July 27, 2013

Toyota faces first lawsuit over acceleration problems

Some people have died and others were injured by vehicles that unexpectedly speed up.

Los Angeles Times

Toyota has spent well more than $1 billion settling lawsuits involving unintended acceleration, but the world's largest automaker still faces hundreds of other cases awaiting trial.

Jeffrey Uno, Peter Uno
click image to enlarge

Accompanied by Peter Uno, his father, left, Jeffrey Uno holds a photo of his mother, Noriko Uno, who died in an alleged “sudden unintended acceleration” crash in a Toyota Camry in August 2009. The case is a bellwether for Toyota.

2010 AP file photo

First up is a suit filed by the heirs of Noriko Uno, a 66-year-old bookkeeper who was killed when her Toyota Camry unexpectedly sped to 100 mph on a city street in Upland, Calif., in 2009.

Jury selection started Monday in the Los Angeles County Superior Court lawsuit that argues Toyota should have had a fail-safe system that enables the brakes to override the accelerator. A judge has selected the case as a bellwether case that will help set the direction for hundreds of similar lawsuits against the automaker.

Opening arguments in the suit are expected to start next week, and the trial could last well into October, according to attorneys.

"Lots of people are tracking these cases," said Aaron Jacoby, a Los Angeles attorney who heads the automotive industry group at the Arent Fox law firm. "These sorts of cases build precedent."

There is also still a chance the lawsuit won't reach a jury.

"There will be some form of a settlement," predicted Thilo Koslowski, an analyst at Gartner Inc. "For Toyota, it might be an investment to not have this flare up into something bigger."

Toyota has settled numerous other sudden acceleration cases, including a pair of suits in Michigan in 2011 just days away from trial. The automaker settled the most notorious acceleration case, involving a California Highway Patrolman who was killed along with his family, for $10 million in late 2010. In late December and early January, the automaker settled the first two bellwether cases scheduled for trial.

It also settled a class-action suit filed by people contending that defects hurt the value of their cars, agreeing to pay as much as $1.6 billion. That settlement was finalized by a federal judge in Orange County last week.

Toyota has brought one case to verdict, involving a Scion tC in New York in 2011. The automaker won, but plaintiffs' lawyers in other suits say the case was weak and involved a different set of facts than most sudden acceleration allegations.

California state court rules may make the Uno case more likely to be settled. Plaintiffs in California have to convince only nine of 12 jurors to rule in their favor; federal jury verdicts must be unanimous.

Other litigation has focused on whether there is an electronic defect that triggers unexpected acceleration in some Toyota cars. But the attorney for the heirs of Uno doesn't intend to prove the cause. Instead, attorney Garo Mardirossian will try to show that the Japanese automaker was negligent because it failed to include a brake override system in the car. Such systems shut off acceleration when the brake pedal is depressed.

A brake override, the plaintiffs will argue, would have helped Uno stop her 2006 Camry before it careened into a telephone pole and a tree.

Many automakers, including Nissan, Volkswagen, Chrysler and BMW, had adopted brake override technology by the early part of the last decade, but Toyota had not.

Although documents show that Toyota discussed brake override with federal safety regulators in 2007, it did not start using the fail-safe until 2010, during its recalls of millions of cars for sudden acceleration problems. All new vehicles made by Toyota today include the safety feature.

But the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is generally considered the final word on what safety features automakers must include in their vehicles, said Logan Robinson, former assistant general counsel for Chrysler group.

"Just because your competitors have something in place doesn't necessarily make you negligent," said Robinson, who teaches law at the University of Detroit Mercy.

(Continued on page 2)

Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form

Send question/comment to the editors




Further Discussion

Here at PressHerald.com we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion. To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use.

Questions about the article? Add them below and we’ll try to answer them or do a follow-up post as soon as we can. Technical problems? Email them to us with an exact description of the problem. Make sure to include:
  • Type of computer or mobile device your are using
  • Exact operating system and browser you are viewing the site on (TIP: You can easily determine your operating system here.)