“Problem is, as best as I can tell, the car was no more defective than the Toyota with the gas pedal that could be controlled by a shifting carpet. The pin in the ignition worked as designed but could release sooner than was optimal for some circumstances. If they had sold only 1,000 of these cars, statistically, the “defect” would never have exposed itself.”
Every statement in that paragraph is true, and yet it has no bearing on the question of culpability.
One could say that Stalin was no better than Mao without reflecting any credit on either of them.
There is no justification for putting the word “defect” in danger quotes. It was a defect.
The moral question only arises after someone has the opportunity to do the right thing, and fails.
Ever do any writing for a politician?
I honestly don’t see it as a defect.
Keep in mind I’m coming from a position supported by the scant descriptions of the actual “defect” that are in the articles. Most of the information in the articles is just emotional tripe.
As a percentage of cars sold, the number of fatalities that are directly attributable to this part and nothing else is just too low to call this a defect, IMO.