Follow on Google News News By Tag * Toyota * Sudden Acceleration * Banzhaf * Law Suit * SUA * Gear Shift * Smart Brake * High Speed Control * More Tags... Industry News News By Location Country(s) Industry News
Follow on Google News | Toyota Loses, But SUA Plaintiffs Need New Legal Theories, Says Public Interest ExpertToyota suffered a loss when a judge refused to dismiss sudden acceleration lawsuits, and upheld claims based upon economic loss, but an earlier lawsuit and a major study strongly suggest that the plaintiffs will need new theories of legal liability
Recently, a jury very soundly rejected the two (and apparently only) major theories of legal liability advanced by plaintiffs in Toyota SUA cases. First, the plaintiffs' key expert witness was forced to admit that there was no basis to support his earlier claim that some unknown hidden electronic defect [sometimes termed "gremlin"] in the vehicle's Electronic Throttle Control System was a primary cause of a Scion SUA accident in 2005. In any event, the expert's earlier claim had been badly undercut by an exhaustive 10-month study by NHTSA and NASA which found no evidence to support this theory. http://pressroom.toyota.com/ The jury in the Sitafalwalla case also rejected arguments that Toyota was liable because of the absence of a brake override ["smart brake"] system in the vehicle. Here, they may have been influenced by very strong evidence that the most likely cause of SUA events is driver confusion ["pedal misapplication"] "Since the jury soundly rejected plaintiffs' two major theories of liability, and did so in only 45 minutes of deliberation in a case involving lots of complex testimony, these arguments may not succeed in future cases, including those involving injury as well as those concerned only with loss of economic value," says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who has been called the "Driving Force Behind the Lawsuits That Have Cost Tobacco Companies Billions of Dollars," and as a "Major Crusader Against Big Tobacco and Now Among Those Targeting the Food Industry." Since the unknown-electronic- AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION SHIFTING MECHANISM - Toyota arguably could be held liable because its use of a very unconventional joystick and shift pattern makes it very difficult for drivers already panicked by the sudden acceleration to easily and safety shift into neutral; a step which would have immediately ended the sudden acceleration problem without adversely affecting power steering or power breaking. Since (unlike with the conventional PRND shift pattern) Prius drivers would almost never shift into Neutral [N], and would be concerned that trying to shift into Neutral [N] during a crisis might throw the car into Reverse [R], they would be far less likely to be able to take this simple step which can be used (and is recommended) IGNITION CUTOFF SYSTEM - Toyota arguably could be held liable because its very unusual system for turning off the ignition makes it very difficult for drivers in a sudden acceleration situation to stop the acceleration by turning off the engine. The Toyota system reportedly requires drivers to push and hold down a button (for at least a second or more) to kill the ignition. This is not a normal reaction or an expected requirement - being more common for programming electronic devices than for controlling automobiles - and thus robs the driver of this opportunity. It is now being proposed that systems where the engine will be shut off with only a very brief touch of the button (or several repeated touches, as in the case of a panicky attempt to deal with a SUA situation) be made mandatory - apparently to prevent this problem for occurring again in the future. TOP SPEED CONTROL MECHANISM - Toyota arguably could be held liable because, faced with a rash of sudden acceleration incidents, Toyota did not give Toyota drivers (and parents of teen Toyota drivers) the option of reducing the top speed of the car to something more reasonable (e.g., 75 for adult drivers, 55 for inexperienced teen drivers) from typical settings of about 140 mph. Certainly this is "reasonable" "To be effective, and ultimately successful, plaintiffs' attorneys may have to be creative and think outside the box for new legal theories, rather than relying upon simple but apparently unsupported ones about electronic gremlins in the throttle control mechanism suddenly forcing cars to shoot forward," says Prof Banzhaf, who has been called the "Dean of Public Interest Lawyers," and an "Entrepreneur of Litigation, [and] a Trial Lawyer's Trial Lawyer." JOHN F. BANZHAF III, B.S.E.E., J.D., Sc.D. Professor of Public Interest Law George Washington University Law School, FAMRI Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professor, Fellow, World Technology Network, Founder, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) Creator, Banzhaf Index of Voting Power 2000 H Street, NW, Suite S402 Washington, DC 20052, USA (202) 994-7229 // (703) 527-8418 http://banzhaf.net/ End
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Account Phone Number