Prius steering column scare

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 10, 2005
Messages
1,469
Location
PA
Quote:
Brad and Jenny Meek were coming home to Madison from Lodi one Sunday evening last May when Brad Meek's hands felt the steering column loosen in the couple's 2010 Toyota Prius.

The couple had been at daughter Emersyn's baptism, and the baby girl and her sister, Avery, 3, were in the back seat.

On Interstate 90-94, near the Highway 30 exit, Meek felt the entire steering column telescope and fall. Desperate, he tried to lift the steering column and wheel.

"Then the whole thing collapsed in my lap and my wife started screaming," he said.

At 70 mph, with no steering, Meek took his foot from the gas pedal and the car started swerving left. Placing his left hand beneath the unattached column to hold it up, he used his right hand to move the steering wheel and was able to direct the car to the side of the interstate.

Wisconsin State Patrol trooper Lor Lee's incident report says that the Prius' "steering wheel latch on the bottom broke, (leaving) nothing to hold it steady or in place."

What followed has been five months of negotiations with Toyota and Madison dealer, Jon Lancaster, where the Meeks bought their car. A settlement in August with Toyota has left the Meeks disappointed, poorer by $10,000, angry because Toyota would not totally reimburse them or pay the cost of a lawyer, or promise to inspect other 2010 Prius cars for the same problem.

Meek said Lancaster Toyota assistant service manager Gene Arndt listened in disbelief when Meek described what happened to the Prius on which the Meeks had run up 6,230 miles.

Lancaster's repair order on the Meeks' Prius says the "upper steering column plate came out of the bracket, possibly not locked in all the way from factory," and a sensor "has an internal fault." The mechanics had to take apart another 2010 Prius steering column to make sure nothing was missing.

"They said the bolts were not tightened enough, that a lock washer was on the wrong side and that vibrated it loose, and it was possibly not installed right at the factory," Meek said.

Toyota engineers were summoned to Madison to inspect the steering column. After the car was repaired, Toyota demanded that it be returned for further examination, leaving the Meeks with a loaner car. When the dealership told the couple to take their repaired Prius back, the Meeks declined. For several weeks, Meek was left riding a scooter to his job at Farm N Fleet.

Meek said Toyota shouldn't have been surprised that his family did not want the car back.

"We didn't want another Toyota, we wanted our money back," he said.

The Meeks got a lawyer, Pamela Smoler, to negotiate with Toyota. In letters from June 24 to July 18, Smoler asked for a new car, not manufactured where the steering-challenged Prius was made, for the Meeks and legal fees, "as the family does not have the time or money for protracted litigation with Jon Lancaster and Toyota."

She said the Meeks "expect some compensation for their time, trauma and constant worry and unrest."

In an interview, Smoler said Toyota officials in conversations had included legal fees in the settlement, and Smoler estimated her fee to be about $11,000. The total settlement would amount to little more than $40,000.

The Meeks signed a cash settlement agreement that included a gag order about the amount, and bought a 2008 Ford Taurus. Toyota would pay no legal fees.

They were told by Toyota that the issue of additional 2010 Prius possibly being manufactured with identical steering column flaws was "not statistically relevant," Smoler said.

Besides the Meeks' report, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's car defect, recall database contains no other reports of problems with 2010 Toyota Prius steering columns.

Toyota referred calls to a public relations office in Detroit, from which Curt McAllister said there would no comment other than this statement:

"The owner was fully refunded for the 2010 Prius in early August as part of Toyota's buy-back program. The case was officially closed on August 23, nearly two months ago."

Jon Lancaster Toyota did not return telephone messages. Meek said Lancaster offered him $100 "for our inconvenience."


http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/c...1cc4c03286.html
 
I think demanding their money back for something that (unless I misread it)was covered by Toy is stupid. I'm not a Toy fan boy, but in this instance, I don't see why they should have given him his money back. His car was fixed and he still wanted to stomp his feet? They took apart another car and all seemed to be fine with it...
 
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
I think demanding their money back for something that (unless I misread it)was covered by Toy is stupid. I'm not a Toy fan boy, but in this instance, I don't see why they should have given him his money back. His car was fixed and he still wanted to stomp his feet? They took apart another car and all seemed to be fine with it...


It was worth it to get him to go away. Sometimes you need to fire a customer and sometimes you need to give them a severance package when you fire them.
 
Originally Posted By: XS650
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
I think demanding their money back for something that (unless I misread it)was covered by Toy is stupid. I'm not a Toy fan boy, but in this instance, I don't see why they should have given him his money back. His car was fixed and he still wanted to stomp his feet? They took apart another car and all seemed to be fine with it...


It was worth it to get him to go away. Sometimes you need to fire a customer and sometimes you need to give them a severance package when you fire them.


Understood, but why did he have to stomp his feet in the first place? The car was fixed.
 
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: XS650
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
I think demanding their money back for something that (unless I misread it)was covered by Toy is stupid. I'm not a Toy fan boy, but in this instance, I don't see why they should have given him his money back. His car was fixed and he still wanted to stomp his feet? They took apart another car and all seemed to be fine with it...


It was worth it to get him to go away. Sometimes you need to fire a customer and sometimes you need to give them a severance package when you fire them.


Understood, but why did he have to stomp his feet in the first place? The car was fixed.


He didn't have to stomp his feet, he chose to stomp his feet because he was the south end of a northbound horse.
 
BLAH BLAH BLAH. Mindless blather on an isolated incident, stoked by sensationalist news media on a slow news day. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.
 
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
I think demanding their money back for something that (unless I misread it)was covered by Toy is stupid. I'm not a Toy fan boy, but in this instance, I don't see why they should have given him his money back. His car was fixed and he still wanted to stomp his feet? They took apart another car and all seemed to be fine with it...


I agree: this guy really didn't have a case against Toyota here (unless that state's Lemon Law REALLY favors the consumer). Normally, an automaker has one chance to repair a dangerous condition on the car (no steering, no brakes, etc). They repaired the problem and gave the man a loaner while they did it.
 
Quote:
For several weeks, Meek was left riding a scooter to his job at Farm N Fleet.


Whine whine whine. You can read the bias pretty clearly with the action words.

Instead of "I bought a lemon" Meek would probably say "Toyota SOLD me a lemon". And who cares if they're coming home from a baptism? Toyota needs thick skin, like anyone who sells cars, dealing with all the clueless whiners who buy appliance type cars.

Meek also considers himself some sort of shareholder or CEO, wanting to MAKE toyota inspect the rest of their cars. (And we saw Odie do this with the Yaris Head gasket situation.) Or a member of the toyota "family", buying loyally for X odd years hoping they'd remember him for helping build the company. The statistician in me says leave them alone like they were built from the factory instead of having multi-car dealership mechanics unbolt everything then try to put stuff back together the right way every time.

PS if your tilt latch goes out, or your column drops or whatever, you still have steering, you just have to use BOTH HANDS to twist the wheel, and maybe a knee to hold the guts up out of your lap. All the universal joints and shafts stay intact. Yeah you can't just use one pinky anymore. They cover how to hold a steering wheel in driver's ed.
 
Originally Posted By: eljefino
PS if your tilt latch goes out, or your column drops or whatever, you still have steering, you just have to use BOTH HANDS to twist the wheel, and maybe a knee to hold the guts up out of your lap. All the universal joints and shafts stay intact. Yeah you can't just use one pinky anymore. They cover how to hold a steering wheel in driver's ed.


I thought the same thing. His tilt mechanism fails and all of a sudden, he has "no steering" according to the article. Hmm...
 
Louisville Sludger is correct... just an isolated incident blown out of proportion. The warranty receiving areas of any auto manufacturer are loaded with such parts, and each has a story. I've visited them.
 
I agree. An isolated incident, and the owner and MSM are blowing it way out of proportion. If I get a flat tire do I demand that the tire company recall all those tires because they are unsafe? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. Same deal here. If it was a commonplace issue, then that would be different.
 
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Yeah you can't just use one pinky anymore. They cover how to hold a steering wheel in driver's ed.


Between texting on the cell phone and all the other non-driving stuff the average idiot does, you think they have any brain power left over to figure this out?
 
Originally Posted By: Nick R
I agree. An isolated incident, and the owner and MSM are blowing it way out of proportion. If I get a flat tire do I demand that the tire company recall all those tires because they are unsafe? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. Same deal here. If it was a commonplace issue, then that would be different.


Getting a flat tire is NOT equivalent to losing steering column. What external factors could cause steering column to collapse? Many things can cause a tire to go flat and most of them are NOT manufacturing defect.

- Vikas
 
Stuff happens. The couple's reaction to the incident is laughable. Do they really expect to get their money back on a car?

lol.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Vikas
Originally Posted By: Nick R
I agree. An isolated incident, and the owner and MSM are blowing it way out of proportion. If I get a flat tire do I demand that the tire company recall all those tires because they are unsafe? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. Same deal here. If it was a commonplace issue, then that would be different.


Getting a flat tire is NOT equivalent to losing steering column. What external factors could cause steering column to collapse? Many things can cause a tire to go flat and most of them are NOT manufacturing defect.

- Vikas



they did not "lose" the steering column. It went down and in because the clip that holds the user adjustable setting broke. They still had full control of the vehicle. I mean if a tire fails because of a manufacturing defect, which is most likely an isolated incident. There are of course, exceptions, but by and large it would be a singular occurence.
 
I sat in a courtroom where one driver was absolved of responsibility in a crash when he proved his one year old car had a defective tie rod that broke. The judge wished him luck in the case against the manufacturer. I don't remember hearing of any wholesale recall on that model line because of that one incident.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top