It provided liability coverage to authorized drivers of its vehicles. This coverage was automatic. There was not a separate charge as there was for other coverages such as collision. Self-insured entities informing drivers that they will be covered up to the minimum limits required by the state of the accident do not convert themselves into liability insurers that sell or issue insurance policies and that must comply with the mandatory offering laws. Accordingly, National was not required to offer underinsured motorist coverage to drivers under the self-insured statute, which requires only self-insurers to provide uninsured motorist coverage.
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
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.
The Company was a success from the beginning. The Ford Motor Company was a threat for the Association of Licensed Automobile Manufactures; which now threatened to put his company out of business, because Ford was not a licensed manufacture. He had been denied a license by this group, which was aimed at protecting its members, profits what was becoming a fast growing industry. Their basis of their power was control of a patent granted in 1895 to George Baldwin Seldon a patent attorney from Rochchester, New York. The Associations claimed that their patent applied to all gasoline powered engines.
However, in this fast-paced, innovative world, no company is safe from competition. In 2007, Ford became the third-ranked automaker in U.S. sales, falling from the second-place automaker ranking for the first time in 56 years (Wikipedia). Ironically, one year later, Ford is reaching out to their consumers, employees, dealers, and retirees with their “Drive One” campaign. The “Drive One” campaign is seeking to educate their audience, change their attitude and encourage behavior. These objectives can be exhibited in the KAB Model: knowledge, attitude and behavior.
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.
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.
Jennifer Nichols Popular Culture 4/21/2011 Henry Ford and the automobile I chose to review the chapter, "Henry Ford: Symbol of an age." During this review I will be summarizing the main ideas of the chapter, relating back to what we learned in class, and giving you my own opinion. One of the main ideas of the chapter is showing how big Ford really was in the 1920's. The chapter starts out saying that there were few names better known during that time. In fact, college students ranked Ford the third greatest figure of all time, behind Napolean and Jesus Christ.
Ford steadily lost market share to GM and Chrysler, as these and other domestic and foreign competitors began offering fresher automobiles with more innovative features and luxury options. GM had a range of models from relatively cheap to luxury, tapping all price points in the spectrum, while less wealthy people purchased used Model Ts. The competitors also opened up new markets by extending credit for purchases, so consumers could buy these expensive automobiles with monthly payments. Ford initially resisted this approach, insisting such debts would ultimately hurt the consumer and the general economy. Ford eventually relented and started offering the same terms in December 1927,when Ford unveiled the redesigned Model A, and retired the Model T after producing15 million units.