Ford pinto case study answers
Others feel they are an example of runaway media coverage blowing a story out of proportion. There were several options for fuel system redesign. Suppose Ford officials were asked to justify their decision. This new standard was not just a flat decision of whether an actor used due care in a situation, but whether the actor should have recognized the danger before taking the risk.
However, he discussed the "duty to adopt all reasonable precautions. In addition, lobbying the NHTSA to delay the safety measure of the products is also one of the moral issues that Ford Pinto case raises. Ford thought they could get away with a dangerous automobile by paying off those lawsuits from people who were injured and the families of the dead.
Was ford to blame in the pinto case
In the early s the courts evolved from just determining if an accident were unavoidable as most at this point were considered to be to what the costs were to avoid this accident in some fashion. Identify relevant obligations. First, it is well developed through existing case law. Internal Ford documents revealed Ford had developed the technology to make improvements to the design of the Pinto that would dramatically decrease the chance of a Pinto "igniting" after a rear-end collision. Ford had claimed that the strict cost-benefit analysis was made based on the statistics information provided by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NHTSA , an organization of the federal government. As technology progressed, courts began to find less and less accidents "unavoidable. The "BPL" Formula With the evolution of the negligence standard incorporating risks and costs, courts sought a middle ground that would not leave defendants open for unreasonable liability suits but which also would not leave victims uncompensated when damages had occurred. In the end, the risk-utility's primary duty is to establish a threshold of acceptable risk that every good must equal or exceed, a threshold that can rise with changing social and commercial experience. Highway Check your gut. A tug, the "Carroll," owned by the Carroll Towing Company attempted to move from one barge in the same area to another. The higher management which includes Lee Iacocca was informed prior to production about the defect of the rear-end gas line of the Pinto. During this time, the "Anna C" broke away from the pier and floated down the river where it collided with a tanker and sank. I think Pinto case raised some serious issue of abusing human rights and not behaving ethically in the world of business. Due to the high volume of sale and profitability Ford was willing to spend millions to settle possible damages and lobbied against the safety standards.
Many online surveys and work at home opportunities use this unethical marketing technique. In past cases, courts had difficulty in this area. Standard had been strenuously opposed by the auto industry, and specifically Ford Motor Co.
Based on this analysis, Ford legally chose not to make the design changes which would have made the Pinto safer.
Ford did eleven crash tests of the Pinto and discovered that eight of the eleven leaked fuel, however three Pintos did not. Eventually, as industry rapidly advanced further, it became impossible and unreasonable to describe any accident as unavoidable.
based on 20 review