AP IMPACT: Toyota uses questionable legal tactics

[NickF1011]

Your right about that. People on this board couldn't see straight when Toyota sales were up 40% in March.

 

Tends to happen when you nearly give away your vehicles. Look at how Ford and GM did during the employee pricing BS.

[kenp77]

A moron either reads the article about TOYOTA VIOLATING CIVIL PROCEDURE and completely misses the point, or doesn't read the article and spouts off anyway.

 

 

 

You show me evidence that Ford has LIED DURING A CIVIL PROCEEDING over the spark plug issue and you've got a point. Otherwise, shut up. This is about Toyota lying to a US judge.U are right ford did not lie they just did nothing for 3 yrs when they fixed the design flaw, so ford customers were the only ones to pay just as bad as lieng in my book! I will shut up and quit my opinions when I decide not u opps I forgot u are god and can lock me out for having a difference of opinion

 

And as far as 'trolling' goes, ken brought that term up, I didn't. I said that you were both morons, based on your inability to comprehend English--or your willingness to speak without knowledge.

[kenp77]

Alright CNKSLS and kenp77, let's stop this tap dancing nonsense.

 

This thread isn't about Ford.

 

It's not even about the pedal recall.

 

It's about Toyota's lousy tactics. Plain and simple. They are just as crooked as any other large company. In this case they may be worse!

 

it doesn't matter if a person is a Ford fan, a GM fan, a Mopar fan, or any other brand. They all are happy that Toyota is starting to get their just desserts.

 

People that are not apologists are tired of dumb ass Toyota fans bragging how their "beigemobile" is the best in the world.

 

Their tired of hearing "I traded my Ford/GM/Mopar in on a Toyota and it gets 500mpg and never needs service. Suuurrree, the service bays at Toyota dealers are full of cobwebs and the techs play Texas Hold'em all day!

 

This is a FORD site first. If you don'y like how your precious Toyota is treated here don't read the threads or LEAVE!

 

Toyota is getting what they deserve and they may have more coming.

 

And stop preaching to everyone like you're their mother. I think we all can decide for ourselves how we feel and we don't need a sermon from you two.

I am not defending toyo even a little bit I don't drive one I am a ford guy my only point is ford, gm, chrys. toyo are all the same when it comes to having a problem which is screw the cust. any way possible,

[CKNSLS]

I am not defending toyo even a little bit I don't drive one I am a ford guy my only point is ford, gm, chrys. toyo are all the same when it comes to having a problem which is screw the cust. any way possible,

 

Well, I provided a link in one of my posts about how Ford, and other manufacturers have had more allegations about SUA(over the last several years) than Toyota thus far. BUT, those links get ignored here in this board. It's convenient to do so.

Edited April 12, 2010 by CKNSLS

[Mark B. Morrow]

Rich: First I am not a TROLL secondly I was responding to your analogy using widgets in your first 2 paragraphs, is exactly what ford did on the plug issue, which u can not defend, granted it is not a safety issue but it cost a lot of people a lot of money and that is just a fact.

 

The difference between a safety defect and a non-safety defect is huge. Automakers are required under the law to report safety defects. That failure to report is the reason Toyota is facing potential fines in excess of a Billion Dollars. Toyota violated American law. They are obligated to follow the law if they want to sell their products here.

[Mark B. Morrow]

You guys don't get it, do you?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_%28law%29

 

You can OBJECT to the production of documents, but you CANNOT DENY THEIR EXISTENCE.

The issue is not that Toyota has OBJECTED TO DISCOVERY. It is that they LIED ABOUT DOCUMENTS IN THEIR POSSESSION.

 

See this:

 

http://www.spinal-cord.org/news/spinal-injury-news036.htm

 

Ford PRODUCED DOCUMENTS DURING DISCOVERY.

 

They objected to producing these documents, and they had them sealed, but they PRODUCED THEM. They DID NOT DENY THEIR EXISTENCE!

 

GET IT?

 

That's just what the internet needs. Two more morons who can't read and think they know everything.

 

 

Good explanation RJ.

 

I can add a bit more having tried products cases against GM, Chrysler and Firestone for 8 years. Discovery is many times a game. The Plaintiff's counsel tries to make his requests for production as broad as possible. Discovery rules in Federal Court and most states are very broadly interpreted. Anything that may be admitted into evidence or which is calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence is discoverable.

 

Often Defendants will dump documents on a plaintiff to obscure relevant information. Many years ago I had a case against GM related to a defect in the seatbelt retractors in the G & N cars (Grand Am et.al and Corsica-Beretta). We requested all information on consumer complaints of seat belt failures in the retractor mechanism. I received 15 copy paper boxes of every complaint regarding any seat belt on any of the specified cars, including belts that were the wrong color, frayed belts, broken buckles etc. I spent days discarding thousands of sheets of paper that had nothing to do with my case in order to end up with about 100 cases that were on point.

 

My Firestone cases involved multipiece truck wheels and 16.5 inch rims that had been out of production for years. Firestone kept its document depository in the a barely heated room in the back of the old plant in Akron and three of us had to go through the litigation files in February while a surly secretary watched over us like a Hawk. Chrysler was one of the easiest to deal with although I suspect it was because we had a very tough judge and their counsel was very careful to stay on his good side.

 

There are no small products cases. There is big money at stake for both sides and the game is played hard.

[papilgee4evaeva]

Quoting and emphasizing for truth and relevance here...

 

The difference between a safety defect and a non-safety defect is huge. Automakers are required under the law to report safety defects. That failure to report is the reason Toyota is facing potential fines in excess of a Billion Dollars. Toyota violated American law. They are obligated to follow the law if they want to sell their products here.

[RichardJensen]

Those two strategies sound about typical, Mark---and seem to skirt the very outer edge of the discovery rules. It doesn't seem like it would take much in either case to cross the line into sanctionable conduct.

 

I expect that, as litigation continues, we will learn of a number of memos and other documents from Toyota's NA operations warning their Japanese superiors about the impropriety and danger of lying during discovery.

 

Toyota's inhouse lawyers in the US have almost certainly been complicit in these actions, and they undoubtedly knew what they were doing, and I expect dozens of memos to the file (if nothing else) exist expressing their misgivings about how Toyota has handled this.

 

Alternatively, we could learn that Toyota has destroyed countless documents relating to safety defects, which could very well open them up to criminal prosecution on obstruction charges.

Edited April 13, 2010 by RichardJensen

[timmm55]

THANKS MARK!

 

Lawyers get a bad rap....until we need one!

[Mark B. Morrow]

Those two strategies sound about typical, Mark---and seem to skirt the very outer edge of the discovery rules. It doesn't seem like it would take much in either case to cross the line into sanctionable conduct.

 

I expect that, as litigation continues, we will learn of a number of memos and other documents from Toyota's NA operations warning their Japanese superiors about the impropriety and danger of lying during discovery.

 

Toyota's inhouse lawyers in the US have almost certainly been complicit in these actions, and they undoubtedly knew what they were doing, and I expect dozens of memos to the file (if nothing else) exist expressing their misgivings about how Toyota has handled this.

 

Alternatively, we could learn that Toyota has destroyed countless documents relating to safety defects, which could very well open them up to criminal prosecution on obstruction charges.

 

 

My Firestone cases were after Bridgestone took over. The Japanese management really had no concept of the American system of litigation. We further complicated their practice of never mentioning their Japanese ownership by captioning the Defendant as "Firestone tire and Rubber Co, a subsidiary of Bridgestone of Japan". The Firestone guys and their lawyers had been down the road thousands of times and just treated the cases as normal cost of doing business. The good ones got settled the marginal cases went to trial. The Chrysler experience happened shortly after the Germans took over in the "Merger of Equals". Our case involved a Minivan liftgate failure, a case that had been tried to verdict several times. Once the germans were in control, they didn't want anything to do with what they considered Chrysler's substandard engineering and cost cutting at the expense of safety. They settled most of the pending cases quickly.

[RichardJensen]

The Japanese management really had no concept of the American system of litigation.

During the Congressional hearings, Toyoda and (I think) Inaba were asked if Japan had a tort system similar to the US; the answer given was 'yes'.

 

However, Japan's tort system is far less confrontational, and in fact, lends itself to a different sort of abuse entirely, compared with the abuses we're familiar with in the US.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=8uD_XvpmfWcC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=Takao+Tanase+entitled+%E2%80%9CThe+Management+of+Disputes:+Automobile+Accident+Compensation+in+Japan.&source=bl&ots=XE8suFoxtr&sig=joNekRJCVxNo1bJPQ51-m25yV-A&hl=en&ei=TdjDS5PiAuTgnQe4u6j2BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CA0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

See the second paragraph, p. 81, for an interesting observation of how Toyota's disingenuous practices may have been encouraged by Japan's tort system.

[CKNSLS]

My Firestone cases were after Bridgestone took over. The Japanese management really had no concept of the American system of litigation. We further complicated their practice of never mentioning their Japanese ownership by captioning the Defendant as "Firestone tire and Rubber Co, a subsidiary of Bridgestone of Japan". The Firestone guys and their lawyers had been down the road thousands of times and just treated the cases as normal cost of doing business. The good ones got settled the marginal cases went to trial. The Chrysler experience happened shortly after the Germans took over in the "Merger of Equals". Our case involved a Minivan liftgate failure, a case that had been tried to verdict several times. Once the germans were in control, they didn't want anything to do with what they considered Chrysler's substandard engineering and cost cutting at the expense of safety. They settled most of the pending cases quickly.

 

If my memory serves me correct, there was a family where the rear lift gate opened due to a rear end accident, and then their kids flew out the back seat (3rd seat).

[RichardJensen]

If my memory serves me correct, there was a family where the rear lift gate opened due to a rear end accident, and then their kids flew out the back seat (3rd seat).

Excellent deflection.

 

Of course the real issue is Toyota's contempt for the rule of law in the US.

[F250]

"People that are not apologists are tired of dumb ass Toyota fans bragging how their "beigemobile" is the best in the world."

 

Your right about that. People on this board couldn't see straight when Toyota sales were up 40% in March.

 

I am not going to leave. I feel the LOVE on this board

 

So with so many up's on your lot why are you wasting time around here, or were most of those sales fleet dumps. And I thought they claimed only 35.1%.

[papilgee4evaeva]

If my memory serves me correct, there was a family where the rear lift gate opened due to a rear end accident, and then their kids flew out the back seat (3rd seat).

 

Unless the van in question was in reverse at breakneck speed, that's not even physically possible.

[Mark B. Morrow]

If my memory serves me correct, there was a family where the rear lift gate opened due to a rear end accident, and then their kids flew out the back seat (3rd seat).

 

There were many of these incidents. Chrysler used a trunk latch to secure the liftgate rather than a door latch. On the early minivans they actually shaved off the top cap of the striker so things would not get caught on it when loading and unloading.The door frame was deformable in low speed impacts, especially from the side, and the latch overrode the striker. The curious part was that the liftgates on the Dodge Ramcharger and Plymouth Trailduster that predated the minivans by 10 years, used dual door latches on the sides like the Bronco II's and early Explorers.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Unless the van in question was in reverse at breakneck speed, that's not even physically possible.

 

It is entirely possible in an intersection accident when the van rotates. The rear seat mountings and seat backs were weak as well.

[papilgee4evaeva]

It is entirely possible in an intersection accident when the van rotates. The rear seat mountings and seat backs were weak as well.

 

Point taken. Didn't consider that.