national

Jury rules Toyota not liable for death of woman killed in accident in U.S.

34 Comments
By GREG RISLING

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

34 Comments
Login to comment

it's tragic that an 86-year-old woman died, but how did they come up with the sum of $10 million compensation for her death? i think proving that toyota was at fault for these accidents is going to be very challening because all of their excuses are plausible.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Read paragraph 3 of the article again, slowly this time.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

This was a mere traffic accident caused by driver error. I respect the jury's verdict.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

This woman's car was hit by an 86-year old, who ran a stop sign. The jury, having heard and seen all evidence says it's that driver who ought to pay, not the maker of the deceased woman's car.

Makes sense to me.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Read paragraph 3 of the article again, slowly this time.

Unless a "brake override" system is mandated by safety standards (doesn't sound like that's true), not having an optional safety system is not sufficient cause to get a lawsuit to go in.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yeah, as mentioned, I heard NASA did numerous tests, tore those devices apart, digitally raped them and and concluded that it was not the problem of the acceleration claims. I believe NASA did a thorough investigation on the device in question.

It's sad that the family is asking so much in compensation. Although you can't put a price on life, it makes me wonder what the real driving force is behind this law suit is.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I think the article is very confusing, and anyone who thinks they know what it says should read it again. I think prior knowledge may be leading some people, but if so, don't blame those of us without it.

You know, it does not have to be that Toyota did or did not have to obey a certain standard. What alsomatters is if they knew they were selling a product that was not safe.

And you know, its interesting that they blame mats for getting stuck. If they did that to me I would instantly sue them again for giving me or someone I loved mats that could, by their own admission, get stuck in the accelerator. I don't know what the deal is with the mats in my used Toyota. They may not be stock. But there is a hook for the mat, but no hole. I had a lot of trouble with my mat until I put a hole in there myself. Hard to believe that its NOT a mandatory feature to have a mat that does not shift around.

I also find it odd that it seems everybody knows that these cars had a problem with accelerating on their own. I cannot see how that could not be a problem or solid grounds for a successful lawsuit, and never mind specialized brake over-ride systems. Anybody whose car suddenly accelerated while their foot was on the brake is liable to assume their foot was actually on the accelerator, right? From there their foot either goes from the brake to the accelerator ( a dumb mix up but can happen in a panic) or from the brake to the left and hit nothing, which would lead to more panic and a foot going crazy for the brake and possibly hitting the accelerator. The end of it might be driver error, but it started with the car doing something it shouldn't.

It just plain looks to me like the corporations won over the little guy again, given their status as corporations.

It's sad that the family is asking so much in compensation. Although you can't put a price on life, it makes me wonder what the real driving force is behind this law suit is.

@TheDevilsAssistant--Its okay to wonder but don't assume the worst. Their greatest wish might be to see some certain people in jail and get no cash, but that is not an option. All they can do is try to hit them as hard in the wallet as they can and hope that lesson makes them find installing safety devices cheaper than paying lawsuits.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Its the Rule of Man in America that finds the biggest and riches foriegn party with the slightest link to the case to pay up!

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

I believe the main problem is with "automatic" cars... So many times have I heard about the accelerator being "mistaken" for the brake. In this case however, "automatic" or not, the car was strongly pushed from behind, even trying to apply the brakes may have done little to stop this accident from happening.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

How is $1 Billion worth of recalls happening but yet they will not pay this specific family the money that they are seeking? And there's 80 cases nationwide. If more than one person is saying the same exact thing in different parts of the country then there must be some connection.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

10 years ago most vehicles had cable accelerator pedals. They could get stuck easier. Yet nobody complained. Its as fishy as it has to be.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

In the USA,plaintiff lawyers get to take as much as 50% of any judgement, so the real protagonists are the plaintiff law firms and the defendants' law firms (paid at about $300 per hour) And then you have the judges who in state courts are often elected, and need campaign contributions, I will let you guess the main contributors. Even non-elected Judges (appointed by elected governors usually) know where there is a retirement sinecure awaiting them. All of this is paid for by the consumer when he buys any product with the costs spread to all manufacturers though the insurance companies. Amazing there is any business in this country at all!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

20 million? yeah, it's worth to try... they thought. however,as the result, only the lawyers are winners,as always. love USA!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Finally, some sanity in the anti-Toyota crusade.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

when her 2006 Camry apparently accelerated and crashed despite her efforts to stop.

Who knows what the woman was really doing? This article makes a huge assumption in stating that she was making an effort to stop. In their original complaint, the plaintiff claims that she was swerving to try and avoid the car that ran the stop sign:

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Jury-Deliberations-Toyota-Camry-Unintended-Acceleration-Lawsuit-Crash-226172011.html

It seems to me that you have a split-second 50/50 choice of what to do while swerving to avoid a collision: A.) slam on the brakes to stop before the point of impact, or B.) try and accelerate past the point of impact. It seems to me that it's very likely she chose B (incorrectly, as it turns out) rather than A.

You may remember the infamous case of the CHP officer who was killed with his family in a Lexus in August of 2009. Toyota settled in that lawsuit. THIS crash happened on the EXACT SAME DAY yet nobody filed any claims until after Toyota settled the other case. This reeks of an ambulance-chaser lawyer trying to maximize his payday.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Toyota US Division was very poorly handled the sudden unintentionally acceleration case from beginning. Now everyone is thinking Toyota Company as milking cow.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Americans are just looking for a quick buck.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Its the Rule of Man in America that finds the biggest and riches foriegn party with the slightest link to the case to pay up!

Strike "foriegn" from this sentence, and you'd be closer to the truth.

In the USA,plaintiff lawyers get to take as much as 50% of any judgement,

33.3% is standard, I believe.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

How is $1 Billion worth of recalls happening but yet they will not pay this specific family the money that they are seeking? And there's 80 cases nationwide. If more than one person is saying the same exact thing in different parts of the country then there must be some connection.

@Jason Santana--Many are strangely desperate to overlook these simple facts.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Many are strangely desperate to overlook these simple facts.

Obviously not. The family lost in court after all evidence was looked at by a random jury.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This recall will ensure American car buyers stcik to Toyota. Ford and GM do not have this practice.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Fadamor Oct. 11, 2013 - 10:45PM JST You may remember the infamous case of the CHP officer who was killed with his family in a Lexus in August of 2009. Toyota settled in that lawsuit. THIS crash happened on the EXACT SAME DAY yet nobody filed any claims until after Toyota settled the other case. This reeks of an ambulance-chaser lawyer trying to maximize his payday.

Then let me ask you this question: How would you stop this Lexus ES350 during the sudden accelation? The wrong floor mat caused sudden accelation in San Diego case. In that vehicle, and in order to shut this Lexus engine off, you have to push the button for three seconds straight while the car is going full blast (which amount to distance of over 500-600 feet). Did the driver of the rented Lexus knew ahead that in order to shut the engine off, you to push red button for three seconds? Of course not. If you try to put in neutral on this gate automatic transmission, you cannot shift to neutal while running. it's locked. If you applied the brakes, it will eventually heat up so much to the point where brake does not work. What would you have done? More you look at this Lexus ES350, Toyota engineers designed this car very poorly with no safety in mind.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Nobody can destroy toyota reputation

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Obviously not. The family lost in court after all evidence was looked at by a random jury.

@TheDevilsAssistant--How do you know all the evidence was looked at? How do you know the jury was random? Why in the world do you think we have courts of appeal?

Furthermore, Federal lawsuits are still pending. 80 similar cases are coming to state courts soon. Don't count your chickens before they are hatched.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

In 1994 I bought a brand new Toyota Rav 4. A week later I found myself in the worst scenario as a driver! The entire computer system failed while the car was moving slowly downhill through a narrow street towards a train station while passengers were coming out! Guess what I did next to avoid possible 'fatalities'!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Guess what I did next to avoid possible 'fatalities'!

Steer the car into a wall or pole, at which point a representative of Toyota jumped out of nowhere and proclaimed the accident "driver error" since YOU steered the car into an object all by yourself!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I have had water bottles stuck under pedal. Through I was lucky

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@kiyoshiMukai--Was the water bottle made by Toyota and came attached to the car?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@TheDevilsAssistant--How do you know all the evidence was looked at? How do you know the jury was random? Why in the world do you think we have courts of appeal?

I didn't know American courts operated half-assed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry but I can't trust Toyota!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I didn't know American courts operated half-assed.

@TheDevilsAssistant--Its me who didn't know they were infallible and un-buyable.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

its pathetic that Toyota is trying to use the verdict of this ordinary accident to shrug-off responsibility for putting the lives of millions of Gaijin at risk..

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Then let me ask you this question: How would you stop this Lexus ES350 during the sudden accelation? The wrong floor mat caused sudden accelation in San Diego case. In that vehicle, and in order to shut this Lexus engine off, you have to push the button for three seconds straight while the car is going full blast (which amount to distance of over 500-600 feet). Did the driver of the rented Lexus knew ahead that in order to shut the engine off, you to push red button for three seconds? Of course not. If you try to put in neutral on this gate automatic transmission, you cannot shift to neutal while running. it's locked. If you applied the brakes, it will eventually heat up so much to the point where brake does not work. What would you have done? More you look at this Lexus ES350, Toyota engineers designed this car very poorly with no safety in mind.

Considering that the car involved this time was a 2006 Camry and not a Lexus ES350, what does ANY of your post have to do with the article. The issue is not how to stop a Lexus ES350. The issue is whether a 2006 Camry picked that exact time (while trying to swerve) to fail and accelerate instead of brake, or whether the accelerator was applied by the driver instead of the brakes.

The probable reason Toyota settled the Lexus suit was because there was ample evidence of engine run-away. There was the phone call to police by a passenger during the engine run-away telling them what was going on and there was the examination of the brakes after the crash showing that the brake linings had been completely worn away in the attempts to stop the car. There was NONE of this evidence in the Camry crash. The plaintiff wants us to take his word for it that the driver was trying to stop instead of accelerate to avoid the collision. As far as I can tell, he wasn't in the car at the time so he can't say WHAT his wife was doing at that moment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@fadamor

The San Diego accident that I am referring to you was the Lexus ES350.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-toyota-recall18-2009oct18,0,739395.story

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites