The recent bankruptcy filings by General Motors and Chrysler prevent victims of defective vehicles manufactured by G.M. and Chrysler from suing for any compensation for injuries or deaths caused by such vehicles before the bankruptcy filing. The amount of such claims is estimated at $1.25 billion.
In the case of General Motors only, an agreement reached between the Obama administration and G.M. provides that persons who are injured or killed by G.M.'s defective and unreasonably dangerous vehicles after the "new" G.M entity emerges from bankruptcy, including injury and death claims caused by vehicles manufactured by the "old" G.M. before the bankruptcy filing, will have the right to sue the new G.M. Injuries and deaths that occurred before the bankruptcy filing are discharged by the filing, meaning that victims will probably never be compensated, no matter how meritorious their claims may be. (Some GM/Chrysler consumers have been killed or seriously injured by seatbelts that come unbuckled during a crash because of elbow contact. Other examples include consumers paralyzed by roofs that crush in on the occupant in moderate rollovers.) The G.M. agreement was prompted by G.M.'s fear that litigation over this issue may delay its emergence from bankruptcy. As of this date, Chrysler has not reached a similar agreement.
Although warranty claims on vehicles manufactured pre-bankruptcy could legally be discharged by the filing, both General Motors and Chrysler have proposed in their reorganization plans to honor such claims. (In other words, "parts before people"). Similarly, both corporations have agreed to have a continuing obligation to recall vehicles with safety-related defects and vehicles that do not comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. It is difficult to understand, therefore, exactly why General Motors and Chrysler want to relieve themselves of paying just compensation for injuries and deaths caused by those same unsafe vehicles before the bankruptcy filings.
Do ethics and morality apply to vehicle manufacturers? Is it ethical to receive a multi-billion dollar infusion of public funds and then throw victims under the bus? Is it moral to honor an obligation to an inanimate object (a vehicle warranty), but not honor an obligation to a severely injured person or to the family of a deceased person? Should a corporation not pay for injuries and deaths it causes? How can the consuming public be expected to trust American corporations that do not assume responsibility for their unreasonably dangerous and defective vehicles? Is it a lack of integrity for the manufacturer to know that there are millions(?) of dangerous vehicles still on the road, but ignore many of those persons who have been and inevitably will be killed or injured by those vehicles? Chrysler and G.M. should be required to answer these questions to the satisfaction of its customers. William Clay Ford, Jr. emphasized Ford's commitment to ethical standards: "One of the noteworthy Business Principles is our commitment to accountability, where we pledge to 'be honest and open and model the highest standards of corporate integrity.' Since our commitment to conducting business fairly and honestly began a century ago, integrity is not a novel concept at Ford. It does, however, require a personal commitment by each of us to act ethically in a rapidly changing business environment and confirm our actions to the high standards that we set for ourselves."
. .."Fulfilling our commitment to accountability and focusing on 'doing the right thing' will help us succeed in all that we do."
...At Ford: "Quality is Job 1." At Ford: "Ethics is Job 1". At General Motors and Chrysler: "The Bottom Line is Job 1!"
