Case Study Of The Negligence Of Ford Company

The case in view put forward the negligence of two well-known corporate

The case in view puts forward the negligence of two well-known corporate companies that minimize the cost and time of production without measuring the consequences. These corporations had a moral duty to the customer, but looked beyond these duties and knowingly put a person's life at risk. In addition, jeopardise their own reputation and became the centre of man law suits due to carelessness in their product design. The Firestone tires on the ford explorer was one of the major caused of mishaps and fatalities due to the “tread separations” that triggered rollovers. However, Firestone is not alone to be blamed for the unfortunate outcomes because Ford management was worn

Moreover they should have tested and monitor the vehicle before it was launched with the tires to ensure it was as safe and reliable as it was marketed. In the end it the “social cost theory” was applied in full effect which cost them a price too high because the life of many innocent people was cut short and their reputation was ruined things that no amount of money can bring back. They didn’t took the necessary procedures to make known the dangers of the vehicle and avoid all the mishaps. It was Ford’s idea for firestone to produce the Ford tires and they needed to take full responsibility in ensuring a quality product perfectly design with minimal risk. Also, they should have not used “the same assembly line, the Twin-I-Beam as part of the new product and should have executed the Firestone recommendation of using 35-36 psi on its tires” or reconsider making new tires that would have performed more adequately regardless of the cost. Likewise, they should have further advised the buyer of any risk that could have arisen in any kind of condition such as the pressure of the tire and

Even though Firestone just did what they were asked for by Ford. It was evident that Firestone was involved in an unethical problem, just as Ford because Firestone agreed to provide the wrong information with Ford to their customers concerning the tire pressure when they were supposed to be the experts and should have done better. Also Firestone should have conduct the quality standard as Bridgestone recommended. Likewise, should conduct enough testing on the tires to ensure its excellent performance. Similarly, should have frankly created a tire campaign in order to create awareness and allowed the customer to be more cautions and decide whether they take the risk of continuing using them or not which would have relief them to a certain extent of the fault. A company that produces a product, has a duty to ensure that the product is restricted of harm and as safe as possible for customer use. It is important to keep in mind that Ford did more than simply sell the Firestone tires, they were the ones with the idea. Firestone followed the specifications of Ford in creating the tires. Nevertheless they were supposed to be the expert in tires and should have made sure to produce quality products regardless of Ford commands. The tires in this case were