General Toyota lawsuit/recall/problem thread

That's true for normal parts attrition on aging vehicles, this recall is due to a massive number of faulty parts installed on a known number of vehicles. The failure of this part can cause fading in the brakes which can cause a crash. It's the responsible thing for Toyota to recall the vehicles and repair the parts.

I heard on NPR this morning that there is also a problem with the wiring to the fuel pump on these vehicles and that is part of the recall as well.
 
Report: Suit alleges Toyota pushed owners to stay quiet about unintended acceleration

Report: Suit alleges Toyota pushed owners to stay quiet about unintended acceleration

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/10/29/...autoblog+(Autoblog)&utm_content=Google+Reader

Something tells us we're going to be wading through news of various lawsuits against Toyota for a good while. According to various news sources, the Japanese automaker is now facing accusations that it clandestinely sought to buy back vehicles with unintended acceleration issues in order to hide the problem from the public. Part of the alleged buy-back deal involved having owners sign a confidentiality statement that forbade them from talking to anyone ? including regulators. In addition, those who took part in the program could not sue Toyota later down the line.

The lawsuit also points to internal Toyota documents that may indicate that company technicians and engineers were actually able to replicate the problem. At the heart of the suit, plaintiffs are alleging that Toyota acted negligently by failing to act on complaints of unintended acceleration for years.

The lawsuit bundles together more than a dozen plaintiffs into one larger, easier to handle suit.

Toyota, meanwhile, says that those who sold back their vehicles were simply asked to sign a waiver of liability ? consumers weren't required to sign and the waiver didn't say anything about confidentiality.
Click to expand...

This one will be interesting to follow. Most these lawsuits reference "internal Toyota Documents" - I sure hope some of the automotive press digs them up once they are entered into the public record.
 
now facing accusations that it clandestinely sought to buy back vehicles with unintended acceleration issues in order to hide the problem from the public. Part of the alleged buy-back deal involved having owners sign a confidentiality statement that forbade them from talking to anyone ? including regulators.
Click to expand...

I'll believe it when I see it. I can't believe Toyota corporate counsel would be so stupid as to (1) draft a confidentiality statement that any lawyer knows would be void as to public policy (aka unenforceable), (2) put in a written document that was to be provided to someone with a potential beef against Toyota an admission (that Toyota knew there was a problem and didn't want the feds to know) that would perfectly set Toyota up for a punitive damages claim.

I suspect this news article is a result of the plaintiffs' attorney mouthing off and overstating his/her case.
 
They tried it with one of their own lawyers when he quit.
 
Toyota asks court to dismiss acceleration lawsuits

Toyota asks court to dismiss acceleration lawsuits

http://www.freep.com/article/20101102/BUSINESS0104/101102032/1014/rss13

Toyota is asking a federal court to throw out lawsuits over acceleration defects in its cars, saying many of the plaintiffs never identified any defect or experienced sudden, unintended acceleration.
The automaker filed its motion in court Monday.

Hundreds of lawsuits were filed against Toyota after the company started recalling millions of vehicles because of acceleration problems in several models and brake defects with the Prius hybrid.

Toyota has recalled more than 10 million vehicles worldwide over the last year. Federal officials said they have received about 3,000 complaints about sudden acceleration and estimated the problem could be involved in the deaths of 93 people over the last decade.

​
Click to expand...
 
Blind_Io said:
They tried it with one of their own lawyers when he quit.
Click to expand...

That's different, at least from a legal standpoint if not a moral one. There are legal ethics duties and the attorney-client privilege (which survives the termination of an attorney-client relationship) involved. There are only very limited exceptions where an attorney can rat out a former client for violating the law. I'd have to review the former counsel's actions very carefully to figure out if he legally had the right to open his mouth, even though from a practical standpoint it was good that he did so. A business's customers, though...you just can't stop them from talking to the feds, and any lawyer should know that off the top of his/her head.

Were the former in-house counsel's allegations ever proven, by the way?
 
If a lawyer can't stop his former employer/client from with holding information that could potentally save lifes, then what would it take???????? Lawyers and their ethics..........
 
Mitlov said:
That's different, at least from a legal standpoint if not a moral one. There are legal ethics duties and the attorney-client privilege (which survives the termination of an attorney-client relationship) involved. There are only very limited exceptions where an attorney can rat out a former client for violating the law. I'd have to review the former counsel's actions very carefully to figure out if he legally had the right to open his mouth, even though from a practical standpoint it was good that he did so. A business's customers, though...you just can't stop them from talking to the feds, and any lawyer should know that off the top of his/her head.

Were the former in-house counsel's allegations ever proven, by the way?
Click to expand...

Toyota tried to sue him when he turned over documents that were subpoenaed by a federal judge.

The case is underway, I believe we discussed it in this thread. The lawyer alleges that he has documents proving that Toyota faked crash test results - specifically those related to rollover safety.
 
Last edited:
Blind_Io said:
Toyota tried to sue him when he turned over documents that were subpoenaed by a federal judge.

The case is underway, I believe we discussed it in this thread. The lawyer alleges that he has documents proving that Toyota faked crash test results - specifically those related to rollover safety.
Click to expand...

Not exactly how I remember it.

Los Angeles, California (CNN ) -- When former in-house defense attorney Dimitrios Biller resigned from his top post at Toyota, he walked out with something potentially more valuable than his nearly $4 million severance package.

He took some 6,000 internal documents, including memos and e-mails potentially damaging to his former employer...

There are numerous references to so-called "Books of Knowledge," highly confidential information on design, safety systems and testing records allegedly generated by Toyota engineers on everything from roll-overs and roof safety to sudden unintended acceleration....

Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-New York, whose committee subpoenaed Biller's documents...

So far Toyota has fought successfully to keep Biller's documents sealed and Biller from testifying.
Click to expand...
 
The documents were then requested by a judge, and he turned them over. At least that's what I remember.
 
GRtak said:
If a lawyer can't stop his former employer/client from with holding information that could potentally save lifes, then what would it take???????? Lawyers and their ethics..........
Click to expand...

It's like the fourth amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures). If you look at specific, individual cases, it seems bogus. So what if the cops searched a random guy's house without a warrant? He turned out to be a child molester! Many people's gut reaction would be that you shouldn't let him walk free just because of a "technicality" in a two-centuries-old document. But when you look at the justice system as a whole, we're a whole lot better off with the fourth amendment than without it.

The same is true of attorney-client confidentiality. There are individual cases where it produces unpleasant results. But without it, no client could ever be honest with their lawyer. They'd have to treat every communication like a press release, instead of a confidential request for advice and assistance (which is what communication with your lawyer should be). It's the same reason priests can't rat someone out to the cops with something they learned during a confidential Confession. Only more important, I'd say, because I think people's entitlement to legal advice is more important than their entitlement to spiritual advice (just my opinion).

There is SOME possibility that the privilege wouldn't apply because of the future crimes exception. If that's the case, a judge would allow the documents to be disclosed. However, it's certainly a close issue, because we're talking about actions by the client that are all in the past. So just because Toyota's legal department tried to reaffirm its attorney-client privilege with its former lawyer, doesn't mean that Toyota is stupid enough to tell consumers that they can't talk to the feds about something.

And that's the distinction I made. I just don't believe Toyota's legal department would be stupid enough to put in writing that consumers couldn't talk to the feds about a purported safety issue.
 
Blind_Io said:
The documents were then requested by a judge, and he turned them over. At least that's what I remember.
Click to expand...

The way your comment was worded was misleading.

He stole documents, spoke about their contents publicly, showed at least some of those documents to the media, made damaging allegations against Toyota, and yes, turned them over to the courts when required.

Toyota has been trying to protect that information that they claim should have remained private.

From what I read there is no mention of proof of faked crash test results. It is claimed the correspondence refers to a "book of knowledge", but the lawyer has never seen that "book", nor does he know what it contains.
 
I'm sorry if you feel misled by anything I said, that was not my intention.

I did say that he took documents when he left Toyota and that he made public allegations of Toyota's malfeasance. Toyota did attempt to stop him, but when those same documents were requested by the court he turned them over rather than go to jail.

I certainly don't think anyone can know everything that has been posted in this thread, I only mentioned it so anyone who wanted to could narrow their search for the information. I did not intend it as an insult and if it was taken as such, I apologize.
 
Blind_Io said:
I certainly don't think anyone can know everything that has been posted in this thread, I only mentioned it so anyone who wanted to could narrow their search for the information. I did not intend it as an insult and if it was taken as such, I apologize.
Click to expand...

My bad, I should have used an emoticon. I was amused, not annoyed, by your comment that it was in the thread when the thread is 1,200+ posts long :)
 
Blind_Io said:
They tried it with one of their own lawyers when he quit.
Click to expand...

OK, I guess what I was referring to was this.

What exactly did Toyota "try" that was at all relevant to the claim in the previous article (unproven) that Toyota made owners sign a confidentiality agreement forbidding them from talking to anyone, including regulators, about the deal which saw them sell their cars back to Toyota.

It was a story about a former employee who was covered by an existing confidentiality agreement as well as lawyer-client privilege who stole documents and released them publicly.



Mitlov said:
I'll believe it when I see it.

I suspect this news article is a result of the plaintiffs' attorney mouthing off and overstating his/her case.
Click to expand...

I have to agree.
 
hansvonaxion said:
OK, I guess what I was referring to was this.

What exactly did Toyota "try" that was at all relevant to the claim in the previous article (unproven) that Toyota made owners sign a confidentiality agreement forbidding them from talking to anyone, including regulators, about the deal which saw them sell their cars back to Toyota.

It was a story about a former employee who was covered by an existing confidentiality agreement as well as lawyer-client privilege who stole documents and released them publicly.
Click to expand...

Possibly.

From my understanding they made him sign the agreement when he was fired - later they got a gag-order from a judge and then they tried to sue him civilly for complying with a judge's order to turn over the documents. Toyota claimed that he violated the non-disclosure agreement and the gag-order by complying with the court's orders.

The only reason I brought this up at all is because Toyota does seem to have a history of trying to silence their critics.
 
Blind_Io said:
The only reason I brought this up at all is because Toyota does seem to have a history of trying to silence their critics.
Click to expand...

But trying to silence your former attorney is very different from trying to silence your customers. Legally, it's night and day.

Possibly.

From my understanding they made him sign the agreement when he was fired - later they got a gag-order from a judge and then they tried to sue him civilly for complying with a judge's order to turn over the documents. Toyota claimed that he violated the non-disclosure agreement and the gag-order by complying with the court's orders.
Click to expand...

What happened isn't that dramatic:

While Taylor did not state that a crime or fraud had taken place, he said a "prima facie" showing had been made by Biller that would permit the use of "otherwise-privileged material" in the case. Under California law, an exception to attorney-client privilege exists "if the services of the lawyer were sought or obtained or enabled to aid anyone to commit or plan to commit a crime or fraud."

In his ruling, Taylor noted that the exception is "very limited, and requires extreme caution in its application." Taylor did not allow all of Biller's documents to be admitted, stating that the ruling only applies on a "document to document analysis basis."
Click to expand...

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Runaw...ig-win-toyota-whistleblower/story?id=11622845 (September 13, 2010)

From what I can tell, the arbitrator will do an in camera review (reviewing the documents without first letting the other side see them) and will decide document-by-document what is barred by the privilege, instead of barring all documents outright. There's been no finding that Toyota did anything wrong in the previous case or refused to turn over discoverable documents in the previous case, and no finding that there was anything wrongful about them trying to assert attorney-client privilege in the current case, regardless of whether the arbitrator ultimately upholds the privilege in these circumstances. As I read it, the arbitrator is just saying he's not willing to paint with a broad brush, and wants to make a document-by-document determination.
 
Mitlov said:
It's like the fourth amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures). If you look at specific, individual cases, it seems bogus. So what if the cops searched a random guy's house without a warrant? He turned out to be a child molester! Many people's gut reaction would be that you shouldn't let him walk free just because of a "technicality" in a two-centuries-old document. But when you look at the justice system as a whole, we're a whole lot better off with the fourth amendment than without it.

The same is true of attorney-client confidentiality. There are individual cases where it produces unpleasant results. But without it, no client could ever be honest with their lawyer. They'd have to treat every communication like a press release, instead of a confidential request for advice and assistance (which is what communication with your lawyer should be). It's the same reason priests can't rat someone out to the cops with something they learned during a confidential Confession. Only more important, I'd say, because I think people's entitlement to legal advice is more important than their entitlement to spiritual advice (just my opinion).

There is SOME possibility that the privilege wouldn't apply because of the future crimes exception. If that's the case, a judge would allow the documents to be disclosed. However, it's certainly a close issue, because we're talking about actions by the client that are all in the past. So just because Toyota's legal department tried to reaffirm its attorney-client privilege with its former lawyer, doesn't mean that Toyota is stupid enough to tell consumers that they can't talk to the feds about something.

And that's the distinction I made. I just don't believe Toyota's legal department would be stupid enough to put in writing that consumers couldn't talk to the feds about a purported safety issue.
Click to expand...


Priests and doctors are required to give information to the police if somebody has threatened another's life. This varies a bit from state to state. And priests and doctors have given information despite their vows/oaths to save people from potential harm. That is ethical. And priests have their own ethical issues over the last few decades(maybe centuries).

I am not a lawyer, nor do I claim to be. But the fact is that Toyota was withholding information that they are legally required to give to the DOT, NHTSA, and other federal agencies that could potentially save lives (already been fined a record amount?). The fact that they had already withheld the info, and attempted to buy the cars with the NDA attached is proof that Toyota was in the process of playing cover up, and had no concern of fixing the problem or saving lives.

And let us just assume for a moment that the lawyer kept his mouth shut and never revealed anything. Then a few years down the road when nothing ever got recalled and more people died, would that same lawyer be held responsible for not coming forward? No, because he is protected by attorney client privilege.


I repeat: Lawyers and their ethics.........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top