Toyota can be sued for economic loss
- Thread starter opus1
- Start date
- Status
Then wouldn't this be true for any safety related recall? Or any recall at all for that matter?
Its California..they have nothing better to do but sue for some really ridiculous reasons. If this succeeds, it opens the flood gates for even more morons and greedy sob's to sue any manufacturer and further driving vehicle prices up(companies will surely pass the costs onto the consumer).
Originally Posted By: Anies
Its California..they have nothing better to do but sue for some really ridiculous reasons. If this succeeds, it opens the flood gates for even more morons and greedy sob's to sue any manufacturer and further driving vehicle prices up(companies will surely pass the costs onto the consumer).
Yep..pretty much....
Its California..they have nothing better to do but sue for some really ridiculous reasons. If this succeeds, it opens the flood gates for even more morons and greedy sob's to sue any manufacturer and further driving vehicle prices up(companies will surely pass the costs onto the consumer).
Yep..pretty much....
It's Ka-Li-For-Ni-A ! What do you expect from a blue state ?
So is this some weirdo extension of diminished value?
anyone can be sued its the winning that is the tricky part...if you lose in some states you are responsible for all costs on both sides
This is indeed a litigious society, yes indeedo.
Woohoo, let's sue VW too. They had recall on Jettas , because fuel pumps were shutting off on the highway causing accidents. No, let's better sue Japan in overall, because their Nuclear plant blew up and global radiation level went up...
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: zyxelenator
Woohoo, let's sue VW too. They had recall on Jettas , because fuel pumps were shutting off on the highway causing accidents. No, let's better sue Japan in overall, because their Nuclear plant blew up and global radiation level went up...
And they continue to dump radioactive water into the ocean!
Wait a minute, this thread wasn't about Japan... Or Germany. It was about California and stupid law suits.
I see what you did there.....
Woohoo, let's sue VW too. They had recall on Jettas , because fuel pumps were shutting off on the highway causing accidents. No, let's better sue Japan in overall, because their Nuclear plant blew up and global radiation level went up...
And they continue to dump radioactive water into the ocean!
Wait a minute, this thread wasn't about Japan... Or Germany. It was about California and stupid law suits.
I see what you did there.....
it was sarcasm...and no way Toyota is not Japanese company. Vw is an example that others have or had troubles too,and don't have so much [censored] going against them.
If I bought a Pontiac Aztek can I sue because an unbelievably ugly car depreciates faster than one judged attractive.
The resale value of even a recalled Toyota will hold up well compared to any Chrysler.
The resale value of even a recalled Toyota will hold up well compared to any Chrysler.
Bit of a reality check needed here. First:
1. All the judge has stated is that there is merit for it to proceed to trial, rather than being quashed outright. If Toyota wins, then they will set the precedent for whether this becomes practice or not. Same as if they lose. We'll find out when its decided.
2. This was decided by a Federal court judge, whose role it is to interpret the applicable legislation. That implies he was appointed by the Fed, not the state of California, undermining the "typical for a blue state" slur, which is out of place regardless. FTR I would make the same comment toward a remark saying "typical for a red state."
3. I'm finding a measure of irony in that those most critical of Toyota, who've made statements to the effect that they'd like to see Toyota go under due to the UA issue, now suddenly get it (even if they don't realize it) that safety issues and resultant recalls aren't unique to Toyota, and just as they open Toyota up for something like this, so to do they open up other manufacturers. Now those very same people see this and suddenly cry foul. Amusing, and providing the truth in the old adage about being careful what you wish for, lest you get (and along with a host of other things you didn't foresee coming as part of the package).
Anyway, the above out of the way, I too am hoping that this precedent is not set.
-Spyder
1. All the judge has stated is that there is merit for it to proceed to trial, rather than being quashed outright. If Toyota wins, then they will set the precedent for whether this becomes practice or not. Same as if they lose. We'll find out when its decided.
2. This was decided by a Federal court judge, whose role it is to interpret the applicable legislation. That implies he was appointed by the Fed, not the state of California, undermining the "typical for a blue state" slur, which is out of place regardless. FTR I would make the same comment toward a remark saying "typical for a red state."
3. I'm finding a measure of irony in that those most critical of Toyota, who've made statements to the effect that they'd like to see Toyota go under due to the UA issue, now suddenly get it (even if they don't realize it) that safety issues and resultant recalls aren't unique to Toyota, and just as they open Toyota up for something like this, so to do they open up other manufacturers. Now those very same people see this and suddenly cry foul. Amusing, and providing the truth in the old adage about being careful what you wish for, lest you get (and along with a host of other things you didn't foresee coming as part of the package).
Anyway, the above out of the way, I too am hoping that this precedent is not set.
-Spyder
Last edited:
Sueing for a perceived (not actual) problem.
LOL
LOL
Originally Posted By: Spyder7
3. I'm finding a measure of irony in that those most critical of Toyota, who've made statements to the effect that they'd like to see Toyota go under due to the UA issue, now suddenly get it (even if they don't realize it) that safety issues and resultant recalls aren't unique to Toyota, and just as they open Toyota up for something like this, so to do they open up other manufacturers. Now those very same people see this and suddenly cry foul. Amusing, and providing the truth in the old adage about being careful what you wish for, lest you get (and along with a host of other things you didn't foresee coming as part of the package).
To use your vernacular, I find it both "ironic" and "amusing" that some apparently still don't "get it".
Aside from the merits of this case, and I agree with your assessment of it, the real issue with this "safety issue" and "subsequent recall" is the way in which it was handled. While you may be right to claim that safety issues and subsequent recalls are very common throughout the industry, you are completely wrong to label this as the same "typical" recall or safety issue. It was Toyotas own actions in actively taking measures to both conceal and deny that the issue existed that have brought this firestorm down on them.
The case in California is a direct result of the same actions that prompted the NHTSA to levy record fines against Toyota for not revealing the facts surrounding the issue in a timely manner. Look into the timeline for the European recalls vs the NA recalls and you'll find the heart of the matter for the NHTSA record fines. When a manufacturer is faced with a safety issue, they have a responsibility to report those claims, Toyota didn't and that is far from typical in the industry today. Toyotas own actions got them in this mess, both in the courts and with the feds.
I'm not saying that Toyota should hang in court for these suspicious claims, far from it. Just pointing out that this recall is far from typical. And that Toyota has fueled these claims in court with their own actions. If they had acted in a typical fashion, and avoided the huge NHTSA fines, they might find the courts more ammenable to their position.
3. I'm finding a measure of irony in that those most critical of Toyota, who've made statements to the effect that they'd like to see Toyota go under due to the UA issue, now suddenly get it (even if they don't realize it) that safety issues and resultant recalls aren't unique to Toyota, and just as they open Toyota up for something like this, so to do they open up other manufacturers. Now those very same people see this and suddenly cry foul. Amusing, and providing the truth in the old adage about being careful what you wish for, lest you get (and along with a host of other things you didn't foresee coming as part of the package).
To use your vernacular, I find it both "ironic" and "amusing" that some apparently still don't "get it".
Aside from the merits of this case, and I agree with your assessment of it, the real issue with this "safety issue" and "subsequent recall" is the way in which it was handled. While you may be right to claim that safety issues and subsequent recalls are very common throughout the industry, you are completely wrong to label this as the same "typical" recall or safety issue. It was Toyotas own actions in actively taking measures to both conceal and deny that the issue existed that have brought this firestorm down on them.
The case in California is a direct result of the same actions that prompted the NHTSA to levy record fines against Toyota for not revealing the facts surrounding the issue in a timely manner. Look into the timeline for the European recalls vs the NA recalls and you'll find the heart of the matter for the NHTSA record fines. When a manufacturer is faced with a safety issue, they have a responsibility to report those claims, Toyota didn't and that is far from typical in the industry today. Toyotas own actions got them in this mess, both in the courts and with the feds.
I'm not saying that Toyota should hang in court for these suspicious claims, far from it. Just pointing out that this recall is far from typical. And that Toyota has fueled these claims in court with their own actions. If they had acted in a typical fashion, and avoided the huge NHTSA fines, they might find the courts more ammenable to their position.
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Originally Posted By: Spyder7
3. I'm finding a measure of irony in that those most critical of Toyota, who've made statements to the effect that they'd like to see Toyota go under due to the UA issue, now suddenly get it (even if they don't realize it) that safety issues and resultant recalls aren't unique to Toyota, and just as they open Toyota up for something like this, so to do they open up other manufacturers. Now those very same people see this and suddenly cry foul. Amusing, and providing the truth in the old adage about being careful what you wish for, lest you get (and along with a host of other things you didn't foresee coming as part of the package).
To use your vernacular, I find it both "ironic" and "amusing" that some apparently still don't "get it".
Aside from the merits of this case, and I agree with your assessment of it, the real issue with this "safety issue" and "subsequent recall" is the way in which it was handled. While you may be right to claim that safety issues and subsequent recalls are very common throughout the industry, you are completely wrong to label this as the same "typical" recall or safety issue. It was Toyotas own actions in actively taking measures to both conceal and deny that the issue existed that have brought this firestorm down on them.
The case in California is a direct result of the same actions that prompted the NHTSA to levy record fines against Toyota for not revealing the facts surrounding the issue in a timely manner. Look into the timeline for the European recalls vs the NA recalls and you'll find the heart of the matter for the NHTSA record fines. When a manufacturer is faced with a safety issue, they have a responsibility to report those claims, Toyota didn't and that is far from typical in the industry today. Toyotas own actions got them in this mess, both in the courts and with the feds.
I'm not saying that Toyota should hang in court for these suspicious claims, far from it. Just pointing out that this recall is far from typical. And that Toyota has fueled these claims in court with their own actions. If they had acted in a typical fashion, and avoided the huge NHTSA fines, they might find the courts more ammenable to their position.
"Typical" may well have been the wrong choice of wording on my part, and from there I concede that your other points are indeed valid ones.
-Spyder
Originally Posted By: Spyder7
3. I'm finding a measure of irony in that those most critical of Toyota, who've made statements to the effect that they'd like to see Toyota go under due to the UA issue, now suddenly get it (even if they don't realize it) that safety issues and resultant recalls aren't unique to Toyota, and just as they open Toyota up for something like this, so to do they open up other manufacturers. Now those very same people see this and suddenly cry foul. Amusing, and providing the truth in the old adage about being careful what you wish for, lest you get (and along with a host of other things you didn't foresee coming as part of the package).
To use your vernacular, I find it both "ironic" and "amusing" that some apparently still don't "get it".
Aside from the merits of this case, and I agree with your assessment of it, the real issue with this "safety issue" and "subsequent recall" is the way in which it was handled. While you may be right to claim that safety issues and subsequent recalls are very common throughout the industry, you are completely wrong to label this as the same "typical" recall or safety issue. It was Toyotas own actions in actively taking measures to both conceal and deny that the issue existed that have brought this firestorm down on them.
The case in California is a direct result of the same actions that prompted the NHTSA to levy record fines against Toyota for not revealing the facts surrounding the issue in a timely manner. Look into the timeline for the European recalls vs the NA recalls and you'll find the heart of the matter for the NHTSA record fines. When a manufacturer is faced with a safety issue, they have a responsibility to report those claims, Toyota didn't and that is far from typical in the industry today. Toyotas own actions got them in this mess, both in the courts and with the feds.
I'm not saying that Toyota should hang in court for these suspicious claims, far from it. Just pointing out that this recall is far from typical. And that Toyota has fueled these claims in court with their own actions. If they had acted in a typical fashion, and avoided the huge NHTSA fines, they might find the courts more ammenable to their position.
"Typical" may well have been the wrong choice of wording on my part, and from there I concede that your other points are indeed valid ones.
-Spyder
- Status
Similar threads
