Corporate Counsel
  • Home
  • News
  • Surveys
  • Resources
  • Lawjobs
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Bookstore
  • Contact

Topics » IP Insider | Labor & Employment | From the Experts | On the Job | Moves | DC Watch | International

Home > Is Toyota Telling the Truth About Sudden Acceleration?

Font Size: increase font decrease font

Is Toyota Telling the Truth About Sudden Acceleration?

Toyota says its problems with sudden unintended acceleration are in the rearview mirror, but newly disclosed documents raise questions that experts say have not yet been answered.

By David Hechler Contact All Articles 

Corporate Counsel

March 14, 2013

  •    
  •    
  •    
  •       Comments (5)
 
Betsy Benjaminson

Betsy Benjaminson

Related Items

  • Toyota Responds

On the day he died, Mark Saylor was doing what he did for a living: driving on a California highway. Only he wasn't driving his state-issued highway patrol car that day in late August 2009. Nor was he driving his own Lexus 250, which was at the dealer for servicing. He was driving a loaner with his wife, daughter, and brother-in-law on a leisurely family outing northeast of San Diego—until suddenly the car inexplicably took off. And no amount of braking could slow it down. As Saylor frantically tried to gain control, his brother-in-law called 911. "Our accelerator is stuck!" he told the dispatcher. "We're going 120!"

It wasn't just the speed that made this so dangerous. He read the sign they were passing: "End freeway one-half mile." The car was barreling toward a T-shaped intersection. When it got there, it hit another car, flew through a fence, rolled into a field, and burst into flames. The last word before the screams was, "Pray!"

This wasn't the first time that someone driving a Toyota had experienced sudden unintended acceleration. And it's not a problem that's unique to Toyota. But this was the event that Toyota cites as the beginning of its ongoing crisis.

How has it responded? The company has moved aggressively to contain the damage. Shifting floor mats were identified as a primary cause of many of these episodes. The company found that the loaner that the 45-year-old Mark Saylor was driving was equipped with mats that had never been intended for that car. Later, the company fingered accelerator pedals manufactured by a third party as prone to sticking. And Toyota says that many accidents are caused by drivers who inadvertently step on the gas instead of the brake.

As the crisis mounted, the company seemed overmatched. Critics charged that Toyota had sacrificed quality—its traditional strong suit—in a rush to rack up sales. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which had been criticized for years for its willingness to pin sudden acceleration on driver error, suddenly got tough. Toyota recalled more than 8 million cars and paid fines totaling more than $50 million. Litigation, which had slowed down before the Saylor crash, roared back to life, fueled by the recalls and new complaints. And the political pressure, coupled with a Democratic Congress, led to hearings in Washington that drew global attention. Toyota Motor Corporation president Akio Toyoda flew in from Japan to personally face the politicians' angry questions.

But then everything seemed to calm down. As the company battled two large multidistrict litigation class actions (MDLs) in California, it quietly settled some of the smaller lawsuits, including the one brought by the Saylors' survivors. The results of several investigations trickled in. Some had been commissioned by Toyota, and tended to include lots of technical data and to focus on floor mats and gas pedals. Then, in 2011, NHTSA concluded its own probe, which purported to be comprehensive, and Ray LaHood, secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation (the parent agency of NHTSA), pronounced himself satisfied that Toyota's cars were safe.

Not only had the public uproar subsided, sales rebounded. Following a slump that was probably attributable as much to the economic downturn as the bad publicity, last year the company regained its status as the world leader in car sales. For Toyota, the long ordeal seemed over.

But some leading automotive experts aren't buying it. Last December, Toyota agreed to pay $1.3 billion to settle the MDL brought by car owners who claim that they suffered economic damages as a result of these events. Critics point out that it's a pretty big number for plaintiffs who weren't even directly affected. Beyond that, more than 200 personal injury cases remain to be resolved in the other MDL. The first bellwether trial had been scheduled for March, but it settled in January on confidential terms. At this writing, it's unclear how the matter will play out; some lawyers expect another large settlement.

But putting aside the politics and litigation, these automotive experts simply don't believe that the controversy has been put to rest. They acknowledge that some accidents are caused by drivers stomping on the gas instead of the brake, and some from defective floor mats and gas pedals. But the experts don't believe that these explain the surge in complaints. Instead, they believe precisely what Toyota has for many years steadfastly denied: that the problem is rooted in electronics.

These experts have found some surprising support from insiders at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration who were close to the investigation NASA conducted into Toyota's acceleration problems a couple of years ago (and which LaHood cited when he discounted problems with its electronics). And now the experts say they've found additional corroboration in the communications of Toyota's own people. Corporate Counsel obtained scores of internal documents written by employees who were struggling to understand why cars were suddenly accelerating, and where the company could have gone wrong. Among the writers were executives, managers, lawyers, public relations specialists, and engineers. (Continue reading >>)



Continue reading

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Next



Subscribe to Corporate Counsel

You must be signed in to comment on an article

 

Reader Comments

  • Toyota Lottery Winner

    March 26, 2013 03:30 PM

    This morning March 26, 2013 I experienced the FIFTH OCCURANCE of sudden acceleration. Each time I was STOPPED either at an intersection or waiting for a red light when the engine revved to over 8,000rpm's. My foot was on the brake and no I did not have floor mats other than factory supplied. The dealer has been sympathetic but since he "Can not duplicate" the event then "Obviously" there is nothing wrong with my Avalon.

    I am a statistic waiting to be reported!

  • BruceAHz

    March 14, 2013 09:16 PM

    Ok... if the electronics were a significant part of the problem, then why have the reports of sudden acceleration in Lexus models stopped? Has the press lost interest? Have the attorneys stopped picking up the phone calls from affected owners? Has Toyota actually fixed an EMI problem on the sly, coming to all owner's homes at night with a repair kit?

    While the article may document bad policies, procedures, and perhaps ill-will at Toyota, nothing in my scan of the article suggests that Toyota has successfully covered up a problem with the electronics, unless, of course, one of the options above applies.

  • Timothy D. Naegele

    March 14, 2013 03:56 PM

    This is a truly excellent article. David Hechler deserves great credit and congratulations for getting the story right.

    I am a lawyer, but I do not represent either side. I have worked on these issues since late 2009; and I have dealt with many of those who have tried to ferret out the truth, which Toyota has done its best to bury.

    See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/toyota-and-lexus-vehicles-are-unsafe/ ("Toyota And Lexus Vehicles Are Unsafe") (see also the extensive comments beneath the article)

    What Toyota has done is a travesty. The company has engaged in probably the biggest cover-up in global business history, and it deserves to pay a very heavy price for it, including a worldwide boycott of Toyota and Lexus vehicles. Nothing less will suffice.

    The lawyers on both sides of this fight have enriched themselves, but they have not ferreted out the truth nor served the public good!

  • L..S. Sherman

    March 14, 2013 03:11 PM

    There are some 300 product liability law suits waiting to be tried or settled. It will be interesting to watch this lengthy process unfold as these cases are moved forward by the Courts. Which will Toyota settle and which will they try? What information about the company and their revenue or costs, related to this defect, will be revealed?
    No matter how it all concludes, the questions about how our society will deal with the clash of commerce and advancing science linger. When money is at stake regarding valuable scientific discoveries, who is responsible for the deaths that result? What is to be done for the uninformed consumer who is the victim? How important are people when great amounts of business and therefore money, clash, resulting in human sacrifice?
    Questions for the ages and still no easy answers...but these questions keep coming up.

  • Ben Kelley

    March 14, 2013 02:14 AM

    In this excellent and comprehensive examination of problems related to Toyota's SUA failures and NHTSA's questionable treatment of those problems, Ford Motor Company is quoted as follows:

    "NHTSA has investigated alleged unintended accelerations many times over many years and has concluded that driver error is the predominant cause of these events/"

    The key phrase in this statement is "predominant cause." By using it, Ford acknowledges the existence of other causes, including flaws in the vehicles' incredibly labyrinthine electronics systems. Drivers have no control whatsoever over defects imbedded in their cars' designs. The simplistic "driver error" catch-all, a favorite with manufacturers and even NHTSA when vehicle defects are at issue, simply won't wash.

    As long as doubt exists as to the role of electronic-system glitches in causing crashes and their injurious outcomes - and as this article makes clear, doubt abounds - NHTSA is duty-bound to continue its investigations and refrain from declaring, as DOT Sec. LaHood did of the Toyota SUA issue, "The verdict is in and there is no electronics problem."

    The verdict isn't close to being in and the problem can't be made to go away by wishful thinking or semantics sleight-of-hand; LaHood, who will shortly leave DOT, has bequeathed it to his successor, whoever that may be.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Post a Comment »
Find similar content

Companies, agencies mentioned

    
  • Saylors
  • Lexus
  • Senate committee
  • University of Southern Illinois
  • Center for Auto Safety
  • Robinson Systems Engineering
  • Democratic Congress
  • EMI
  • O'Neill's
  • Transportation Department
  • Stanford University
  • ABC News Inc.
  • General Motors Company
  • Ford Motor Company
  • Chrysler
  • Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc.
  • Judiciary Committee
  • Toyota Motor Corporation
  • Supreme Court of the United States
  • United States Department of Transportation

Key categories

    
  • Product Liability
  • In-House Counsel and Corporate Law Departments

Most viewed stories

    
  1. What to Look for in a Board's Risk Director
    •      
  2. Safeguarding Brand Reputation In Social Media
    •      
  3. Patent Board's SAP Ruling is First Under New AIA Rules
    •      
  4. Are GCs More Than Just Legally Trained Executives?
    •      
  5. Another SEC Whistleblower, More On the Way
    •      
lawjobs.com

TOP JOBS

MORE JOBS

POST A JOB

From the Law.com Network

SEC Issues Whistleblower Award; More on the Horizon

Fixing Outside Counsel Budget Forecasting With Data

Proskauer, Former CFO Settle Bias Suit

Global Firms Cope With Istanbul Unrest

D.C. Circuit Nominations a Defining Moment

D.C. Circuit Nominees Widely Respected Within the Bar

iPad Competition Heats Up

Discovery on Discovery Demands Cost-Shifting

The Recorder 25: California Golden Again for Many Firms
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Capital Accounts: Judicial Branch's Brothers Don't See Eye to Eye
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Miami Photographer Sues Pop Star Justin Bieber
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Jeremy Alters Settles With Argentinian Firm For $1 Million
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Alcotest Should Be Discontinued Right Away, DWI Lawyers Say

Lawyer's Fudging of HUD Forms Draws Supreme Court Censure
  •      
    • Subscription Required

The Affordable State-Specific Practice Solution
Available in NY, NJ, PA and CT editions - research, draft and prepare even the most complex cases with ease.

Restaurant in Union Square Park Ruled Permissible
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Magistrate Judge Finds Few Benefits to Class in Settlement
  •      
    • Subscription Required

3rd Circuit Could See Rise in Pay-for-Delay Litigation

Cozen Debt Forgiveness Is Campaign Contribution, Court Says
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Sorry, Charlie, Your Wife Won't Support You

Top Reasons to Take Your Husband's Name

Texas DA Faces Removal Suits Over DWI, Alleged Misconduct
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Court Upholds Disqualification of Bickel & Brewer
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Fighting Over The Fifth
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Atlanta School Defendants Rely On New Jersey Officers' Case
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Chimp Attack Victim Is Denied $150M State Lawsuit

Auto Body Case May Lead To CUTPA Reassessment
  •      
    • Subscription Required

  • About Corporate Counsel   |
  • Contact Corporate Counsel   |
  • Advertise with Us   |
  • Sitemap
  • About |
  • ALM Properties |
  • ALM Reprints |
  • Customer Support |
  • Privacy Policy (updated 6/14/13) |
  • Terms & Conditions |
  • ALM User License Agreement
ALM Media