Surname 1
An Explosive Problem at Gigantic Motors:
A Case Study Analysis
Step I: Understanding the Situation
Step I (A). List and number of relevant facts of the case
Fact
Number
Statement of Fact
1 Jonathan Archer works at the marketing department of Gigantic Motors Corporation
(GMC).
2 Zefrem Cochrane, an engineer who works in the design department of GMC, has been
a co-employee of Archer for nearly a year.
3 For the past weeks, Archer noticed that Cochrane was bothered and distracted by
something.
4 After Archer pressed Cochrane, the two agreed to keep a secret.
5 Cochrane said to Archer that he is working on the new-model-year trucks’ design;
hence, he reviewed the previous design or position of the fuel tanks done for the last
25-model years.
6 Cochrane found out that 27 years ago GMC linked up with Dynamic Motor’s Fuel
Development Division (DMFDD), which is an excellent structural design
subcontractor that shares with long-term profits, to sustain the trucks’ long-term solid
reputation.
7 Gigantic Motors’ primary authority is to furnish the engine’s overall design criteria
and DMFDD’s role is the way to get fuel to the engine under all the stipulated criteria.
8 At that time, DMFDD’s fastened fuel tanks as a fail-safe system design successfully
passed various tests that is why it won the contract from GMC.
9 Additionally, safety record has shown quite conclusively, DMFDD had performed
fantastically in terms of higher level of the trucks’ safety.
10 Despite the successful fail safe system tests and safety record, even during those years,
the fuel tanks’ positioning (that is, mounted outside the side frame rails) was
considered to possibly become a problem in case of side impacts.
11 Likewise, Cochrane learned that, even though the fuel tanks’ design or position served
to protect the trucks in the event of side impact, which was unique among
domestically manufactured light trucks, for 15 successive years (ending 10 years ago),
all Rugged Trucks’ fuel tanks seemed to have been dangerously mounted outside of
the side frame rails, which made them likely to explode during side-impact collisions.
12 Hence, safety research had shown that during the past 15 years, the fuel system’s
positioning of the trucks had caused nearly 50 deaths and 110 personal injuries.
13 During the critical 15 years, more than six million of the 10 million Rugged Trucks
that were sold and are still on the road.
14 Even at present, it has been proven that the trucks fail-safe system was indeed
unreliable.
15 Nevertheless, during the critical 15-year period, RT did not violate any laws (that is, it
fully complied with all the state and federal regulations, standards, and criteria).
16 Moreover, RT trucks’ overall safety record surpasses other comparable trucks.
17 Chief Safety Engineer Richard Daystream’s idea of recalling the vulnerable models
Surname 2
Fact
Number
Statement of Fact
was rejected because recall would be too expensive and RT has a generally superior
safety records.
18 RT’s vice president in charge of safety and public relations, Helen Noel, also
commented that despite the company’s serious consideration to recall the vulnerable
units, it would rather be too costly for the company, which would highly negatively
impact on the GMC’s profitability, not to mention bad publicity or public relations
disaster.
19 The Department of Transportation statistics has also showed that recalling the
vulnerable trucks would likely save only eight lives, despite no assumed fatal damage
or premature retiring over the course of the trucks’ remaining time on the road.
20 Thus, based on the facts, RT could not justify recalling the ‘safe” trucks to make them
even safer.
21 Cochrane could lose his job if he divulge the confidential matter to others because it
could lead to a public relations disaster.
22 Cochrane still leaked out the confidential information to Archer even though Archer
intends to keep the matter secret to anyone else.
23 Archer wondered whether Cochrane had done the right thing given that he knows
about the matter fully, but just finally decided to keep his mouth shut from now on for
personal reasons or interests (e.g., keeping his job, salary, house, etc.).
24 Archer was bothered and distracted of his visions concerning the drivers who would
more possibly die because of the trucks’ old fuel system’s designs.
25 Archer was angry at the company officials who, despite the inherently known
weaknesses of the previous trucks, have not taken the immediate actions to fix things
up six years ago, which led to the death of a few drivers.
Step I (B). Facts in (A) that raises an ethical issue, reasons, and potential or resulting
harms.
Fact
Why does the Statement
What are the Resulting or
Number
of Fact Raise an Ethical
Issue? Potential Harms?
4 A promise to keep a secret a secret is an
ethical issue because breaking commitment
or nonconformity to an agreement is
unethical (e.g., against social norm).
Breaking promises or agreements could
lead to distrust, lost of job, bad
publicity, etc.
6 A tie up held twenty-years ago raises an
ethical issue because unexpectedly,
unnecessary and unwarranted consequences
could possibly take place along the way,
which could minimize desirable outcomes.
The resulting or potential harms
include the unforeseen negative
repercussions, such as failure to comply
with current safety standards because
some terms and conditions of the
contract are already inapplicable.
9 Even with successful fail-safe system tests, a
contract, in and by itself, has possibly
emerging ethical issues in the future.
Successful test results of the
supposedly fail-safe system still led to
death and personal injuries.
10 The possibility of a fuel tanks’ side impact
problem occurring during those times was
Side impact collisions already resulted
to truck drivers’ deaths and injuries.
Surname 3
Fact
Why does the Statement
What are the Resulting or
Number
of Fact Raise an Ethical
Issue? Potential Harms?
considered, yet RT officials did nothing to
resolve it is indeed an ethical issue.
11 As an engineer, Cochrane can also be
considered an expert concerning fuel system
designs; hence, seemingly dangerously
mounted fuel tanks outside the side frame
rails exploded, and possibly more explosions
during side impact is an ethical concern
requiring immediate attention and action.
Dangerously mounted fuel tanks
outside the side frame rails resulted to
and may lead to additional deaths and
personal injuries.
12 Even though safety research had shown the
results of dangerously positioned fuel tanks,
that is, death and injuries; apparently, there
is an ethical issue here because the problem
still persists.
Dangerously mounted fuel tanks
outside the side frame rails resulted and
may lead to additional deaths and
personal injuries.
14 The trucks’ fail-safe system that was later
proven unreliable raises an ethical issue
given the fact it caused the deaths and
injuries of many people.
The trucks’ fail-safe system is
nevertheless dangerously mounted in
the fuel tanks outside the side frame
rails, which led and may lead to
additional deaths and personal injuries.
15 Compliance or noncompliance to any laws
raises an ethical issue because laws need to
be amended in light of significant research
findings.
Outdated or un-amended laws may lead
to additional unexpected harms, such as
death despite safety regulations.
17 Not recalling vulnerable trucks for reasons
of cost ineffectiveness and previous
generally superior safety records raises an
ethical issue because drivers’ and
passengers’ lives are equated with
expensiveness and old safety records.
The resulting or potential harms
include, but are not limited to more
deaths despite cost effectiveness on the
part of RT’s not recalling the vulnerable
trucks.
18 Company profitability and bad publicity as
opposed to saving lives raises an ethical
issue because they pose a moral dilemma
whether money and public relations disaster
are more important than loss of lives.
Not resolving the root cause of the
dilemma could result to even more
deaths and injuries, hence, more cost
and worse publicity when the matter
possibly become publicly known later.
19 Not recalling the vulnerable trucks simply
because such action would only possibly
save eight lives is an ethical issue because
cost is being valued more than the harm it
would cause to individuals’ concerned.
Not recalling the vulnerable trucks
would possibly result to more deaths
and personal injuries.
20 Not recalling the trucks to make them safer
is an ethical issue because drivers and their
truck passengers are not taken into much
better account.
Not recalling the vulnerable trucks to
make them safer would possibly and
subsequently claim additional lives.
21 Losing one’s job due to leakage of Loss of confidence and trust to
Surname 4
Fact
Why does the Statement
What are the Resulting or
Number
of Fact Raise an Ethical
Issue? Potential Harms?
confidential information that is disastrous to
GMC or RT is an ethical issue because of
self-interest as against other people’s
interests.
individuals like Cochrane, Archers,
GMC officials, et al. for not taking into
much better consideration the lives of
the only eight drivers who would
possibly later die or get injured by side-
impact collisions.
22 Confidential information should remain
confidential; hence, sharing it to
unauthorized individuals is an ethical issue
because that is not precisely what
confidentiality means.
Cochrane and others who divulge the
confidential matter about the trucks’
vulnerability could lose their jobs and
encounter related risks.
23 On the part of Archer, the secret shared by
Cochrane to him raises an ethical issue
because he either has to do something about
it or not.
Not following standard protocols could
result to Archer losing his job in the RT
company.
24 Archer’s knowledge about the trucks’ old
fuel system problem is an ethical issue
whether he does or does not do something
about it.
Whether Archer do something about
the problem or not, he is still
potentially harmed by himself (e.g.,
conscience stricken) or lose his job, just
like Cochrane, should RT find out that
