Critical Legal Issues:
Was Ford negligent when designing the Ford Pinto knowing that the fuel system was not as safely designed as they were able to with the technology they had?
Where they also negligent by only running a very limited amount of tests by improperly inspecting the fuel system and coming up with ways to improve the system?
Is Ford liable under a strict liability claim as well?
Legal Rules:
The UCC makes the rules that constitute liability. Improper inspection can be filed against Ford because they have a duty to inspect their products for defects that can cause harm. They did inspect the Pinto but make necessary changes. Another legal rule that could gave been brought against Ford is the design defects liability. Manufactures have a duty to design their products to avoid reasonably foreseeable risks of harm. Strict liability under section 402A, American Law Institute. Under strict liability the seller must be engaged in the business of selling the product that harmed the plaintiff. The product must also be in defective condition when sold and be unreasonably dangerous because of that condition. The product must have also not been substantially modified by the plaintiff after the sale and the modifications contributed to the injury or other loss.
Observations:
Ford had known about the risks and continued to manufacture the Pinto without modification. They knew the fuel system was safe but met the standards at the time. They knew modifications would need to be done in future years were standards were going to change. Ford used a cost benefit analysis by changing the system or installing a new part to make the fuel system more effective. They placed a value on a life by using the economic loss to society standard. There is not a price tag you can place on a life so if modifications can be made to save a life it is generally the best alternative.
Conclusions:
I feel that Ford was being negligent by not changing their fuel system. They knew the results from their testing and what could result but they continued to produce cars so they could raise their profit margin. They also were just trying to get the most market share and dominate the market for subcompact cars. They were negligent by knowing there were design defects and also were negligent by knowing thru inspection that there were problems with the fuel system. I feel they were also negligent thru improper inspection. I do feel however they were not liable under strict liability because they sold the car and sellers did not make modifications that contributed to the injury. The car was not defective but had a poor design. It was dangerous but not unreasonably compared to other similar cars made about the same time. They also met the standards set by federal agencies at the time.
Ethical Case Analysis
Issues:
Did Ford respond in an ethical manner when it knew the risks of the Ford Pinto?
Did the NHTSA respond in an ethical manner after the facts they gathered to alert the public of the risks?
Did Ford act carelessly when doing their cost benefit analysis and not recall any vehicles until they knew they had to or face fines?
Did Ford exercise due care when and act morally negligent when they knew the unreasonable dangers to remain in the design of the Ford Pinto when consumers did not know about it and could not guard against it?
Evidence:
Ford decided to recall the Pinto too late. They had known the risks associated with selling it and decided to put the consumers at risk to make their profit margins higher and gain market share. They never recalled the vehicles to make them safer or implement the parts that were low cost and would improve the fuel system. Ford also assumed the amount of a life against what their cost would be not taking into consideration the real price of a human life or the amount of sales they may lose based on consumers that were upset that they lost a loved one.
NHTSA did not respond fast enough to the claims by consumers and allowed Ford to influence their decisions. They are a federal agency and look out for the well being of consumers and stopped their investigation after Ford put some pressure on them. They did not try to obtain some records on average leakage from an accident among car classes, they just assumed since they didn’t have enough information the car was fine and didn’t pursue it anymore.
Ford didn’t alert the public of the dangers and offer possible remedies for it. They also acted morally negligent by not abiding by the ethics of consumer production and marketing code. The duty to exercise due care was not done. Under this provision a car manufacturer would be morally negligent only if it had allowed unreasonable dangers to remain in the design of the car that consumers cannot be expected to know about or cannot guard against by taking their own precautionary measures. Consumers purchasing the Pinto didn’t know the dangers and could not take any precautionary measure unless they brought another type of car, which could cost more.
Assumptions:
Ford knew about the design defect and did not do anything immediately to change it. Ford needed to keep and eye on crashes and offer something to the effected families or people. NHTSA needed to take more action against Ford to make sure no further people were hurt and that the design was changed. NHTSA has an obligation to protect the public being a federal agency.
Ethical Alternatives:
Ford could have offered to replace or change the design for all consumers. They could have offered another model that was a safer car. A large settlement could have been offered to consumers that have experienced loss because of the Pinto and then offered to replace the fuel system with something safer before they were forced to or face a court decision in a battle against NHTSA. Ford could have voluntarily recalled the vehicles when the saw the danger. The best alternative from an ethical standpoint would have been to change the design of the car prior to starting production. They had questions about the fuel system prior to producing the cars. Ford could had the resources and patent to produce a better fuel system and make the Pinto a better car.
Judgment and Rational:
It was in Ford’s best interest to settle out of court and recall the vehicles. They could have faced large fines and large class action lawsuits. Ford could have also lost a lot of consumers because of a negative image they could have given. Ford also was given the opportunity to correct their mistake for a cost less than what it would have been if it had gone to court. It was not the consumers’ fault that they didn’t know the safety of the vehicle. They only had a responsibility to buy a vehicle that they liked and were able to afford. They trusted the standards set by the NHTSA since it was a federal agency. Ethically Ford took advantage of uneducated consumers that are relying on the federal agency that did not fully protect them.
