“Evasive Action”
Toyota routinely engaged in questionable, evasive and deceptive legal tactics: reports
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Monday, April 12th 2010, 7:52 AM
< http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2010/04/12/2010-04-12_review_of_lawsuits_shows_toyota_has_withheld_key_data_documents_when_sued.html >
Zalubowski/APIn a review of lawsuits filed around the country, Toyota has hidden key information that would be harmful to its legal position.
MIAMI - Toyota has routinely engaged in questionable, evasive and deceptive legal tactics when sued, frequently claiming it does not have information it is required to turn over and sometimes even ignoring court orders to produce key documents, an Associated Press investigation shows.
In a review of lawsuits filed around the country involving a wide range of complaints — not just the sudden acceleration problems that have led to millions of Toyotas being recalled — the automaker has hidden the existence of tests that would be harmful to its legal position and claimed key material was difficult to get at its headquarters in
Japan. It has withheld potentially damaging documents and refused to release data stored
electronically in its vehicles.
For example, in a Colorado product liability lawsuit filed by a man whose young daughter was killed in a 4Runner rollover crash, Toyota withheld documents about internal roof strength tests despite a federal judge's order that such information be produced, according to court records. The attorneys for Jon Kurylowicz now say such documents might have changed the outcome of the case, which ended in a 2005 jury verdict for Toyota.
"Mr. Kurylowicz went to trial without having been given all the relevant evidence and all the evidence the court ordered Toyota to produce," attorney Stuart Ollanik wrote in a new federal lawsuit accusing Toyota of fraud in the earlier case. "The Kurylowicz trial was not a fair trial."
In another case involving a Texas woman killed when her Toyota Land Cruiser lurched backward and pinned her against a garage wall, the Japanese automaker told lawyers for the woman's family it was unaware of any similar cases. Yet less than a year earlier, Toyota had settled a nearly identical lawsuit in the same state involving a Baptist minister who was severely injured after he said his Land Cruiser abruptly rolled backward over him. Under court discovery rules, Toyota had an obligation to inform the woman's attorneys about the case when formally asked.
"Automobile manufacturers, in my practice, have been the toughest to deal with when it comes to sharing information, but Toyota has no peer," said attorney Ernest Cannon, who represented the family of 35-year-old Lisa Evans, who died in 2002 in the Houston suburb of Sugar Land.
The AP reviewed numerous cases around the country in which Toyota's actions were evasive, and sometimes even deceptive, in providing answers to questions posed by plaintiffs. Court rules generally allow a person or company who is sued to object to turning over requested information; it's permitted and even expected that defense attorneys play hardball, but it's a violation to claim evidence does not exist when it does.
Related News
· Articles
· Toyota exec warned on defect: 'We need to come clean'
· Toyota extends lease deals, 0% loans and free maintenance to rev up sales
· Europeans warned about Toyota pedal problem long before U.S., documents show
· Toyota 'knowingly hid' pedal defect, fined $16M+: Transportation Secretary LaHood
· GM to use brake safety measure, designed to prevent unintended acceleration, worldwide
· Biz as usual at NY Auto Show for Toyota despite gas pedal debacle
· Top-rated Volkswagen Polo is a no-go in U.S.
· Vrooom, go American carmakers! GM, Ford auto sales jump in March
· Now the time to buy a Toyota? Automaker may extend sales incentives
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2010/04/12/2010-04-12_review_of_lawsuits_shows_toyota_has_withheld_key_data_documents_when_sued.html#ixzz0nZ7bsmaS
FIGHT CLUB:
"Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one…."