“Legal and Ethical Analysis of the Ford Pinto” For mankind communication has been a very important issue and with that transportation has also rose to prominence. Not so long ago we were aided by a new invention due to the innovation of a few workaholics and the automobile industry. Along with the Japanese rivals Ford is one of leading companies in the world and run by a family, which controls the major shares in the company. But the company’s fate and history has not been free of controversy and this case mainly deals with one of those. Late part of 60s and early part of 70s was a period in which the American industry was facing stiff competition from the Japanese companies and in order to counter that they needed to come up with compact and cheaper cars. With General Motors as the market leader Ford was the second best and was concentrating on areas let off by GM. Since there were only four major players the market was somewhat oligopolistic in nature. Ford’s model of Pinto was a smash hit in terms of price and mileage for customers and till then there was not much of a regulation because even governments did not want to temper much with a 100 billion dollar plus industry. But soon after National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Environment Protection Agency (EPA) began to play their parts. Section 301 required cars to be made in such a safe manner that in case of a crash from the rear the leakage should be minimum. Although Ford had conducted enough of research but the design flaw in Pinto was that the fuel tank was near rear axle and the bladder pipe could cause leakages way beyond what was sanctioned. Plus they were also affected by external hot or cold temperatures. Calling the cars rolling on the road ... ... middle of paper ... ...moves on their own they would have earned more clients rather than lose them to competitors over fear of life. It should have been approached more coaxingly and convincingly but they illustrated that for them harvesting the cash cow was more important than safeguarding it and they lost out in the end ultimately because of a minor blunder. Ethically this is a clear open and shut case. The guilty party was the company and for their neglect they did pay. Not too dearly in terms of repair costs but they did tarnish the image and did lose out the position that they were sitting on and have not recovered since from that dilemma. Right thing to do would have been to do the repair work before the news broke through a magazine. But letting it all going to the end showed a weak character on the part of the management and in turn they lost more than just a running brand line.
I think this unfortunate circumstance has made organizations look close into the products and services they offer. No one wants to clean up a mess that could be easily avoided. Even if they do it as a marketing plan that was found out by the public, it would prove to bring about a negative view of the firm. Also, I think it also stresses how companies influence society and how important it is for them to be responsible.
This design defect, however, does not mean that the plaintiff is awarded since the design defect was not the proximate cause of injury for Cheyenne. Due to Gordon’s modification of the seat belt, Ford is not liable for the injuries that Cheyenne suffered. Stark ex. rel. Jacobsen v. Ford Motor Co., 365 N.C. 468, 472, 723 S.E.2d 753, 756 (2012). The evidence supports the idea that her spinal cord injury was a direct result of placing the seat belt behind her back. Preemption as a theory that would bar the Starks from recovering does not apply in this case, since the federal government’s regulations do not make manufacturers immune to design defect claims. Stark’s claims of inadequate warnings likewise do not apply since the misuse of the product, it’s alteration, is the proximate cause of injury. Had the modification of the seat belt not been the proximate cause of injury, and instead a contributing factor, the court might have decided that Stark was only twenty percent responsible for the injury that occurred. This amount of contributory negligence would not have barred them from recovering, according to Indiana Statutes, and Ford would have been liable for the
I can recall when my older sister in the 70’s had purchased a shiny new Ford Pinto and pulled it into the driveway. She used at that time what she thought was her best judgment along with an economical price but only to be succumbed by our Dad when he realized what she purchased. Ford Motor Company in the late 60’s were being overtaken by other countries car manufactures in the subcompact market. The Volkswagen Beetle was still formidable, and the VW Rabbit was on the drawing board. Datsun and Toyota were readying new models. Honda was preparing to change the nature of the competition with its Civic. (Lee Iacocca 's Pinto: A Fiery Failure) It would be 10 years later that Henry Ford II, Ford Motor Co. Chairman would fire the person who ultimately
...et without adequate safe guards does not responsibly meet the needs of consumers’” (1). This irresponsible behavior on behalf of the government further proves that they are acting unethically when they change the gasoline blend used by the public without properly informing them.
The reason I chose to write about this company McDonnell Douglas is because I felt that what they did was appalling and demonic. They dehumanized the passengers and only seen profit margins. One may say that McDonnell Douglas imps did not know the meaning of the word “solidarity”: Solidarity is a principle of Catholic Social Teaching. This principle means the firm and preserving determination to commit oneself to the common good. This principle incorporates other principles like Human Dignity, Community, Common Good, Stewardship, and Option for the Poor, that is what we are to demonstrate in our actions. This principle does not always come into play with many corporations; Furthermore when things like this come into play, one may say that a company is participating in unethical business practice. This is the reason why an American commercial aircraft industry company named McDonnell Douglas failed to reach their full potential in designing aircrafts. Their lack of ethical appropriate behavior has shown many that the expense of a change of a product is more important than losing lives over something that could have been prevented. There are three ways this situation could have been avoided but yet was not: First, finding an ethical way of putting the consumer long term goals first and increasing profitability (ex. maintaining a good company image). Secondly, look at the short term effect of being unethical, and receiving high profitability and long-term effect of being caught and having to file bankruptcy finally; McDonnell Douglas has an ethical responsibility for the lives of the people who use their product. McDonnell Douglas had a responsibility to the people to provide them a quick trouble free flight to and from their chosen...
When we consider the case of the Ford Pinto, and its relative controversy, through the varied scope of ethical viewpoints, the results might surprise us. From a personal standpoint, as a consumer, the idea of selling a vehicle to the masses with such a potentially devastating flaw is completely unethical. When we consider the case from other directions and other ethical viewpoints, however, it makes it clear that often ethics are a matter of perspective and philosophy. It’s also clear that there are cases where more information will muddy the waters, rather than clear them.
In my point of view, every choice has consequences. General Motors ignition switch issue has affected many families in U.S., took lives, and caused injuries to many people. Replacing the part after a decade passed will prevent future accidents from happening; however it will not replace the pain and suffrage of people who lost their loved ones. Bad decision-making, poor professional conduct and dishonesty cost GM millions of dollars. Choosing company’s financial budget over lives of innocent people is wrong. No matter how much money GM will spend on replacing the ignitions, compensating the families, going through lawsuits those lives cannot be restored. Following duty-driven ethics would have prevented the disaster from taking place.
In the case of Kolchek suing to recover for Litisha’s injuries, she can sure under the negligence liability. Every product should be fully tested in every way possible to see if the product functions correctly and will it injure individuals. There should not have been a whole that is not covered. Like stated in our book The Legal Environment of Business, “if a manufacture fails to exercise “due care” to make a product safe, a person who is injured by the product may sue the manufacture for negligence”. Kolchek could sue the manufacture. In this case which is Great Lakes spa. Porter was just a company that was selling the product. Great Lakes spa should have taken the initiative to examine their products throughly before putting it out on the make for individuals to buy. Like in our book The Legal Environment of Business stated, “A manufacture, seller, or lesser is liable for failure to exercise due care to any person who sustains an injury proximately caused by a negligently made (defective) product.”
Henry Ford was one of the principle illustrators of Scientific Management. He revolutionized the concept of mass production and changed the world by developing new, innovative business practices that enhanced efficiency and productivity. He created a manufacturing model that marked an era and led industrial manufacturing to continuously grow around the world, a model that is known as Fordism. Fordism brought success and innovation, not only to the whole American manufacturing industry, but also all over the world between the years 1903 and 1926 (Smith, 2011). However, these practices were not always as perfect, as there are many drawbacks within his practices that influenced both Ford Motor Company and the motor industry as a whole, which brought
This paper will illustrate the moral, social, and factual implications of the Volkswagen scandal regarding the case dealing with emission standards of the diesel Volkswagen vehicles. The reader should note that this analysis will be given from two different philosophical points of view. Namely from the Kantian and Rule-Utilitarian perspective. The paper will attempt to demonstrate the moral implications of the case at hand, and how this applies to Mr. James Liang’s actions. As the reader may know Mr. James Liang worked for the Volkswagen Company for more than 30 years. He and his colleagues worked on creating a low emission diesel engine. In the course of this project, it became apparent that the emission goal could not be achieved with respect
In 2014, researchers from West Virginia found out that recent models of Volkswagen vehicles were emitting up to 40 times the allowed levels of nitrogen oxides (2). These vehicles had a special software that would determine when the vehicle was in laboratory testing conditions, and the software would then alter the vehicle 's functionality to emit the legal amount of nitrogen oxides allowed by the EPA. The software was found in around half a million vehicles in the United States. In addition to the bad publicity, the Volkswagen scandal will cost the company at least $15.3 billion dollars in compensation to the owners of the affected vehicles (3). In 2016, Volkswagen engineer James Liang pleaded guilty for being a crucial part in developing the illegal software (3). The software was created because Volkswagen was unable to meet the rigorous EPA emission standards. Therefore, a small team of engineers including James Liang decided to cheat the emission exams to allow Volkswagen vehicles to be sold in the U.S.
The majority of people, especially in America, cannot go about their daily lives without a car. Automobiles have instilled themselves in peoples’ lives and shown their usefulness since their debut in 1769. Since then, humans have redesigned and refined the automobile thousands of times, each time making the vehicle more efficient and economical than before. Now as the world approaches an ethical decision to dwarf all others, many people look toward automotives for yet another change. The emergence of the hypercar due to ecological turmoil exemplifies the change the world has demanded. Hypercars alter everything people know about automotives, modern ecology, and fuel efficiency. Not only do hypercars offer a solution to many ecological problems humans are faced with now, they also represent the only logical area for the automotive industry, and by some stretch American society, to expand.
Henry Ford II, CEO of the Ford Corporation, was creating a competitive automobile to rival the foreign vehicles, he labeled the project a high priority. To launch the design and manufacturing of this automobile, Mr. Ford turned to his company president, Lido Anthony Iacocca aka “Lee: the father of the mustang”. The Fords Engineers staff, pressured by the upper management were rushed into completing the project at a unheard speed. The average time scale, to designed and produce a car, would take between 40 to 45 months. The Ford Corporation achieved it in 25. After performing rear collation test, the Fords Engineers discovered that in nearly all rear collision above 20 MPH would indicate that the gas tank would get puncture with the rear end differential placement bolts. This would allow for fuel to leak out and potentially burst into flames. The passengers will typically die in the flames due to the jamming of the doors, not letting the persons escape from the car. Iacocca had three possible courses of action he could of taken: 1.release the pinto 2.pay the 11$ to fix the car issue 3. Wait till the car was well design so their would be the least flaws. If I were the one to decide what would of happened using the particularism approach: I would have to see that if I release the pinto there would be deaths involved due to the fact that the car was explosive, if I fix the car paying only 11$ I would have got more profits due to the fact that
This case depicts about the success stories of the collaboration in the automobile industry by the Japanese and US firm though they were obviously competitors. One significant success story emerging from the alliance involves Ford probe and Mazda MX-6. There were swapping of resources and capabilities between the two firms. Mazda designers design the basic platform, engine and drive train for the cars. Mazda then design the outside of the MX-6 and Ford does same for the probe. Finally both cars are assembled at a factory owned by the two firms. Ford escort was another successful offspring of the alliance where again the Mazda engineers designed the car and Ford made it. But the alliance was not without spots. Mazda Navaho one of the offspring of the alliance which was basically build upon the on of the Ford popular product Ford explorer and build by the Ford makers. Ford made an opposite step by denying to provide the Japanese partners Navaho production to continue production of its own product line. The partner Mazda in addition fell into financial distress and Ford got the effective management control of Mazda and took some bold steps which eventually went against the collaboration.
The decline in Profit margin in 2014 was because of their less revenue in the North American market where they make good margins with their larger vehicles as shown in Figure