The Ford Company and Pinto Case

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).

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.

No. Kant’s 2nd categorical imperatives stated that we need to treat humanity always an end and never as a means. (Shaw, Barry & Sansbury, 2009, pg77) According to the case, Ford did not put a human’s life as the first priority; in fact, they placed a monetary value on a human’s life. They are using the human life to determine whether their decision is profitable in the cost-benefit analysis which is against Kantianism.

All of the relevant facts discussed above lead to many ethical issues. Ford was aware of the problem with the gas tank leaking and could have changed it before others died from their mistakes. Putting a price value on a life to beat the Japanese in the small car market is unethical. Safety should be a company’s number one priority, not beating the completion. There was a legal issue of NHTSA and Ford. Ford was aware that the fuel tanks were not working correctly but did nothing to change it because the NHTSA, at the time, had no laws against it.

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”.

Finally, the third reason is a breach of warranty claim. The law implies a warranty by a manufacturer which places its product on the market that the product is reasonably fit for the ordinary purpose for which it was intended. If it is, in fact, defective and not reasonably fit to be used for its intended purpose, the warranty is breached. Ultimately, Nancy Denny won because the court found that defendant had, “breached its implied warranty of merchantability and that the breach was the proximate cause of Nancy Denny's injuries”. Ford may have avoided these liabilities had they marketed the vehicles manual towards off road only, or had they proved product safety was “reasonable” to drive in ordinary circumstances.

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.

Many companies have ethical decisions that need to be and sometimes those decisions can affect many individuals or just a few. Making ethical decisions may be placed solely on one person’s shoulders or it may be a decision that multiple individuals must be involved in. There are several ethical issues in the Richardson Drilling case that should be considered. For instance, bribery, purchasing substandard parts with lack of disclosure that causes injuries, and revealing sensitive information. One potential ethical concern that could arise has to do with ongoing health insurance and the employer’s responsibility.

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?

A similar ethical concept to Utilitarianism is that of Rawl’s Theory of Justice. Within his theories he states that for something to be both ethical and just it must not infringe on the basic rights and liberties of a person, nor give advantage to any one group but to all with positions and offers available to all equally. In reference to the Ford Pinto, the second statement is upheld. The Pinto being a relatively cheap car which was often a starter vehicle, and as long as a person had the funds and a driver’s license, they could own the vehicle. So the design process general design itself was both fair and ethical to Rawls when regarding the second of his two theories of justice. The first theory can be up to interpretation. The only rights or liberties that might have been infringed upon are those of safety

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

Ford did not approach the question of redesigning the gas tank to make the car safer versus waiting another year allowing the foreign market to dominate subcompact vehicles. Their goal was only to maximize profits. They did not into account the interests of their share holders and when they did come into consideration, they were analyzed against profits. One has nothing to do with the other. Their goal should not have been a race to make the most affordable subcompact car. Their focus should have been to make a subcompact car that was not only most affordable but also the safest subcompact. They were aware of the dangers associated with the rush production. It would have made a difference if the $11 savings had been passed on to the customers because they would've kept their reputation and integrity in tact and possibly gain customers who were not considering the vehicle. Any rational customer would not have chosen to save $11 to drive a car at the risk of dying. It is never appropriate to knowingly jeopardize people's lives. That is a criminal act. Their actions were socially irresponsible, ethically and morally wrong. They did not consider their own reputation nor did they consider that they represented America in the industry.