Need a response to my professors question on my discussion post My post Fords de

Question

Need a response to my professors question on my discussion post

My post

Fords decision to stick with Pinto was purely based on competitiveness in the American automobile industry which was threatened by Japanese and European manufacturers. During the early 1970’s the consumers were less interested in the safety aspect of their car rather power, style and comfort were the decisive factors. Ford took notice of this situation and came up with their Pinto model with basic price and compromised fuel tank, Ford marketed it as low service hatchback and understanding the Ford’s brand value, consumer’s bought it with confidence.

The crash test proved the fact that Ford Pinto was a compromised product because it could not even pass the rear collision crash test at 20 mph. Lee Lacocca being the president of Ford had every knowledge and information about the safety standards of the product that he pushed in to the market. The president also had knowledge of the fact that if they had replaced the fuel tank position and taken some precautionary measure to secure the tank with an additional cost of $5 to $8 a vehicle they would have mitigated the severe risk of life and property loss there product. Based on cost-benefit reasoning and financial analysis and in order to make up lost sales due to competition the entire Ford management rallied to introduce Pinto in the American market. If in the Richard Grimshaw case the court upheld the decision to fine Ford for $125 million and the cost incurred by Ford recalling all Pinto models from 1971 to 1976 are to be accounted for then the financial analysis carried by Ford to refuse improving the safety standard was a failure and totally impractical decision. Not only Ford could have managed the financial losses by a meager increment of 10$ per vehicle in the selling price but most importantly all the lives lost due to fire and fuel tank blast could have been mitigated.

Lee Loccoca being the president was the prime stakeholder in introducing this product in the market, all the information about its market potential, its revenue data and its safety standards and accrued cost for improving the safety standards were passed through him. Only due to his decision more than 500 people lost their lives, based on his designation and relation with the Ford Pinto’s manufacturing and sales it was his moral obligation to take responsibility for the life’s lost. With respect to the statements made above Lee Loccoca’s preliminary decision was just not about zero financial acumen but based on all the life’s lost due to his decision he should have been prosecuted for severe punishment because only due to his business strategy people’s life’s were devastated.

WC: 443

My professors question

What message do you think this sends to us, as a society?

Explanation / Answer

The topic discussed here convey us the importance of public safety during our actions. We should not do anything that brings any harm to the public and as a responsible citizen we should give importance to safety than economic benefits. A manufacturer has the duty to ensure his product is safe to use and do not harm the public which describes product liability. If a breach of duty occurs it may cause great injuries and sometimes it cannot be compensated with monetary damages. A small negligence to save few dollars may cause loss of life for hundreds of people, loss of trust and huge financial loss for the person causing injury. Hence all the citizens in the society including manufacturers have the duty to ensure the safety of the fellow citizens during their course of action.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse N
• Subjects

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