Question

TOTAL RECALL

In mid-2000, the Firestone Tire Company issued a recall of some of its tires – those mounted on certain sport-utility vehicles (SUVs) of the Ford Motor Company. This was done in response to reports that tire treads on some SUVs separated in use, causing accidents, some of which involved fatal injuries as vehicles rolled over.

At first, Firestone denied there was a problem with its tires, but it issued the recall under pressure from consumer groups and various government agencies. All of the tires in question were produced at the same tire plant, and there were calls to shut down that facility. Firestone suggested that Ford incorrectly matched the wrong tires with its SUVs. There was also the suggestion that the shock absorbers of the SUVs were rubbing against the tires, causing or aggravating the problem.

Both Ford and Firestone denied that this had been an ongoing problem. However, there was a public outcry when it was learned that Firestone had previously issued recalls of these tires in South America, but had not informed officials in other countries. Moreover, both companies had settled at least one lawsuit involving an accident caused by tread separation several years earlier.

This case raises a number of issues, some related to possible causes, as well as ethical issues.

Discuss each of these factors and their actual or potential relevance to what happened.

a. Product design

b. Quality control

c. Ethics

Answer 1

This case has three factors on which we can discuss and judge whether the Firestone company can be hold liable or not.

First factor is the Product design, If there is a fault in the design of the product ( Tires in this case) then both Firestone and Ford will be held responsible the accidents. Firestone will be held responsible for makeing a faulty tire diesign and Ford will be held respinsible for passing those faulty designs and using them in there SUVs. In this perticular case there was no fault in the product ( tier) design.

second factor is the Quality control, If there is a fault in quality control, then only the manufacturer ( Firestone in this case) will be held responsible for all the casualties caused by due to their product, not like Product design where both Firestone and Ford were held responsible, in this case Ford can try to examine the tiers but to a certain degree. Producing good quality product( tiers) for there customer (Ford) is the responsibility of manufacturer (Firestone), and they will be accountable for there work. In this perticular case there s a high chance that the tiers were of bad quality, although Firestone did not admit to it but their previous "Issue of Recall" in South America clearly shows that this is not their first bad quality product batch.

Third factor is the Ethics, This factor is the most crucial one for our discussion and judgement, Ethically a business is socially and legally to disclose any and every information that might affect customers' and consumers' health. Firestone had been issued a recall regarding their ties in South America and they hide this infromation from Ford, hence breaking a rucial Ethical code and was bound to get a notice to shut down the perticular manufacturing firm related to these Recalled tiers. In this case Firestone deliberately hide the South American recall case, which create suspicion on their motives.

Conclusion:

In the conclusion on the bases of second and third factorwe can say that the faulty party in this case is Firestone. Although both parties denied there fault and plead innocent and both can fight for there side with many logical arguments, but Firestone seems guilty because first they hide their previous Recalls and nly they can be liable to poor quality product.