Toyota gas pedal fix injuction?

Pi1otguy

Pi1otguy

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
2,477
Location
Fontana, CA
Display Name
Display name:
Fox McCloud
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/...d=news_view&newsId=20100130005008&newsLang=en

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/lawyers-ask-court-to-stop-toyota-from-fixing-cars/

Business Wire said:
It also asks the Court to enjoin Toyota from implementing any fixes in the accelerator pedals of the subject vehicles without approval from the NHTSA.
Click to expand...

TTAC said:
The lawyers ask the court to stop Toyota from fixing the recalled cars without approval from NHTSA. If the court grants this request, the cars will never get fixed.
The NHTSA never grants an approval.
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)

People actually got hurt and even those without injuries had economic losses so I understand a lawsuit. What my non-lawyer logic doesn't get is the injunction. Is causing your client further injury (economic or otherwise) a viable strategy?:mad2:
 
Stupid question:
If they somehow enjoined Toyota and the fixed actually works, would the lawyers then be negligent (civil or otherwise)?
 
Think about what other alternative reasons there could be, and you may have an answer that makes more sense.
 
Well, yea. But attempting to harm one's client just sounds like a bad business, even if you expect the judge to deny it. It'd be like my doc saying he needs to break my good arm to get me a few more days off of work.
 
Pi1otguy said:
Well, yea. But attempting to harm one's client just sounds like a bad business, even if you expect the judge to deny it. It'd be like my doc saying he needs to break my good arm to get me a few more days off of work.
Click to expand...
How much would you pay the doc to not break your arm?
 
Pi1otguy said:
Well, yea. But attempting to harm one's client just sounds like a bad business, even if you expect the judge to deny it. It'd be like my doc saying he needs to break my good arm to get me a few more days off of work.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. I hadn't thought about that.

My thought was more along the lines of...is it *really* Toyota owners that are behind this?

The article said that it was a group of Toyota owners trying to get class action status. There are a lot of used Toyotas in the involved categories available.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
My thought was more along the lines of...is it *really* Toyota owners that are behind this?
Click to expand...

Of course the lawyers might want a little $$. And yes, lawyers make motions they expect to be declined all the time. But usually it's something that doesn't screw the client if approved.

The article said that it was a group of Toyota owners trying to get class action status. There are a lot of used Toyotas in the involved categories available.
Click to expand...
Even if they just do non-injury loss of use claims they can make a pretty penny. Makes killing or economically harming one's client for greater returns a bizarre & greedy strategy.
 
Pi1otguy said:
Well, yea. But attempting to harm one's client just sounds like a bad business, even if you expect the judge to deny it. It'd be like my doc saying he needs to break my good arm to get me a few more days off of work.
Click to expand...

What happened to the American spirit of self-reliance? Break your own damn arm if you want a few more days off of work!
 
Pi1otguy said:
Of course the lawyers might want a little $$. And yes, lawyers make motions they expect to be declined all the time. But usually it's something that doesn't screw the client if approved.


Even if they just do non-injury loss of use claims they can make a pretty penny. Makes killing or economically harming one's client for greater returns a bizarre & greedy strategy.
Click to expand...

I see exactly what you're saying and, trust me, there are plenty of lawyers out there that will create litigation to turn a dollar.

My thoughts are as regards the requested injunction (see the last sentence of the article in the first link).

But, here's my conspiracy theory for the week. If you were, say, GM and were losing big-time sales to Toyota, wouldn't it be in your interests to have Toyota in a serious bind? A serious bind being, for instance, an inability to repair defective models of vehicles like the Camry?

With that in mind, you have to have "standing" to get into Federal Court. That means you're required to have suffered an actual injury. All it would take is that you own a Toyota....

An injunction against Toyota preventing them from remedying problems with some of the best-selling vehicles (isn't the Camry actually the most popular?) in the United States would be a major blow against Toyota, and possibly a double-edged sword in favor of the sales of [insert American companies' names here]. Even more so considering that the length of such an injunction would be significant, considering that the NHTSA's certification process probably isn't very fast.

Not saying that's what happened here at all. But, that's the very first thought that crossed my mind.

On top of that...while I'm not familiar with the automotive industry, is there any precedent for NHTSA approval being required for implementation of a safety-related recall fix? I have a very difficult time believing that resolution of a known safety issue would be delayed, to paraphrase Princess Leia, for discussion in a committee.

P.S. - for libel purposes, the foregoing is a speculative opinion only. :)
 
Last edited:
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
But, here's my conspiracy theory for the week. If you were, say, GM and were losing big-time sales to Toyota, wouldn't it be in your interests to have Toyota in a serious bind? A serious bind being, for instance, an inability to repair defective models of vehicles like the Camry?
...
P.S. - for libel purposes, the foregoing is a speculative opinion only. :)
Click to expand...
I can't believe I missed the bigger conspiracy. It's almost as evil as the Ford/Firestone "It's cheaper to settle wrongful death then fix it" decision.

Good thing I never became a lawyer. I obviously lack the metal to kill others with litigation.:eek:
 
Last edited:
Pi1otguy said:
I can't believe I missed the bigger conspiracy. It's almost as evil as the Ford/Firestone "It's cheaper to settle wrongful death then fix it" decision.

Good think I never became a lawyer. I obviously lack the metal to kill others with litigation.:eek:
Click to expand...

No kidding - and I think there are plenty of people, both clients and lawyers, who would do something like that.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
I see exactly what you're saying and, trust me, there are plenty of lawyers out there that will create litigation to turn a dollar.

My thoughts are as regards the requested injunction (see the last sentence of the article in the first link).

But, here's my conspiracy theory for the week. If you were, say, GM and were losing big-time sales to Toyota, wouldn't it be in your interests to have Toyota in a serious bind? A serious bind being, for instance, an inability to repair defective models of vehicles like the Camry?

With that in mind, you have to have "standing" to get into Federal Court. That means you're required to have suffered an actual injury. All it would take is that you own a Toyota....

An injunction against Toyota preventing them from remedying problems with some of the best-selling vehicles (isn't the Camry actually the most popular?) in the United States would be a major blow against Toyota, and possibly a double-edged sword in favor of the sales of [insert American companies' names here]. Even more so considering that the length of such an injunction would be significant, considering that the NHTSA's certification process probably isn't very fast.

Not saying that's what happened here at all. But, that's the very first thought that crossed my mind.

On top of that...while I'm not familiar with the automotive industry, is there any precedent for NHTSA approval being required for implementation of a safety-related recall fix? I have a very difficult time believing that resolution of a known safety issue would be delayed, to paraphrase Princess Leia, for discussion in a committee.

P.S. - for libel purposes, the foregoing is a speculative opinion only. :)
Click to expand...


Oh, it's certainly happened before in the corporate context. And in politics, too.

I'll pull my boat out of the swift water now...
 
Leia didn't say that... her mother did.
****************************8
OK, someone resorted to quoting "FACTS"... This thread is now officially over...

denny-o
 
Missa said:
MOG, with a screen name like yours you should know your Princesses better...

Leia didn't say that... her mother did.
Click to expand...

Shoot. You're right. It was Han Solo in the asteroid field.
 
Missa said:
MOG, with a screen name like yours you should know your Princesses better...

Leia didn't say that... her mother did.
Click to expand...

I believe we have a pot/kettle situation here. Padmé Amidala was the Queen of Naboo in episode 1 and a Senator in episodes 2 & 3, not a princess.

 
"Good thing I never became a lawyer. I obviously lack the mettle to kill others with litigation." There; I fixed it for you. Or was the "metal" a pun intended?

:o)
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
If it makes you feel better, I'm going to have to have a Star Wars marathon tonight. :)
Click to expand...
In order of release or in Star Wars Universe temporal order?

Whose gonna be there? You and your nephew?

129080163788025032.jpg



:D:D:D
 
smigaldi said:
In order of release or in Star Wars Universe temporal order?

Whose gonna be there? You and your nephew?

129080163788025032.jpg



:D:D:D
Click to expand...

I neither watch the newest three nor acknowledge their existence.

I guarantee this thread will end up in SZ if I voice my opinions on the newest three. South Park came close with that disturbingly uncomfortable-to-watch episode re: the latest Indiana Jones. :)
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
I neither watch the newest three nor acknowledge their existence.

I guarantee this thread will end up in SZ if I voice my opinions on the newest three. South Park came close with that disturbingly uncomfortable-to-watch episode re: the latest Indiana Jones. :)
Click to expand...
Yes, I did feel that way after watching the marathon in December. It is just so hard to talk about.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • indysouthpark.jpg
    indysouthpark.jpg
    48.2 KB · Views: 95
smigaldi said:
Yes, I did feel that way after watching the marathon in December. It is just so hard to talk about.

attachment.php
Click to expand...

There's also a review of The Phantom Menace floating around that is just...wonderful. It's 70 minutes long but, trust me, it's 70 minutes well-spent.

Google "70 minute Star Wars review" and you'll find it.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
If it makes you feel better, I'm going to have to have a Star Wars marathon tonight. :)
Click to expand...

Obi Heed Kenobi said:
I neither watch the newest three nor acknowledge their existence.

I guarantee this thread will end up in SZ if I voice my opinions on the newest three. South Park came close with that disturbingly uncomfortable-to-watch episode re: the latest Indiana Jones. :)
Click to expand...

Wait!!!! The previouse quote is from #1 and you don't watch them?? Me thinks you watched it at least once if you know the quote to paraphrase. :rolleyes:
 
Lawreston said:
"Good thing I never became a lawyer. I obviously lack the mettle to kill others with litigation." There; I fixed it for you. Or was the "metal" a pun intended?

:o)
Click to expand...
It's always "metal" to me. As in pure brass polished to the Nth degree.:D
No need to be all proper and stuff. :)
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
I neither watch the newest three nor acknowledge their existence.

I guarantee this thread will end up in SZ if I voice my opinions on the newest three. South Park came close with that disturbingly uncomfortable-to-watch episode re: the latest Indiana Jones. :)
Click to expand...

Agreed. I have tried, maybe 4 times, to watch episode 1, and could not manage to remain awake long enough; perhaps I should have taken the hint when the videotape was for sale at Tom Thumb for $9.99.
 
ahhh, I see in the news this morning what I have been suspicious of for a long time...

Now Toyota is admitting that there may be a wee, little, small, possibility (only when the wind is right and the stars align) that their fly-by-wire throttle control electronics just might, maybe, possibly have a tiny glitch...
Makes me wonder if it was designed by Airbus...
 
From what I've gathered from the news media (all those reputable sources) is that Toyota started with a supposition that the problem was (1) people hitting the gas pedal when they thought they were on the brake. From there, they figured out that (2) the floormat was riding up on the gas pedal, depressing it and causing a problem. They decided to get the pedal up off the floor to fix that. Then, while investigating the floormat issue, they found that (3) a plastic part in the fuel delivery system, (I'm a little unclear where this part actually is) can get worn, take on moisture, swell, and stick in a way that refuses to allow the accelerator to return to neutral. And now upon even further investigation, there may also be a (4) minor glitch in the electronics.

So, in this case, there are four possible reasons why your particular Toyota goes haywire. Choose one.
 
AuntPeggy said:
From what I've gathered from the news media (all those reputable sources) is that Toyota started with a supposition that the problem was (1) people hitting the gas pedal when they thought they were on the brake. From there, they figured out that (2) the floormat was riding up on the gas pedal, depressing it and causing a problem. They decided to get the pedal up off the floor to fix that. Then, while investigating the floormat issue, they found that (3) a plastic part in the fuel delivery system, (I'm a little unclear where this part actually is) can get worn, take on moisture, swell, and stick in a way that refuses to allow the accelerator to return to neutral. And now upon even further investigation, there may also be a (4) minor glitch in the electronics.

So, in this case, there are four possible reasons why your particular Toyota goes haywire. Choose one.
Click to expand...


Ford :D
 
JOOC how many incidents have occurred with Toyotas? Are there any stats on uncommanded accelerations with other car makers?
 
vontresc said:
JOOC how many incidents have occurred with Toyotas? Are there any stats on uncommanded accelerations with other car makers?
Click to expand...


I haven't seen any real numbers, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I tend to think that there are very few (and no, I don't know how to quantify that), out of the million or so cars that might be involved. I also think that there are so few cars involved that it's been really tough for anybody to find a trend that would point to one cause. I think that's why this whole thing seems to have been a disjointed response. It's entirely possible there are several, unrelated, problems that can show the same symptoms. Maybe one guy's torque wrench wasn't calibrated properly when he was installing a gas pedal, or maybe whatever.

What I do think will happen is that from now on, a whole lot of accidents in Toyotas are going to be blamed, by the drivers and maybe their attorneys, on design defects. So, I don't know that anyone will ever really know how many Toyotas have been involved unless there ends up being one base problem found.
 
New theory being bandied about that the issue may not be hardware related but actually is an RFI issue.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2010-02-03-electromagnetic03_ST_N.htm

All manufacturers are looking at using electronics in controls such as the accelerator, next is breaks and even steering. This of the electrical interference issues when that happens. You will no longer actually be in charge of driving your care, you will be in negotiations with the computer that is driving your car.
 
smigaldi said:
New theory being bandied about that the issue may not be hardware related but actually is an RFI issue.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2010-02-03-electromagnetic03_ST_N.htm

All manufacturers are looking at using electronics in controls such as the accelerator, next is breaks and even steering. This of the electrical interference issues when that happens. You will no longer actually be in charge of driving your care, you will be in negotiations with the computer that is driving your car.
Click to expand...

So will they be like Airbus where the computer gets the final say so? :rolleyes:
 
vontresc said:
JOOC how many incidents have occurred with Toyotas? Are there any stats on uncommanded accelerations with other car makers?
Click to expand...

Yes there are stats - and Toyota has been running much higher than other brands. But I don't have a pointer to the actual data handy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top