Ethical Review Of The 1971 Ford Pinto

The Ford automobile company began producing the Ford Pinto line up in 1968. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) at the time of the pinto production was Lee Iacocca. The reason for the decision to mass produce the pinto in a short amount of time is because American automobiles were losing market share to smaller Japanese imports. Lee Iacocca wanted his engineers to design and manufacture a compact car that weighed less than 2,000 pounds and cost less than 2,000 dollars. Because of this monumental task from Lee Iacocca, that meant the ford pinto automobile would have to be built within 25 months instead of the typical 43 months. There are many safety test that is mandated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration before a vehicle

6. What responsibilities to its customers do you think Ford had? What are the most important moral rights, if any, operating in the Pinto case?

In August of 1978 three teenage girls were driving a Ford Pinto and were struck from behind. The three girls died because the Ford Pinto’s fuel tank ruptured from the collision and burst into flames. There was a big debate about the safety of the Ford Pinto to its proneness to its fuel tank catching on fire in low-speed rear-end

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”.

Nancy Denny believed she was buying a Bronco II, which gave her the ability to switch between two-wheel and four wheel drive. According to the sales manual this feature would be appealing to women due to the vehicles’ ability to drive safer on snow and ice. Nancy Denny bought the vehicle due to the benefits of the four wheel drive and additionally, she had not interest in using the vehicle for off road purposes. It could be said that the information provided in the manual were somewhat misleading, especially for those not

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 Grand Jury initiated a case against Ford after a tragic accident occurred on 10th August 1978 along U.S. Highway 33 near Goshen, involving a 1973 Ford Pinto car that was struck from the rear by a van. On board of the 1973 Ford Pinto there were two sisters (Judy and Lynn Ulrich) and their cousin Donna Ulrich who succumbed to burnt injuries after Pinto’s gas tank ruptured and got into flames in the process.

On August 10, 1978 three young girls died in a 1973 Ford Pinto after being stuck from the rear by a driver in a van. The Ford Pinto was completely engulfed in flames and the accident resulted in the death of the three young girls. Today, the debate continues regarding whether or not The Ford Motor Company was responsible for this case and many other cases involving the Pinto bursting into flames resulting in disfigurement or death.

In 1972 a Ford Pinto, purchased six months prior, unexpectedly stalled on the freeway in California. The Pinto was hit from behind by a Ford Galaxy, erupting into flames instantly. The driver of the car, Lilly Gray, suffered from fatal burns and died a few days later in the hospital. The passenger, a 13-year old boy named Richard Grimshaw, was also severely injured from burns, which caused his face and body to be permanently disfigured.

Americans are known to be risk takers and capital makers. In the US it is possible to begin a business of humble means and expand it to grow into a model for people wanting to start a new business. This is the epitome of wealth and capitalism in the US. Capitalism in the US has no color and welcomes anyone willing to work hard, market a product and to bring it to fruition. Americans are said to be moved by their fear of failure and their greed for monetary success. Capitalism allows private ownership to inspire production of goods and allows the private owner to keep and track profits for what sells. This allows exclusive rights and patents to the production of modern technology and boosts the social economy.

The principal motivation of corporate executives and decision makers for committing organizationally-based business crimes is pure greed, whether it be for the benefit of the company or individual. Two cases come to mind. The first is the Ford Pinto fiasco of the 1970s and 1980s. Ford has a gas tank design flaw in the pinto that caused many horrific burn deaths and injuries. Instead of fixing the problem, the leaders of Ford decided to take the cheaper way out and pay injury and death claims instead. Greed caused the company to spend $49.5 million instead of ethically spending $137 million to fix the flaw (Afflitto, 2015).

In regards to the Ford Pinto case, I believe that the decision to stick to the original design was a selfish and morally wrong decision. Ford chose to endanger the lives of all their customers who bought the Ford Pinto out of greed. Though Ford was in danger of being beaten by foreign imports, it is much more important to keep the customers who buy your vehicles safe. Without loyal customer’s, Ford would not be the successful car company that it is, which should call for them to respect those who have helped them earn their success, their customers. It is also a better option to take on redesigns and alterations of vehicles if it means that the costumer’s can be assured that their vehicle is safe.

The assumption that ‘it’s easy to be ethical’ assumes that individuals automatically know that they are facing an ethical dilemma and that they should simply choose to do the right thing. But decision makers may not always recognize that they are facing a moral issue. Rarely do decisions come with waving red flags. Dennis Gioia was recall coordinator at Ford Motor

In this paper covering product liability, begins by looking at product liability as a whole. Product liability is at concern of both the user of the product and the manufacturer. To further define product liability the case of Ford’s Pinto brings into question why are manufacturer willing to not fix their product if it would save lives. Ford can be deemed as a company, at the time that had no concern for human life however during the era, many practices were very similar not by reason of a complete disregard for human safety yet is was more so the law is always changing and there just wasn’t strong protect for the consumer in the law. However not in all situations of product liability the manufacture is the ones at fault. Next is discussed on a case where the manufacture cannot be held accountable for injuries, even death and history plays a big factor is such cases. To understand were product liability came from it helps us see where the law is going. With new development in technology product liability will be directed to be viewed again and again. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). , 2016)

There was strong competition for Ford in the American small-car market from Volkswagen and several Japanese companies in the 1960’s. To fight the competition, Ford rushed its newest car the Pinto into production in much less time than is usually required to develop a car. The regular time to produce an automobile is 43 months but Ford took 25 months only (Satchi, L., 2005). 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, which would have cost $11 per car, even though it had done an analysis showing that the new design would result in 180 less deaths. The company defended itself on the grounds that