“Ethical and Legal Analysis of the Ford Pinto” For humanity, communication has been a very important issue and with it transportation has also become important. Not long ago we were helped by a new invention thanks to the innovation of some workaholics and the automotive industry. Along with its Japanese rivals, Ford is one of the world's leading companies and is run by a family, which controls the company's largest shares. But the company's fate and history have not been without controversy, and this case is primarily about one of them. The late 1960s and early 1970s were a time when American industry faced strong competition from Japanese companies and to counter this it was necessary to produce compact, economical cars. With General Motors as the market leader, Ford was second best and was focusing on the areas vacated by GM. Since there were only four major players, the market was somewhat oligopolistic in nature. The Ford Pinto model was a great success in terms of price and mileage for customers and until then there wasn't much regulation because even governments didn't want to moderate a $100 billion-plus industry much. But soon after, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) began doing their part. Section 301 required that cars be constructed so that, in the event of a rear-end accident, losses would be minimal. Although Ford had done enough research, the Pinto's design flaw was that the fuel tank was close to the rear axle and the bladder hose could leak well beyond what was allowed. Furthermore, they were also influenced by hot or cold external temperatures. By calling the cars that drive on the road......middle of paper......they move on their own they would have gained more customers rather than losing them to the competition out of fear for their lives. It should have been addressed in a more persuasive and convincing way, but they showed that harvesting the cash cow was more important to them than safeguarding it and in the end they lost due to a small mistake. Ethically this is a clear open and shut case. The guilty party was the company and it paid for its negligence. Not too expensive in terms of repair costs, but they tarnished the image and lost the position they were on and have never recovered from that dilemma since. The right thing to do would have been to do the repair work before the story ended up in a magazine. But leaving everything until the end demonstrated weak character on the part of management and as a result they lost more than just a running brand line.