CENTRAL ISLIP, N.Y. (Bloomberg) -- Toyota Motor Corp. wasn't responsible for causing a doctor's 2005 Scion to suddenly accelerate and smash into a tree, a federal jury ruled today.
The accident was caused by the driver, Amir Sitafalwalla, rather than the brake or the floor mat, said a lawyer for Toyota, John Randolph Bibb, in his closing statement today. Sitafalwalla "made a mistake in the operation of his 2005 Scion TC," Bibb told jurors. "He made a simple but unfortunate mistake."
The jury deliberated for less than an hour.
"It was all about how the mat came into play and obviously it didn't," juror Penny Overbeck, 38, of Center Moriches, N.Y., said after the verdict. She said her vote was also influenced by "all the testing Toyota did. They had it all on video. It pretty much explained it."
Sitafalwalla, a Long Island, N.Y., doctor who filed his lawsuit in 2008, had the first case related to the issue to go to trial since Toyota's recall crisis. Sitafalwalla had argued the accident was caused by defects in either the electronic throttle system or the floor mats. On Tuesday, U.S. Magistrate Judge E. Thomas Boyle, presiding over the trial, ruled out evidence on the electronics.
Toyota, the world's largest automaker, recalled more than 20 million vehicles worldwide starting in November 2009, for defects that included unintended acceleration.
Floor mat
Due to its design, "it's just not physically possible" for the Scion TC's floor mat "to entrap the accelerator pedal," said Bibb, of Nashville, Tenn.
"We weighed all the evidence and came to the conclusion that there was not a defect with the automobile," said Regina Desio of Plainview, N.Y., the jury forewoman. She declined to give her age.
Albert Zafonte Jr., a lawyer for Sitafalwalla, said he was "disappointed in the verdict. I thought there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find otherwise." Both he and co-counsel George Statfeld said they would have to consider whether to appeal.
Zafonte said in his closing statement that a defect in the design and distribution of the mat system caused the accident. The design allowed the mat to shift onto the accelerator pedal, Zafonte said.
Toyota also failed to install a brake-override system that would have prevented the accident and was available on the 2005 Prius, he said. The jury found Toyota wasn't liable for product liability concerning either the mat or the absence of a brake-override system.
More lawsuits
Toyota is facing hundreds of lawsuits claiming lost vehicle value or personal injuries caused by incidents of unintended acceleration. Sitafalwalla claimed the automaker knew its vehicles could unintentionally speed up, leaving drivers at risk for accidents and injuries.
Sitafalwalla, an emergency room physician, was injured in the October 2005 accident in the driveway of his Port Washington, N.Y., home.
Most federal cases claiming economic loss or injuries related to unintended acceleration are combined in a case pending in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, Calif.
PRESS RELEASE: Toyota Wins Key Unintended Acceleration Case
April 01, 2011
Torrance, CA -- Toyota has won a much-anticipated case in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of New York that was seen as an early indicator of the strength of the legal theories behind current unintended acceleration claims against the Company.
After deliberating for approximately 45 minutes, a jury reached a defense verdict in favor of Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. in an alleged unintended acceleration case brought by Dr. Amir Sitafalwalla, who claimed that an unsecured driver’s side floor mat was the primary cause of the crash of his Scion vehicle in August 2005.
During the course of the week-long trial, Dr. Sitafalwalla’s primary expert, Dr. Anthony Storace, withdrew his assertion that the Electronic Throttle Control System in the Scion could also have been a cause of the accident based on his acknowledgment that he had no basis to support that claim.
Toyota released the following statement in response to the favorable verdict:
“Toyota is pleased that the jury found no merit to this unintended acceleration claim, refused to accept testimony about possible pedal entrapment by the Scion’s floor mat, and rejected arguments that Toyota was liable for the absence of a brake override system in the vehicle. Importantly, plaintiff’s expert could identify no electronic defect in the vehicle’s Electronic Throttle Control System (ETCS) and offered no scientific proof of any electrical or mechanical malfunction in the throttle control or braking systems of Dr. Sitafalwalla's vehicle.
“Toyota's ETCS has been extensively tested, most recently in an exhaustive 10-month study by NHTSA and NASA, and has multiple fail-safe systems to shut off or reduce engine power in the unlikely event of system failure. We believe that this case sets an important benchmark for unintended acceleration litigation against Toyota across this country, as it clearly demonstrates a plaintiff’s inability to identify, let alone prove the existence of, an alleged electronic defect in Toyota vehicles that could cause unintended acceleration.”
Toyota was represented at trial by Brian P. Crosby of Gibson, McAskill and Crosby LLP of Buffalo, New York and J. Randolph Bibb, Jr. of Lewis, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C. of Nashville, Tennessee.
