California Jury Finds Toyota Not At Fault In Unintended Acceleration Wrongful Death Lawsuit

by TTAC Staff

Published: October 11th, 2013

california jury finds toyota not at fault in unintended acceleration wrongful death

A Califonia jury ruled that Toyota Motor Corp was not at fault in a 2009 accident in which 66 year old Noriko Uno was killed when her 2006 Camry ran into a tree after being hit by another car. Uno’s survivors blamed the accident and her death on unintended acceleration and Toyota’s failure to incorporate a brake-override system in Uno’s car. This was the first wrongful death lawsuit over accusations that Toyota products could uncontrollably accelerate. The jury found that Uno’s Camry was not defective, instead placing full liability for her death on the driver of the car that hit Uno before she sped the wrong way down a one-way street and into the tree. Uno’s survivors were awarded $10 million.

The Uno case is seen as a bellwether for the outcomes of about 85 addition wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits filed in California state courts in the aftermath of millions of Toyotas in 2009 and 2010 to address reports of sudden unintended acceleration. Items addressed in those recalls included floor mats getting stuck under the gas pedal and possibly faulty pedal assemblies. 2006 Camrys, like the one Ms. Uno was driving, were not included in those recalls.

A Toyota spokesperson said that the company was pleased with the jury’s 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. We believe this verdict sets a significant benchmark by helping further confirm that Toyota vehicles are safe with or without brake override.”

Toyota has also won personal injury cases arising from the unintended acceleration issue in New York and in Pennsylvania. Another trial is underway in Oklahoma, and cases are set for trial in Michigan early next year and in federal district court next month in California, where about 200 wrongful death and personal injury suits against Toyota are pending.

#Lawsuits #NorikoUno #Toyota #ToyotaUnintendedAcceleration #UnintendedAcceleration

TTAC Staff

More by TTAC Staff

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 49 comments

Lou_BC on Oct 12, 2013

One can blame a flaw in a car design but as others have pointed out, the biological interface with the mechanical is ultimately to blame. Anyone here old enough to remember standard transmission vehicles that could be started in gear? or auto trans put in gear without applying the brake? Most of this "safety" stuff was placed on vehicles because someone did something stupid and blamed the machine. I'd rather have one of these "safer" vehicles but we as a society have lost site of what constitutes personal responsibility. It is unfortunate that this lady died and her family and friends have had to grieve her loss but with all due respect to this lady and her family, why should Toyota be expected to be on the hook for 10 million?

Like Reply
CelticPete on Oct 14, 2013

Both Audi and Toyota have gotten screwed over this BS over the years. Almost all the time its hitting the wrong pedal. Once in a while its a floor mat. And the other times I think people are just BSing.. Like those high speed chases with the cops and such.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

FreedMike Not surprisingly, I have some ideas. What Cadillac needs, I think, is a statement. They don’t really have an identity. They’re trying a statement car with the Celestiq, and while that’s the right idea, it has the wrong styling and a really wrong price tag. So, here’s a first step: instead of a sedan, do a huge, fast, capable and ridiculously smooth and quiet electric touring coupe. If you want an example of what I’m thinking of, check out the magnificent Rolls-Royce Spectre. But this Cadillac coupe would be uniquely American, it’d be named “Eldorado,” and it’d be a lot cheaper than the $450,000 Spectre – call it a buck twenty-five, with a range of bespoke options for prospective buyers that would make each one somewhat unique. Make it 220 inches long, on the same platform as the Celestiq, give it retro ‘60s styling (or you could do a ‘50s or ‘70s throwback, I suppose), and at least 700 horsepower, standard. Why electric? It’s the ultimate throwback to ‘60s powertrains: effortlessly fast, smooth, and quiet, but with a ton more horsepower. It’s the perfect drivetrain for a dignified touring coupe. In fact, I’d skip any mention of environmental responsibility in this car’s marketing – sell it on how it drives, period.  How many would they sell? Not many. But the point of the exercise is to do something that will turn heads and show people what this brand can do.  Second step: give the lineup a mix of electric and gas models, and make Cadillac gas engines bespoke to the brand. If they need to use generic GM engine designs, fine – take those engines and massage them thoroughly into something special to Cadillac, with specific tuning and output. No Cadillac should leave the factory with an engine straight out of a Malibu or a four-banger Silverado. Third step: a complete line-wide interior redo. Stop the cheapness that’s all over the current sedans and crossovers. Just stop it. Use the Lyriq as a blueprint – it’s a big improvement over the current crop and a good first step. I’d also say Cadillac has a good blend of screen-controlled and switch-controlled user interfaces; don’t give into the haptic-touch and wall-to-wall screen thing. (On the subject of Caddy interiors – as much as I bag on the Celestiq, check out the interior on that thing. Wow.)Fourth step: Blackwing All The Things – some gas, others electric. And keep the electric/gas mix so buyers have a choice.Fifth step: be patient. That’s not easy, but if they’re doing a brand reset, it’ll take time. 
NJRide So if GM was serious about selling this why no updates for so long? Or make something truly unique instead of something that looked like a downmarket Altima?
Kmars2009 I rented one last fall while visiting Ohio. Not a bad car...but not a great car either. I think it needs a new version. But CUVs are King... unfortunately!
Ajla Remember when Cadillac introduced an entirely new V8 and proceeded to install it in only 800 cars before cancelling everything?
Bouzouki Cadillac (aka GM!!) made so many mistakes over the past 40 years, right up to today, one could make a MBA course of it. Others have alluded to them, there is not enough room for me to recite them in a flowing, cohesive manner.Cadillac today is literally a tarted-up Chevrolet. They are nice cars, and the "aura" of the Cadillac name still works on several (mostly female) consumers who are not car enthusiasts.The CT4 and CT5 offer superlative ride and handling, and even performance--but, it is wrapped in sheet metal that (at least I think) looks awful, with (still) sub-par interiors. They are niche cars. They are the last gasp of the Alpha platform--which I have been told by people close to it, was meant to be a Pontiac "BMW 3-series". The bankruptcy killed Pontiac, but the Alpha had been mostly engineered, so it was "Cadillac-ized" with the new "edgy" CTS styling.Most Cadillacs sold are crossovers. The most profitable "Cadillac" is the Escalade (note that GM never jack up the name on THAT!).The question posed here is rather irrelevant. NO ONE has "a blank check", because GM (any company or corporation) does not have bottomless resources.Better styling, and superlative "performance" (by that, I mean being among the best in noise, harshness, handling, performance, reliablity, quality) would cost a lot of money.Post-bankruptcy GM actually tried. No one here mentioned GM's effort to do just that: the "Omega" platform, aka CT6.The (horribly misnamed) CT6 was actually a credible Mercedes/Lexus competitor. I'm sure it cost GM a fortune to develop (the platform was unique, not shared with any other car. The top-of-the-line ORIGINAL Blackwing V8 was also unique, expensive, and ultimately...very few were sold. All of this is a LOT of money).I used to know the sales numbers, and my sense was the CT6 sold about HALF the units GM projected. More importantly, it sold about half to two thirds the volume of the S-Class (which cost a lot more in 201x)Many of your fixed cost are predicated on volume. One way to improve your business case (if the right people want to get the Green Light) is to inflate your projected volumes. This lowers the unit cost for seats, mufflers, control arms, etc, and makes the vehicle more profitable--on paper.Suppliers tool up to make the number of parts the carmaker projects. However, if the volume is less than expected, the automaker has to make up the difference.So, unfortunately, not only was the CT6 an expensive car to build, but Cadillac's weak "brand equity" limited how much GM could charge (and these were still pricey cars in 2016-18, a "base" car was ).Other than the name, the "Omega" could have marked the starting point for Cadillac to once again be the standard of the world. Other than the awful name (Fleetwood, Elegante, Paramount, even ParAMOUR would be better), and offering the basest car with a FOUR cylinder turbo on the base car (incredibly moronic!), it was very good car and a CREDIBLE Mercedes S-Class/Lexus LS400 alternative. While I cannot know if the novel aluminum body was worth the cost (very expensive and complex to build), the bragging rights were legit--a LARGE car that was lighter, but had good body rigidity. No surprise, the interior was not the best, but the gap with the big boys was as close as GM has done in the luxury sphere.Mary Barra decided that profits today and tomorrow were more important than gambling on profits in 2025 and later. Having sunk a TON of money, and even done a mid-cycle enhancement, complete with the new Blackwing engine (which copied BMW with the twin turbos nestled in the "V"!), in fall 2018 GM announced it was discontinuing the car, and closing the assembly plant it was built in. (And so you know, building different platforms on the same line is very challenging and considerably less efficient in terms of capital and labor costs than the same platform, or better yet, the same model).So now, GM is anticipating that, as the car market "goes electric" (if you can call it that--more like the Federal Government and EU and even China PUSHING electric cars), they can make electric Cadillacs that are "prestige". The Cadillac Celestique is the opening salvo--$340,000. We will see how it works out.