This in itself was an extremely unethical move by the company management team. They reasoned that these tragic results were acceptable by the same federal safety mandates that the company lobbyist’s fought for. Ford Motor Company knew that the federal government was making moves to introduce stricter safety standards for manufacturing automobiles. Under the leadership of Henry Ford II, the company’s lobbyist group went to work to delay the process, and guide the regulators the way the company saw fit. It was the Ford team that recommended, negotiated, and agreed to make safety related decisions on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis.
Grimshaw and Gray’s heirs sued Ford motor company based on theories of negligence and strict liability, alleging that the defendants knew from pre-manufacturing crash tests regarding the design flaws with the fuel system (Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company, 1981). Legal Analysis In order to remain competitive in the subcompact market, Ford began designing an automobile which ultimately became the Pinto. The Pinto project was a rush project and there were several design flaws (Ford Pinto, 2012, para. 1). The Ford Pinto had a questionable design from the beginning.
Ignore the Feedback Control Even though the similar situation happened in the prior mission (in the 13th and 16th mission of Columbia, the foam went undetected as well), the administration department of NASA were getting used to those situation which did not cause the serious damage to the shuttle that led to the disaster of the 28th mission of Columbia. Just like Diane Vaughan explained this phenomenon in her book as “normalization of deviance”. After analysis the disaster of shuttle Columbia, the main control failure which caused this disaster was NASA did not pay their attention on the small changes happen on the shuttle, because they ignored that small changes may accumulate and lead to the irretrievable disaster, just like the Space Shuttle Columbia
Ford Motor Company was knowingly making cheap Pinto cars that exploded upon rear end collisions. More than 180 people burned to death after the gas tank exploded and still Ford did not want to make any modifications to the Pinto. Ford’s current Mission statement reads, “Improve product and services to meet the customer needs, allowing the business to prosper and to provide a reasonable return for stockholders” (Ford’s Statement of Mission, Values and Guiding Principles). They believe that people are the source of strength, improvement, and teamwork are the core human values, and that products are the results of efforts and should be the best to serve customers worldwide. Profits are often the ultimate measure of how efficient we provide customer with the best products for her or his needs.
Consumers loved this sub-compact vehicle. Looking into the remarks of Mark Dowe from Pinto Madness, “he had put together the story printed here from data obtained for him by some very disaffected Ford engineers. The data suggested that the Pinto had been rushed into production without adequate testing; that it had a very vulnerable fuel system that would rupture with any rear-end collision; that even though the vulnerability was discovered before production, Ford had hurried the Pinto to the market anyway” (Treviño & Nelson, 2007, p. 292). If we were involved in the Ford case we would have considered all of the stakeholders and possible risks that could have been avoided. Taking into thought the long run of the company instead of the losses that the company would inquire in the short-term.
Hairston v. Alexander Tank and Equipment Co. 311 S.E.2d 559 (N.C. 1984) FACT -Plaintiff: Bettye Hairston (John Hairston’s wife) -Defendant: Haygood Lincoln-Mercury. Inc (Haygood) and Alexander Tank and Equipment Co. -After John Hairston purchased a new car from Haygood, the left rear wheel of his car came off. Since there were no places to park his car, he stopped his car in the far right lane. However, the truck crashed Hairston’s car and he was killed because he was standing between his car and van. The plaintiff claims that the wheel came off the vehicle because the lug nuts had not been tightened on the wheel studs.
Taken from Charles B. Fleddermann, Engineering Ethics, 2 ed., Prentice Hall, 2004, pp. 72-73 In the late 1960’s, Ford Motor Company set out to produce a subcompact automobile that would compete with the Japanese subcompacts that were becoming increasingly popular in the United States. The president of Ford, Lee Iacocca, set an ambitious two-year agenda for the design and initial production of the Pinto. This schedule meant that the car would come to market in 25 months rather than go through the average 43 month design cycle at Ford. Iacocca wanted the care to be introduced in the 1971 model year with a suggested retail price of no more than $2,000 and with a weight of less than 2,000 pounds.
3. What impediments to pursuing this project do you think existed within GM? First impediment is GM’s investing in developing fuel cells for many billions so many managers don’t want to change their focus. Second, the critics said that it was difficult to produce a large lithium ion battery. Last, there was a sale failure with an electric car named EV1 in 1990s.
“According to U.S. Department of Transportation statistics, 3,331 people were killed and 387,000 more injured in crashes involving a distracted driver in 2011” (Herzog, 2011). This tells us that driving and texting is clearly killing and injuring people. Car accidents can cause physical and emotional distress. In the film family members were showing signs of emotional and physical distress by hitting the arm rest on the chair and when talking repeatedly about how they can’t say things that they want their child to do. It was difficult for some to tell the story of the accident because they were in so much pain and frustration.
Sky rocketing the company as the sixth-largest energy company in the whole world. However during 2001, due to unstable leadership and financial mistakes. Enron began to collapse and filed for bankruptcy. Labeled as one of the biggest case of bankruptcy the U.S. Justice Department released an investigation regarding the company’s transactions. During the investigation, CEO and former CEO Lay and Skilling faced up to 40 charges including conspiracy, making false statements on financial reports, securities fraud and wire fraud.