products.

It wasn't the engine. It was the gas tank that exploded on rear impact.

Corporations always place a dollar value on life. The lower class are chattel to the rich and corporations.

This is a question about legal principles. It has nothing to do with free market principles. In a free market, you can buy the safest car you can find among all the competing alternatives, and you can also incorporate a new car company to bring an even safer car to market if you think people want that.

The engine was fine. The problem was the location of the gas tank.

I don't know of anyone who thinks the free market resolves all problems. It wasn't the engines anyway, it was the gas tanks.