Ethical Cases Of The Ford Pinto

The moral issues about the Ford Pinto is that they take their profit is more important than human life. They also did not inform the consumer about the facts of the Pinto. Lastly, they also lobbied the safety of the car to lowest standard (Shaw, Barry & Sansbury 2009, pp 97-99).

You have to consider the Ford Motor Company’s reputation after they made the decision to not recall the Ford Pinto to

The customers (drivers of Ford) are the number one stakeholders that lost the most. They might not have lost much money or reputations, but they lost the one thing that you can never get back, their life.

There are many different cases where people have been critically injured or have died from burn-related injuries from the ruptured the Pino gas tank. This case study specifically discusses the 1978 untimely deaths of Lynn Marie Ulrich, Dana Ulrich, and Judy Ann. Between 1971 and 1978, the Pinto was responsible for a number of fire-related deaths. It was the death of these teenagers that lead brought the controversy of the Ford Pinto’s faulty gas tank placement to a climax resulting in criminal homicide charges for the automaker. Ford’s CEO Henry Ford II and Ford’s new president Lee Iacocca were responsible for the launch of the Ford Pinto. To stay ahead of the growing competition, The Pinto was not to weigh over 2,000 pounds and not costs not to exceed $2,000. Ford officials knew that the Pinto represented a serious fire issue when struck from the rear, but were desperate to expedite the vehicle’s release, the Pintos timing was set just under 25 months. Tooling has already been kicked off, so when crash tests revealed a serious defect in the gas tank, it was too late for any design modifications. The tooling was well underway. Therefore, Ford’s president decided it would be too costly to make changes in the Pinto’s gas tank location pushing ahead with the original design which went unchanged for six years. Any changes to the low-cost Ford Pinto would result in an increased price, thus possibly making it less desirable by small car buyers. Iacocca understood that people shopping for compact cars were watching every dollar, One Ford engineer explained, “the process of elasticity on these subcompacts is extremely tight. You can price yourself right out of the market by adding $25 to the production cost of the model”.

Indubitably, the company wronged the consumers and passengers by violating their rights to not be killed in a car fire and their right to minimal health

Ford executives were under a great deal of pressure to produce a smaller, more gas efficient automobile. Japanese and German automobile sales were rapidly increasing. These competitive forces drove Ford’s executive team to respond by rushing the design process of the Ford Pinto. By 1973, the Pinto was well into production when engineers discovered a flaw in the gas tank, which was located just under the rear bumper. They discovered that if the vehicle suffered a rear-end collision over 20 mph, the gas tank could break and spill gasoline into the passenger compartment, potentially resulting in a fire. The remedy for the flaw was a part that cost $11.00 per vehicle. Executives at Ford knew the company had followed all safety standards and regulations. At that time, automobile safety standards only needed gas tanks to withstand a collision under 20 mph. An internal cost-benefit analysis revealed the costs would be substantially higher to fix the design flaw that the costs associated with any potential damages due to collisions and loss of life. The public remained unaware until Mother Jones journalist, Mark Dowie broke the story in 1977. Fueled by the media, what followed was a frenzy of public outcry and court trials.

The Elkhart County Grand Jury took up the matter and filed a charge of criminal homicide against Ford, the Automobile American Corporation that designed the Pinto car models. According to Elkhart County Grand prosecutor, Michael A. Cosentino, Ford was guilty of reckless homicide, because the company committed a conscious, plain, and unjustifiable neglect of harm that positioned the gas tank in the rear end of the car without proven protection. Besides, Ford engaged in negligence and substantial deviation from the acceptable standards of conduct. The major focus of the case entailed the expanding and assessment of acceptable standards the company violated in the process of manufacture of Pinto cars.

It is difficult to evaluate Mr. Gioia’s decision in the Pinto fire cases because of how he presents himself in his book. He reminds me of kids who are trying to find their identity. I interpret the way he wrote his book as a way to separate himself from one of the horrendous practice in the automotive industries, because he plays no part in allowing the issue to continue. I don’t believe he actually admit that he made a mistake. This is great beginning of this paper.

Ford has argued for over three decades that The Ford Motor Company is not at fault, but rather the other motorists who happened to rear end the Pinto drivers. Many accuse Ford of rushing the Pinto into production without proper testing leaving a faulty

The legal issue is: Should Ford Motor Company be liable for the car accident of it’s Ford Pinto which caused fatal burns to Lilly Gray and permanent burn injuries to Richard Grimshaw? Should Ford Motor Company pay historical punitive damages because of the car defects that the senior management was knowledgeable of before pushing it into the consumer market?

Company in the early 1970s when the company decided not to recall the Pinto despite dangerous

In Canada, individual regulating bodies are in place to licence and regulate practitioners in their respective professions. It is in the public’s best interest that these professionals are knowledgeable and driven to progress society in a responsible manner. This includes acting in an ethical manner that aligns with the personal and corporate standards expected of members in a particular profession. The Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) is in place to regulate such behavior among engineers and protect the common interest of the Ontario community. At the end of this paper it will be evident that public welfare is paramount. This will be shown by how it ought to be enforced under the PEO, and how failure of the Ford Pinto was fueled by

I think Pinto case raised some serious issue of abusing human rights and not behaving ethically in the world of business. Any business/service should never ever put a value on human life and not take consideration of a known deadly danger. Ford had an option as well as the solution to design the car in a way that prevented cars from exploding; however they refused to implement it.   They thought that it was cost effective not to fix dangerous condition than to spend the money to save people in spite of the fact that the only added cost was $ 11 per vehicle.

General Motors was founded by William Durant on September 16, 1908. At its inception, GM owned only the Buick Motor Company, but acquired Oldsmobile, Cadillac and Pontiac within ten years of its formation. Demand for automobiles heightened between 1910-1929, allowing General Motors to set the standard for production, design and marketing innovation. GM diversified their selection and opened more than a dozen new plants outside of the United States. In 1927, the head of GM's design studio, Harley Earl, designed the LaSalle which marked the beginning of true automotive design as it was far less boxy than the Ford Model T. "In 1940, former GM President William Knudesen was chosen by President Roosevelt as Chairman

One of the biggest automotive news stories in the latter part of the 1970’s dealt with tales of exploding Ford Pintos and the considerable awards civil court juries were presenting to victims of accidents involving the cars.