Stark Vs Ford Motor Company Case Summary

Now that Stark vs. Ford Motor Co. has been resolved it is important to review both the ethical and business implications resulting from the decision. In particular, was Indiana’s law just in the judgement of this case or should it be different? I believe Indiana law was reasonable in distributing remedies for contributory negligence because there was material evidence unlike in Whitted vs. General Motor Corporation. In this case, a man whom was in a car crash was injured because his seatbelt broke and therefore did not restrain him. However, the court declared, “Motorist failed to present evidence that seat belt was flawed in its design and failed to illustrate that better design was cost-effective, as required to have maintained cause of action on basis of duty to design product free of flaws that cause injury” Whitted v. General Motors Corporation, (U.S. App. Ct. 1995), aff’d, 58 F .3d 1200 (IN. 1995). In Stark vs. Ford Motor Co. the engine and seatbelt were clearly defective which established strict product liability. Thus said the plaintiffs claim would stand in court. I do not believe the Indiana law should be different, it justly handled the case.

Other businesses should be concerned by the results of the case. It means that they will be likely to be held at least partially responsible in similar situations. As a result they will focus on …show more content…
Ford Motor Co. will not only effect business decisions, but also provide economic incentives. People who learn of this case may be concerned that by not using a booster seat they will not receive as much in remedies as they would otherwise and their child may be more likely to get hurt in a crash. This will lead to adults with young children buying more booster seats. There would also be an incentive to have one’s vehicle checked more often to see if there are possible issues with the engine or other car parts. This is cause by paranoia that one’s vehicle could have a defect that leads to an injury of some