Comm 101

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.

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?

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”.

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.

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?

Under current Ford leadership the production cycle was cut down from 43 months to 25 months. This would be the gap closer needed in order to keep up profits. This led to some design oversights in placement of components like the gas tank. In the 1971 Ford Pinto the gas tank was located directly behind the bumper of the car . By the time Ford had discovered the flaw in the gas tank placement the equipment was already created and now they were stuck with what was originally set up. The Pinto was designed around the 2000 pounds and under $2000

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.

Option one was to use the Ford Capri’s tank design that sat above the rear axle in a safe location that was also utilized in Ford’s experimental safety vehicle that could withstand 60 mph rear end collisions (Class Handout). Option two called for reinforcement around the filler to prevent tearing, along with a tank shield that stopped punctures. Due to the Pinto’s short conception to production window the engineers were reluctant to go and tell Lee about the setback. One engineers response to being ask about telling Lee was, “Hell no. That person would have been fired. Safety wasn’t a popular subject around Ford in those days. Whenever a problem was raised that meant a delay on the pinto, Lee would chomp on his cigar, look out the window and say ‘Read the project objectives and get back to work” (Class Handout). The project objectives are a step-by-step plan for the model and in the Pinto’s case; safety was not mentioned once (Class Handout). This put the engineers in a very tough position because one of the main ethical responsibilities of an engineer is to protect the welfare of the

No, individuals cannot make the decision of the right, ethical, decision. The stakeholders of company are greedy and are after profit. Company is not honest with customers and hides the defects of tank. Ford action caused in negative outcomes where customers put in harm ways that lost their lives.

The fire and explosion risk that could occur even during low speed rear-end impact was reported, however, Ford made the decision to continue with the original design. It seemsFord officials made their decision to continue with the original design of the Pinto firstly, due to the spedup production schedule and any changes would mean retooling of the production line, which would addanother year to the schedule. Secondly, they conducted a cost-benefit analysis where they calculated thevalue of human life at $200, 000, a serious burn injury at $67, 000 and estimated deaths of 180 people andserious burns to 180 people. They determined that the reworked gas tank on the Pinto would cost $137million while possible liability cost could work out to be $49 million. Ford decided it would be more profitable to produce the Pinto with the defect rather than correct the flaw. The results was numerous preventable deaths, serious fire related injuries or damages and ³approximately fifty lawsuits were brought against Ford in connection with the rear-end accidents in the Pinto,´

I would suspect that few if any of the executives involved in the Pinto decision believed that they were making an unethical choice when they decided to continue with production. The leaders made their decision based purely as a business decision rather than an ethical one.

The CBA itself did not force Ford to act unethically, their greed and their sole priority to avoid extra cost even if it meant the loss of a human life drove them to an unethical decision. Ford faced a simple problem, do they fix the Pinto or do they kill innocent people. Sadly, they preferred the money saving option, which was to ignore the defect and to pay compensates to effected families and loved ones. The company defended their decision using the CBA model as if they were legally exonerated from any penalties due to their actions. Fortunately, the jury did not see it as if their decision was justifiable even if the method to evaluate the decision

The uncertainty of where the burden of responsibility begins and ends within the consumer and manufacturer relationship has continued to fuel many moral controversies. In a free enterprise system, where government regulation is limited, it is critical to examine this issue as billions of transactions are occurring daily and in some extreme cases become deadly. An instance of this can be illustrated in the Ford Explorer Rollover lawsuit. Although there have been several theories to explain this complex relationship, the Due Care theory is the most superior. I will begin by analysing the Ford Explorer case with the Due Care theory and identify where the manufacturers violated their duties. I will than explain why manufacturers