A-1 is a medium-sized manufacturer of truck trailers of all sizes and kinds. Three years ago the company introduced a new trailer designed for long haul truckers. The trailer offers improved loading and unloading times and has become A-1’s best seller. Recently some problems have occurred concerning the breaking of the connector that joins the trailer to the cab. Engineering has run comprehensive tests on both in-stock trailers and a number of trailers that have been in service with truckers. The testing revealed a manufacturing flaw: the weld that holds the trailer connection to the cab is weaker than design specs. It is estimated that over the next three to five years 8 to 10% of the trailers produced will fail. So far there has been only property damage, although some of the losses have been substantial. However, if a trailer breaks loose, as several have done, people could easily be killed.

A-1 hired a law firm and an economics professor to estimate the losses the firm will incur if it does nothing and just settles the claims (after fighting them, of course). The law firm and the professor estimate that there will be 22 deaths from this product’s failure. They also estimate that doing nothing will cost the firm about $12,000,000 in increased insurance premiums, lost business, legal fees and settlements of wrongful death suits. The engineering department estimates that recalling the trailers and fixing them will cost about $18,000,000.

You need to approach the analysis from the two theorist positions. First discuss your decision as if you were a utilitarian ethics theorist. Then prepare your comments on your decision as if you were a rights ethics theorist. You should normally not need more than one page to adequately present both sides. If you want to provide a little more information that will be fine.