Ford pinto was the decision not to install the rubber bladder appropriate

The idea of putting a cap on the size of punitive damage awards is an extraordinarily bad idea. As much as anyone might reasonably hate lawyers, limiting the size of punitive damage awards is not an answer.

Was the decision not to install the rubber bladder appropriate? Use the 5 question framework to support your analysis. Dilihat dari sisi konsumen, jelas konsumen dirugikan karena Ford sudah melakukan kecurangan dengan melakukan penghematan biaya produksi dan tidak memperhatikan kualitas produk untuk keamanan dan keselamatan pengendara.

Legality Perusahaan Ford jelas melanggar legalitas karena dalam proses uji kecelakaan, Ford melakukan lobby dengan Pemerintah dan uji kecelakaan ditunda selama 8 tahun, padahal Ford Pinto sudah dijual ke pasaran sebelum uji kecelakaan tersebut.

Hal ini membuktikan bahwa Ford berusaha menutupi kecatatan produknya kepada publik dengan tetap menjualnya tanpa diinstal rubber bladder. Ford sendiri sudah mengetahui hal tersebut dan mengajukan lobby kepada pemerintah untuk menunda uji kecelakaaan selama 8 tahun.

Ford juga tidak berusaha menginstal rubber bladder karena biayanya sangat tinggi. Impact on Right Dalam kasus ini, Ford tidak mementingkan hak-hak konsumen dan tidak menjamin keselamatan pengguna Ford Pinto. Tetapi Ford justru menyembunyikan kenyataan tersebut dan sama saja Ford melakukan kebohongan publik.

Jelas, kenyataannya produk Ford Pinto adalah produk cacat dan perusahaan Ford juga tidak menginstal rubber bladder dikarenakan biaya yang sangat tinggi jika dilihat dari cost-benefitnya.

Hal ini berpengaruh pada kelangsungan produk Ford Pinto di pasaran. What fault can you identify in Ford cost-benefit analysis? Ford mendesain mobil dengan meletakkan tangki bensin di bawah bumper belakang dengan harapan membuat bagasi lebih luas.

Saat uji kelayakan ternyata Ford Pinto langsung meledak saat ditabrak dari belakang. Dari uji kelayakan tersebut seharusnya Ford mendesain ulang Ford Pinto dengan menginstal rubber bladder di tangki bensin.

Blog Archive

Hal ini menandakan bahwa Ford tidak ingin kehilangan banyak biaya untuk mendesain ulang Ford Pinto dengan rubber bladder dan mengesampingkan keselamatan penumpang. Should Ford has given its Pinto Costumers the option to have the rubber bladder installed during production?

Tidak perlu karena rubber bladder seharusnya diinstal oleh Ford Pinto karena kesalahan Ford Mobil Company.1. Was the decision not to install the rubber bladder appropriate?

Use the 5 question framework to support your analysis. 2. What faults can you identify in Ford’s cost-benefits analysis? 3. Should Ford have given its Pinto Costumers the option to have rubber baldder installed during production for, say $20 Answer 1.

Ford knew that the Pinto was going to kill or burn people because of its design, but, because of the "cost savings which would inure from omitting the fixes," Ford decided to let it go. Goodyear had developed the bladder and had demonstrated it to the automotive industry.

Ford Motor Company ran a rear-end crash test on a car with the rubber bladder in the gas tank. The tank ruptured, but no fuel leaked. On January 15, , Ford again tested the bladder and again it worked. The Ford Pinto’s gasoline tank was located behind the rear axle. In a rear-end collision of about twenty-eight miles per hour or more, the rear of the car would be crushed.

This caused the fuel tank to be driven into the bolts of the differential housing causing the tank to split and allowed fuel to leak out.

No Ford motto was all about cost benefit and not the safety of the lives of their consumers Ford Pinto Question 1: Was the decision not to install the rubber bladder appropriate?

Answer: No, it was not appropriate to value financial gain above that of human lives. 1. . Ford soon devised a solution to install a rubber bladder in the gas tank to avoid leaks and got the final model pass the test.

which was less than the time normally required for .