Ford Pinto Case
In my opinion, I do not feel as though it was legal for Ford to produce the Ford Pinto when it knew that the vehicle contained serious design flaws. ... com, during the design and production of the Ford Pinto, crash test revealed a serious defect in the gas tank. ... According to an engineer at Ford, when it was discovered that the gas tank was unsafe, no one in the company would go to the President Lee Iacocca and tell him of the design flaws. Whenever a problem was raised that meant a delay on the Pinto, Iacocca would consistently reply, “Read the product objective and get back to work”. The person would have been fired if they disclosed the information that the Pinto had serious design flaws. Safety wasn’t a popular subject around Ford in those days. ... The Pinto schedule was set at just under 25 months. Element 1: To all appearances it looks as though Ford had met all safety standards that were required. Although I feel as though the “Duty to Comply” was not met by Ford. ... During design and production of the Pinto, crash test revealed a serious defect in the gas tank. ... In this case, the buyers of the Pinto did not know about the risks associated with the Pinto. Of course, anyone who owns a car knows the risk of getting into an accident yet Ford knew rear-end crashes at speeds of 25-30 MPH were risky for a fire. ... Yet, when something as blatant as the Ford Pinto case surfaces, I could never argue that a cost/benefit analysis is justified by a company. ... But I feel as though it truly depends on the case in question. ... According to Ford, the repairs for the problem would have been $11. ... The Ford Company thought this cost would be more than it would pay out in accident-related lawsuits. In the end, it seems as though Ford put dollars ahead of lives. ... The Ford Company knew the Pinto was defective. ... Ford insisted that the problems were no worse than any other car of its type on the road. Element 3: Ford violated its duty to the consumers who purchased a Ford Pinto. ... Ford knew prior to rolling out the first vehicle of the potential for disaster. ... Ford, in my opinion, should have been held liable as was the case. Part 2: Once buyers became aware of the increased safety concerns of the Ford Pinto, then I feel as though it was the responsibility of the consumer not to purchase a defective vehicle. But clearly in the beginning stages of production, there is no level of responsibility on the consumer due to the statements made by the Ford Company, that the Pinto was just as safe as any other vehicle on the road when the company was incorrectly stating the facts to save dollars and their reputation.