I need a discussion response to my peers discussion post When Ford was sued over

Question

I need a discussion response to my peers discussion post

When Ford was sued over the Pinto during the seventies and early eighties the company neglected to repair hazardous fuel systems on the car prior to their release to the public. In their negligence, Ford knowingly subjected millions of people to the risk of severe injury or even death. The Ford Pinto had a problem of the gas systems exploding if the car was involved in a rear-end collision. Unfortunately, many individuals would go on to be severely injured or killed because of Ford’s mistake. According to the American Museum of Tort Law, lawsuits brought on by injured people and their survivors uncovered how the company rushed the Pinto through production on onto the market (n.d.). Making matters worse, records revealed during the discovery process showed not only that the company had previously crashed tested the cars numerous times and was aware of the faulty gas systems, but it also revealed the fact that company engineers had thought of numerous ways to fix the potential hazard. However, the company chose to do nothing, citing the results of a risk/benefit analysis as their reasons why.

                         A risk/benefit approach excuses a defendant if the monetary costs of making a production change are greater than the “societal benefit” of that change (Leggette, 1999). During the analysis, Ford cited estimated cost of over one-hundred and thirty million to perform the repairs and roughly 50 million to do nothing at all. Many Ford employees that were interviewed placed the blame directly on the company’s Executive Vice-President, Lee Iacocca. Multiple sources confirmed that Mr. Iacocca’s moto around the workplace was “safety doesn’t sell” and also stated he was the main source that placed such harsh time constraints on the manufacturing of the Pinto. While Lee Iacocca would eventually be fired from Ford, I feel that the onetime Executive Vice President of the company also carried some personal liability for his role in the traumatic accidents. Mr. Iacocca is liable for neglecting to protect consumers from known hazards and potential fatalities. His desire to push the Pinto out into the market overrode his commitment to public safety. Lee Iacocca was blinded by his own desires to achieve success and reward and wanted it at any cost, even if that cost was human life. One view of corporate social responsibility stresses that corporations have a duty not just to its shareholders, but also to other groups affected by corporate decisions-called stakeholders (Cross, p.96, 2017). Clearly, Mr. Iacocca failed to protect the company’s stakeholders in this situation.

References:

Cross, F., & Miller, R. (2016). The LEGAL ENVIRONMENT of BUSINESS (10th ed.). CENGAGE Learning:

Boston, MA.

Leggette, C. (1999). The Ford Pinto Case: The Valuation Of Life As It Applies To The Negligence-Efficiency

Argument. Retrieved from: https://users.wfu.edu/palmitar/Law&Valuation/Papers/1999/Leggette-pinto.html

The American Museum of Tort Law (n.d.). The Ford Pinto: Tort Museum/ Learn More/Cases That Made a

Difference/The Ford Pinto. Retrieved from: https://www.tortmuseum.org/ford-pinto/

Explanation / Answer

Discussion response for the given post is as follows:

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse I
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.