Ford Vs Pinto Case

Ford would rather take the cost of the Pinto’s design error to a court decision than admit it cost a certain amount of compensation for injuries or deaths. “In Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 119 Cal. App. 3d 757 (4th Dist. 1981) [1], the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District reviewed Ford's conduct in painstaking detail, and upheld compensatory damages of $2.5 million and punitive damages of $3.5 million against Ford.” Each incident had a consequence, they were considering the cost of the company in choosing the cheap way out. Dell chose goodwill because of no major damages done, but put the majority blame on Sony. Ford is willing to take the cost of lawsuits as opposed to negotiating the value because it sets a standard payment amount. Ford is admitting a no

White Collar Crime, known by many as a form of crime that is greatly overlooked throughout the criminal justice system, has proven itself time and time again to be just as dangerous and damaging to those affected as all other crimes combined. There have been many cases throughout our nation’s past that have not only scarred, but ended hundreds of lives as a result of White Collar Crime. One in particular, is the popularly known Ford Pinto Case. The constant want for more, more money, more product, more success, by many top corporation leaders throughout the United States, has resulted in deathly consequences, in which those responsible receive very little repercussions for. In pursuit for these great things, Ford Motor Company was willing to anything necessary to remain at the top of the auto industry. As stated in the article, Case: The Ford Pinto, throughout Detroit, home of Ford Motor Company, worry had quickly turned to panic as Japanese and German subcompact vehicles began to take over the market (Shaw & Berry, 2001). Due to Ford’s relentless desire to stay competitive with the many other successful car companies throughout the world, the decision was made to create the Ford Pinto, in hopes of giving them the edge they needed. Little did buyers know, the creation of this vehicle would be the cause of several deaths and injuries as a result of Ford Motor Company’s willingness to do anything necessary in order to generate more revenue

There are a few concerns about harmful behavior of the FMC that should be discussed. A behavior is harmful when it wrongfully sets back the interest of others and has a high risk of harm. Obviously, the gravity of harm in this case is very high being that it is life threatening. Once a consumer has purchased the Pinto and drives it off the lot he is at risk to getting rear ended, and burned to death by a car fire or explosion. Since the weight of this harm is very severe, the low probability of the consumer having an accident doesn’t discount Ford’s unethical behavior. Indeed, driving a Ford Pinto would place a consumer’s life at risk. Also at stake are the interests of Pinto passengers and drivers of other vehicles who certainly are not willing to risk their lives so Ford can make an extra buck. Everyone has an interest in not getting injured or killed. Setting back the interest of consumers isn’t the only thing Ford Motor Company was responsible for.

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 means were limited design time and reducing costs. By cutting costs, Ford knowingly created a product which could prove dangerous and fatal to its consumers. Does Ford’s ends justify its means? Ford did create a sub-compact that sold extremely well and competed fiercely with foreign imports. The goal of the Ford Pinto was met. The costs of this win were substantial however. The money that Ford tried to save by not recalling the vehicle was spent when Ford recalled the Pinto, and extra was spent in compensatory and punitive damages in lawsuits. So the costs that Ford tried to avoid were incurred anyway along with extra.

1. Suggest how Ford could have done a better utilitarian analysis? Ford's utilitarian analysis of the cost/benefits is certainly interesting. Ford recognized that if they fixed the part, it would cost $137m of suffering for Pinto drivers; on the other hand, only cost $49m if they left the part as is - with less people being affected.

From a utilitarian theory, the Ford Motor Company focus on damage arising from this decision of money and nothing else. Money is seen as value by the Ford Motor Company, so by losing money by law suites and protecting the Ford Motor Company employees outweigh the collateral damage the Ford Pintos line up imposes. Jeremy Bentham brings to light the pleasure and pain aspect of what the decision would bring. In this case the Ford Motor Company expresses that the money saved from the recall brings more pleasure to the most amount of people. The money being saved is obviously from not installing the baffle between the gas tank and rear bumper. The consumer will also save money by the Ford Motor Company not issuing a recall. If the Ford Motor Company issued a recall, then the price of the Ford Pinto would be more than what was stated thus maybe making it not comparable to other cars in its class. You must also consider the pain that this decision creates. Because the Ford Motor Company refused to issue a recall to install the baffle between the gas tank and the bumper, it has created pain and suffering to those who were affected by rear-end collision injuries.

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

Ford was not in violation of the law in any way and had to make the decision whether to incur a cost to fix the obvious problem internally. There were several options for the fuel system redesign. The option most seriously considered would have cost Ford an additional $11 per vehicle. Under the strict $2000 budget restriction, even this nominal cost seemed large. In addition, Ford had earlier based an advertising campaign on safety, which failed miserably. Therefore, there was a corporate belief, attributed to Lee Iacocca himself, of “safety doesn’t sell”. (2)

Utilitarian Analysis of the Ford Pinto Case In the 1970’s, Ford was forced to come up with a strategy in order to remain relative in the competitive auto manufacturers market that was being overrun with Japanese imports. The Pinto was Ford’s answer to this impending problem and allowed Ford to bring an affordable product to consumers that was not only easy to produce, but cost effective as well. The Ford Pinto case lead to a very controversial moment is Ford’s history that left quite a scar on its reputation.

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.

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.

Yes, cost-benefit is a legitimate tool. “Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) estimates and totals up the equivalent money value of the benefits and costs to the community of projects to establish whether they are worthwhile” (An Introduction to Cost Benefit Analysis). But cost benefit analysis is just for calculating the benefit of the company, in a mathematical way. It shouldn’t play in moral deliberation, there is no way to calculate human life or we can say as the potential that human have. We also can see that there is unsatisfactory about the cost-benefit analysis simply by measuring only the benefits of Ford it’s own. In this case, cost-benefit analysis should improve by adding other stakeholder benefit to produce a “win-win”

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.

Cost-benefit analysis is a legitimate tool, by using the lowest cost to obtain the biggest profit out of it. However, it is unacceptable to sacrifice human life in exchange of paying a lower production costs. Before they made any decision, they should hold an ethical meeting about the improvement of fuel tank, if they would change their mind by paying more then people would not have to die.   In this case, I think Cost-benefit analysis should not be use in this case, because it is very unethical and inhumanity to determine a number of life that have to sacrifice, just because the unwillingness of Ford to pay more for the adjustments of fuel systems.