Night Is the Chevrolet Station Wagon a

¶ … Night Is the Chevrolet station wagon a defective product? The station wagon is defective. This is because the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has implemented §571.301. Under the law, the fuel tank must be placed in a location that will prevent the spillage of petroleum. In the event that this does occur, the manufacture is provided with a certain amount of flexibility (as there can be no more than 142 g of fuel lost within the first five minutes after a crash).

The fact that the gas tank was located in an area that caused it to ignite, is a sign that the company manufactured a defective product. ("Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards") Was the station wagon unsafe for its intended use? Was the accident foreseeable? The station wagon was unsafe for its intended use. This is because they could have placed the fuel tank in a different location on the vehicle to prevent it from igniting during a rear end collision.

The accident was foreseeable as federal guidelines are very clear on where it should be placed and how to prevent any kind of leaks from developing. Moreover, other manufacturers had similar challenges in the past with certain makes and models. ("Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards") ("Ford Pinto Fuel") How will the court decide? (Justify your arguments and decision after analyzing the situation from multiple ethical perspectives). A court will decide in favor of the plaintiffs that were injured by the accident.

This is because General Motors violated several different provisions of product liability law based upon the location of the gas tank. The most notable include: manufacturing defects and failing to warn the public about these issues. A manufacturing defect is when the company knowingly placed the fuel tank in location that caused an explosion. This is a sign of poor workmanship and a lack of supervisory controls at the plant. Failure to warn occurred when General Motors did not notify the public about these problems.

This gave consumers the impression that the vehicle was safe. When in reality, there are certain dangers to the driver and passengers of the vehicle from a rear end collision to the gas tank. ("Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards") From an ethical perspective, the company had an obligation to follow these guidelines. This is because other manufacturers had similar problems in the past when placing the fuel tank in these locations (most notably the Ford Pinto).

In 1978, the car would explode once the gas tank was ruptured in a rear end collision. The results were that Ford had to issue a recall for all vehicles and make modifications to address these issues. ("Ford Pinto Fuel") In this case, the fact that General Motors has not issued a recall is an indication that they are focused on increasing their overall bottom line results. When there are obvious defects with: the product and the placement of gas tank.

This will lead to more legal challenges down the road (which will hurt the company's ability to market its products to consumers from obvious safety concerns). ("Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards") If this does not take place, the NTSB can impose potential fines.