Rear-end Collision Costs Toyota $242 Million

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

After deliberating eight hours, a Texas jury ordered Toyota to pay $242.1 million to compensate a Dallas family involved in a 2016 rear-end collision that seriously injured two children.

The children, aged 3 and 5, were rear-seat occupants in a 2002 Lexus ES300 driven by parents Benjamin and Kristi Reavis on Dallas’ North Central Expressway. While stopped in traffic, a Honda Pilot collided with the rear of the car at a high rate of speed, causing the front seatbacks to collapse.

The boy and girl, sitting in child seats, sustained serious head trauma as a result of the collision. Of the hefty total, the Aug. 17th verdict rendered by the Dallas County District Court jury includes $143.6 million in punitive damages for “gross negligence.”

Frank L. Branson, founder of the law office that bears his name, argued Toyota designed the seatbacks to favor the safety of front seat occupants over those in the rear — a claim Toyota disputes.

“This is a danger that Toyota has known about,” Branson said in a statement. “This company has had plenty of time to design around these safety shortcomings or at least provide the public with warnings. Our children deserve better.”

While a collapsing seatback would certainly help reduce the chance of whiplash in a rear-end collision, as Branson claims, it also places front-seat occupants in danger of sliding out from under their seatbelts, thus increasing the risk of a different type of injury. This author has personally attended an accident scene where a high-speed rear-end collision (in this case, with a tree) resulted in the driver’s death after the seatback failed.

“While we respect the jury’s decision, we remain confident that the injuries sustained were the result of factors specific to this very severe collision, not a defect in the design or manufacturing of the 2002 Lexus ES300,” a Toyota spokesman said in an emailed statement to Reuters.

The automaker claimed it will consider its options going forward.

[Image: Lexus]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
5 of 93 comments
  • IBx1 IBx1 on Aug 20, 2018

    I reckon the driver of the Pilot was negligent for plowing full highway speed into stopped traffic, but then the Pilot driver doesn't likely have $240M...

    • PandaBear PandaBear on Aug 20, 2018

      Exactly, deep pocket always loses (and lawyers sue for whatever insurance coverage it has regardless of damage).

  • PandaBear PandaBear on Aug 20, 2018

    So the lawyer is going to sue whether Toyota prioritize the safety of the front occupants (in this case hurting his rear occupants), or prioritize the safety of the rear occupants (in that case hurting his front occupants). This is why I hate lawyers. His whole family should have died so nothing left to sue for.

    • See 1 previous
    • BeSavvy BeSavvy on Aug 21, 2018

      @PandaBear To: @IBx1 and @PandaBear Ahh...WHY oh WHY...aren't facts important to you. The speed limit was 70...driver of Pilot was going 48.So why do you say "full highway speed", @IBx1? No matter what speed he was going, yes, he still plowed into the car; but everyone else involved walked away. The airbags didn't even deploy. What was it that caused the devastating injuries for 2 backseat passengers? Yes, something in the the car designed by the manufacturer who knew of the dangers a long time ago and which Congress has written letters to ask them to address. @PandaBear, actually those same designed seats in many accidents have maimed the driver/front seat passengers with spinal injuries, etc. Congratulations on being happy that it may keep them from getting whiplash. They really might prefer several weeks of that to being paralyzed or having TBI (traumatic brain injury) for the rest of their lives. Since you are already horrifically suggesting a "whole family" should have died, I guess you are not interested in safety and cannot imagine that others might be interested in saving you or the person you love most from a horrible tragedy.

  • Marcr My wife and I mostly work from home (or use public transit), the kid is grown, and we no longer do road trips of more than 150 miles or so. Our one car mostly gets used for local errands and the occasional airport pickup. The first non-Tesla, non-Mini, non-Fiat, non-Kia/Hyundai, non-GM (I do have my biases) small fun-to-drive hatchback EV with 200+ mile range, instrument display behind the wheel where it belongs and actual knobs for oft-used functions for under $35K will get our money. What we really want is a proper 21st century equivalent of the original Honda Civic. The Volvo EX30 is close and may end up being the compromise choice.
  • Mebgardner I test drove a 2023 2.5 Rav4 last year. I passed on it because it was a very noisy interior, and handled poorly on uneven pavement (filled potholes), which Tucson has many. Very little acoustic padding mean you talk loudly above 55 mph. The forums were also talking about how the roof leaks from not properly sealed roof rack holes, and door windows leaking into the lower door interior. I did not stick around to find out if all that was true. No talk about engine troubles though, this is new info to me.
  • Dave Holzman '08 Civic (stick) that I bought used 1/31/12 with 35k on the clock. Now at 159k.It runs as nicely as it did when I bought it. I love the feel of the car. The most expensive replacement was the AC compressor, I think, but something to do with the AC that went at 80k and cost $1300 to replace. It's had more stuff replaced than I expected, but not enough to make me want to ditch a car that I truly enjoy driving.
  • ToolGuy Let's review: I am a poor unsuccessful loser. Any car company which introduced an EV which I could afford would earn my contempt. Of course I would buy it, but I wouldn't respect them. 😉
  • ToolGuy Correct answer is the one that isn't a Honda.
Next