On 8/1/2015 4:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

In article ,
says...

dpb wrote in :

On 08/01/2015 12:26 PM, Leon wrote:

Actually one would have to be pretty naive to think that the air
bag thing was not intentionally ignored. ...

Being ignored after the fact is far different than deliberate
malfeasance...

That would be my thought too. It's one thing to intentionally
make a defective product, it's another to do it accidently and
then say "how can we cover this up". Neither is good, but
they're not the same.

John

How about the case of "well, we found out that after aging for a long
tome a few of these deteriorate in a dangerous way but we can't
discern any kind of pattern to it so maybe we should hold off on
issuing a recall until we can figure out more precisely what needs to
be recalled".

Yeah, I don't know if at this point we can say the airbag
thing was being rightfully cautious or unwarrantably slow.

One can find plenty of less ambiguous examples, tho. Take
the GM ignition switch case.

The ignition switch case kind of bugs me--how does the world's largest
automaker, with at that point nearly a century of corporate experience
in such matters, manage to screw up a damned _switch_?

Having been the service sales manager for a large Oldsmobile dealership
in the mid 80's and exclusively sold GM parts for many years, they
weigh the cost of litigation vs. the cost to make it right.
Year after year after year you sell the same part that fits nearly every
model of GM vehicle and they never improve it.