It's About Time: Toyota found NOT guilty in latest unintended-acceleration case.
10-11-13, 09:13 AM
#1
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
It's About Time: Toyota found NOT guilty in latest unintended-acceleration case.
While Toyota and Lexus vehicles, after about 2000 or so, did have some problems with cost-cutting and cheapening of the basic designs, I was not (and still am not) one of those who believed all of those runaway-acceleration stories (and/or Toyota's liability for them)....especially when taking a couple of simple steps with the ignition switch or transmission shift-lever might have saved the car and its occupants. After some (questionable) guilty-verdicts, I think we're starting to see some more sensible juries.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...0I102620131011
Oct 10 (Reuters) - A jury in California on Thursday found Toyota Motor Corp not liable in one of the first wrongful death lawsuits to go to trial in the United States over alleged defects that caused some vehicles to unexpectedly accelerate.
The closely watched case was brought by the husband and son of Noriko Uno, a 66-year old woman killed in a 2009 car crash involving a 2006 Toyota Camry.
It is among hundreds of similar lawsuits facing Toyota over acceleration issues, which prompted the automaker to recall millions of vehicles since 2009.
Uno's vehicle was not subject to the acceleration-related recalls.
According to their lawsuit, Uno's Camry was struck by another vehicle, causing it to speed out of control down a busy California road until it hit a tree, killing Uno.
Her family accused the automaker of failing to install brake-override systems that could have
stopped out-of-control acceleration in vehicles sold in the U.S.
The case is the first to go to trial in California over acceleration issues.
"Regarding the verdict, we are gratified that the jury concluded the design of the 2006 Camry did not contribute to this unfortunate accident, affirming the same conclusion we reached after more than three years of careful investigation - that there was nothing wrong with the vehicle at issue in this case," a Toyota spokeswoman said in a statement.
A lawyer for the family of Noriko Uno could not be immediately reached for comment.
According to a recent regulatory filing from Toyota, around 200 proposed class actions and more than 500 individual cases have been filed against the company since February 2009 over the alleged acceleration issues.
This week, a federal judge in California ruled that Toyota must face a trial over claims that it failed to warn the public about design defects that caused certain vehicles to accelerate unintentionally.
That case was brought by the estate of Ida St. John, who said in 2009 that her 2005 Camry sped out of control and hit a school building. She died after giving that testimony, but the lawsuit does not claim that her death was caused by the crash.
The trial, slated to begin Nov. 5, will be one of the first of the many federal lawsuits focusing on the Toyota acceleration issues.
The first federal sudden-acceleration case to go to trial ended with a win for Toyota in 2011, in a lawsuit brought by a doctor who worked in Brooklyn.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...0I102620131011
Oct 10 (Reuters) - A jury in California on Thursday found Toyota Motor Corp not liable in one of the first wrongful death lawsuits to go to trial in the United States over alleged defects that caused some vehicles to unexpectedly accelerate.
The closely watched case was brought by the husband and son of Noriko Uno, a 66-year old woman killed in a 2009 car crash involving a 2006 Toyota Camry.
It is among hundreds of similar lawsuits facing Toyota over acceleration issues, which prompted the automaker to recall millions of vehicles since 2009.
Uno's vehicle was not subject to the acceleration-related recalls.
According to their lawsuit, Uno's Camry was struck by another vehicle, causing it to speed out of control down a busy California road until it hit a tree, killing Uno.
Her family accused the automaker of failing to install brake-override systems that could have
stopped out-of-control acceleration in vehicles sold in the U.S.
The case is the first to go to trial in California over acceleration issues.
"Regarding the verdict, we are gratified that the jury concluded the design of the 2006 Camry did not contribute to this unfortunate accident, affirming the same conclusion we reached after more than three years of careful investigation - that there was nothing wrong with the vehicle at issue in this case," a Toyota spokeswoman said in a statement.
A lawyer for the family of Noriko Uno could not be immediately reached for comment.
According to a recent regulatory filing from Toyota, around 200 proposed class actions and more than 500 individual cases have been filed against the company since February 2009 over the alleged acceleration issues.
This week, a federal judge in California ruled that Toyota must face a trial over claims that it failed to warn the public about design defects that caused certain vehicles to accelerate unintentionally.
That case was brought by the estate of Ida St. John, who said in 2009 that her 2005 Camry sped out of control and hit a school building. She died after giving that testimony, but the lawsuit does not claim that her death was caused by the crash.
The trial, slated to begin Nov. 5, will be one of the first of the many federal lawsuits focusing on the Toyota acceleration issues.
The first federal sudden-acceleration case to go to trial ended with a win for Toyota in 2011, in a lawsuit brought by a doctor who worked in Brooklyn.
10-11-13, 10:16 AM
#3
Lexus Champion
Los Angeles jury pins blame on other vehicle that hit Camry before acceleration
A bellwether case against Toyota regarding the fatal death of a woman driving a 2006 Camry found Toyota not at fault and the vehicle not defective due to a lack of brake override system.
The 2006 Camry was not covered under unintended acceleration recalls by the Japanese automaker. There are over 80 other cases pending against Toyota having to do with vehicles outside of the recalls. The verdict for this case may set a precedent for others.
“We are gratified that the jury concluded the design of the 2006 Camry did not contribute to this unfortunate accident, affirming the same conclusion we reached after more than three years of careful investigation — that there was nothing wrong with the vehicle at issue in this case,” Toyota spokeswoman, Carly Schaffner, said in a statement.
“We believe this verdict sets a significant benchmark by helping further confirm that Toyota vehicles are safe with or without brake override.”
Lawyers successfully argued since Uno, the car’s driver, didn’t attempt to brake the vehicle, a brake override system wouldn’t have helped the situation.
A bellwether case against Toyota regarding the fatal death of a woman driving a 2006 Camry found Toyota not at fault and the vehicle not defective due to a lack of brake override system.
The 2006 Camry was not covered under unintended acceleration recalls by the Japanese automaker. There are over 80 other cases pending against Toyota having to do with vehicles outside of the recalls. The verdict for this case may set a precedent for others.
“We are gratified that the jury concluded the design of the 2006 Camry did not contribute to this unfortunate accident, affirming the same conclusion we reached after more than three years of careful investigation — that there was nothing wrong with the vehicle at issue in this case,” Toyota spokeswoman, Carly Schaffner, said in a statement.
“We believe this verdict sets a significant benchmark by helping further confirm that Toyota vehicles are safe with or without brake override.”
Lawyers successfully argued since Uno, the car’s driver, didn’t attempt to brake the vehicle, a brake override system wouldn’t have helped the situation.
That last statement seems so obvious -- if you do not brake, the brake override system will not operate, so the car will not stop -- but it may take a very good lawyer to make that type of argument.
Brake override systems work by detecting the depression of BOTH gas and brake pedals, signifying that the gas pedal is stuck. Both pedals pressed is something that is very unlikely to happen, since so few people brake with the left foot so if the car's computer detects this situation, it concludes that the gas pedal must be somehow stuck down.
10-12-13, 07:37 AM
#4
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Sulu
That last statement seems so obvious -- if you do not brake, the brake override system will not operate, so the car will not stop -- but it may take a very good lawyer to make that type of argument.
Brake override systems work by detecting the depression of BOTH gas and brake pedals, signifying that the gas pedal is stuck. Both pedals pressed is something that is very unlikely to happen, since so few people brake with the left foot so if the car's computer detects this situation, it concludes that the gas pedal must be somehow stuck down.
10-12-13, 09:11 AM
#5
Out of Warranty
Brake>gas. Unless the brakes are themselves defective, they will always overcome the engine.
- Turning the key to "off" will always shut off the engine, but if left in that position may well lock the steering column on some cars (with auto transmission in drive).
- Shifting to neutral may blow an engine stuck at WOT, but it's better than a crash.
- It's possible you've gotten something like a floor mat wrapped up in the gas pedal. More likely you are standing on the gas rather than the brake. Pick up your big feet.
- If you are a helpless victim behind the wheel, maybe you shouldn't be there.
10-12-13, 09:32 AM
#7
Out of Warranty
Audi was the first major automaker to be indicted in the press on charges of unintended acceleration by CBS News in 1986. At the time the Audi 5000 was a top-seller and one of the finest sports-luxury vehicles available in the US market. Audi sold 74,000 vehicles here in 1984, but by 1991, they were barely able to move 12,000. Meanwhile NHTSA had held a number of investigations and hearings that completely exonerated Audi and a few other European manufacturers that had been drawn into the fray, but the damage was done. By 1993, Audi was seriously considering abandoning the US market altogether. It has never fully recovered its once honored position.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...ation-debacle/
Trending Topics
10-12-13, 07:29 PM
#9
Lexus Test Driver
THIS!
With the constant BS I see on the roads on a daily basis, one does not have to strain to believe that this is simply driver error.
I contend that <50% of the current driving population should be doing so.
With the constant BS I see on the roads on a daily basis, one does not have to strain to believe that this is simply driver error.
I contend that <50% of the current driving population should be doing so.
10-12-13, 10:07 PM
#10
Lexus Test Driver
So the whole original hype came down to the wrong floormats and now this. And what ever happened with the story of the blue, out of control Prius in San Diego? NOTHING. Because it was determined the driver was lying and at fault. In the meantime, the media has done their usual work in panicking the public (scare tactics for ratings) and hurting the brand.
So if one reviews the history of everything here since the beginning, he/she will see nothing was wrong other than human error. Precisely what I suspected the very first week this whole mess started. What a waste of time, resources, and reputation. Toyota and Lexus should file a lawsuit against every one of these false cases and sue for damages. What's fair is fair.
So if one reviews the history of everything here since the beginning, he/she will see nothing was wrong other than human error. Precisely what I suspected the very first week this whole mess started. What a waste of time, resources, and reputation. Toyota and Lexus should file a lawsuit against every one of these false cases and sue for damages. What's fair is fair.
10-13-13, 05:42 PM
#12
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Probably a waste of time. First, it would cost Toyota even MORE money to pursue new defamation-of-character or libel suits, and most of the drivers they would prosecute don't have anywhere near the kind of money or assets to compensate those corporate losses.
