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.
Taking into thought the long run of the company instead of the losses that the company would inquire in the short-term. By taking appropriate steps to continue the consumer’s trust in the company; first, correcting the items not properly working within the cars’ equipment; second, recalling the automobiles that had been already purchased by the public. Once the consumers would have noticed that the company is doing something to improve their past mistakes, those investments would have helped them with the future of the company as well as the growth of the Pinto model. At the time I believe that the investors of the company made a bad business decision by selling the remaining cars with their defects and everything at a
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.
What were they? The two damages that the family recovered from Ford were compensatory damages and punitive damages. Compensatory damages is the amount of money that the court believes will restore him to the position he was in before the defendant’s conduct caused an injury. This damage is rewarded to the family because Ford acted with factual. The car wouldn’t have “engulfed in a ball of fire” if Ford would have made the gas tank safer.
Eleazar Almazo October 2-10, 2012 Hunter Writing Soda Ban: Against The NYC government should not ban drinks larger than 16 ounces. For example, Arizona would be banned. Mayor Bloomberg stated you can buy the little soda drinks that when you add the calories, they equal the same as the big sodas. Even though I oppose to Mayor Bloomberg’s action, I get what they are saying. It higher the sugar which increases fat but it makes no sense buying 2 or 3 little bottles that can equal the same amount as the big cans.
‘“Good intentions without thought make for bad laws and I think we have a risk of that,’ said J. Reid Meloy, a forensic psychologist and clinical professor at the University of California San Diego, who has studied rampage killers’’’ (Goode). “This point-of-view article discusses how the decades of case law interpreting and applying the other provisions of the Bill of Rights point to the troublesome approach to gun control and constitutional analysis” (Rivkin). “But you wouldn’t know from the current gun-control debate. Several states, for example are considering gun-insurance mandates modeled after those for automobile insurance. There is no conceivable public-safety benefit: insurance policies cover accidents, not intentional crimes, and criminals with illegal guns will just evade the requirement.
So now breweries cannot manufactures energy drinks with alcohol. According to "Livescience.com" (2014), While many health professionals and lawmakers are cheering the Food and Drug Administration's decision yesterday to declare caffeine an illegal and unsafe additive to manufactured alcoholic beverages, critics say the move is an infringement of consumer rights by the government. When people are speaking out against a decision made by the government, this is the demand. Anheuser-Busch could produce an energy drink with alcohol as long as there was no caffeine in it, and it would be legal and more importantly it would be a blue ocean. According to "Blue Ocean Strategy.com" (2014), "Red oceans refer to the known market space – all the industries in existence today.
Chapter 1- Case Question 3 In the case of Baughn v. Honda Motor Co the legal principle in question has to do with company liability. The judgeâ€™s mission would be to figure out whether Honda was liable for the boys accident due to a less-than-standard product. Consumer expectancy concerning risk of using the product would need to be considered. For example if the parents of the boys had reasonable expectancy that the bike could be used on the open road safely then Honda would be liable for the boysâ€™ injuries. In this case Honda is not liable because the safety instructions were clear in that the bikes should only be used off-road, while wearing a helmet.
Before they made any decision, they should hold an ethical meeting about the improvement of fuel tank, if they would change their mind by paying more then people would not have to die. In this case, I think Cost-benefit analysis should not be use in this case, because it is very unethical and inhumanity to determine a number of life that have to sacrifice, just because the unwillingness of Ford to pay more for the adjustments of fuel systems. When applying cost benefit analysis in this case study, Ford will either improve the fuel tank or chosen not to go ahead with the fuel tank adjustment, then at least 180 will burn to death, 180 will be injuries, and 2100 vehicles will be burned. Ford was making a decision based on numbers that seems to be right, but it is allowing a certain number of people to die or be injured even though they could have prevented it with paying more for the alteration of fuel tank. This seems to be a disregard for human life.
My question concerning the life issue is who asked u to save mine? When I want the government’s opinion about my life, I’ll ask for it. If saving lives is the goal of the effort, then the government has no right to enact a seat belt law. In my view it is unconstitutional but no one challenges the law because the marketing is on saving lives. Who in their right mind would be against saving a life?