Posted on 10/20/2014 6:24:28 PM PDT by Citizen Zed
A jury has awarded $12 million to a California woman who blamed Toyota for leaving her a paraplegic after a crash.
The Superior Court panel in Monterey awarded the money last Friday to Chelsie Hill of Pacific Grove and found Toyota 90 percent liable for her injuries.
Hill was a rear passenger in a Toyota 4Runner — driven by a drunken teenager — that crashed in Monterey in 2010.
Spinal injuries left her unable to walk.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailyjournal.net ...
So how is it Toyota’s fault that the drunken teen crashed the car?
Oh crap, now the company lawyers are going to start forcing them to include breathalyzer interlocks in every vehicle (at OUR cost and OUR inconvenience and OUR cost to maintain). I support the death penalty for stupid jurors.
Reminds me of a jury award. A “photographer” mounted a camera in the rear seat of a small plane, and extended the plane’s controls so he could theoretically operate both the camera and the plane.
He couldn’t do both, and successfully sued the plane manufacturer after the crash.
A more appropriate target would have been the Feds for the CAFE standards. Of course in a sane world, which we no longer have, the blame would have been 50% on the drunk teen and 50% on her for getting in the car with a drunk driver.
She claims that the lap belt wasn’t enough and the car should have had a shoulder harness also. Blame the Feds for not mandating it, not the car maker!
Toyota forced the teen to drink and drive.
There was a bill like that one time before the New Mexico legislature around 2000.Breathalyzer interlocks on all new cars.
Before that in New Jersey on Oldsmobile dealership had a New Years Day promotion will breathalyzers on all new cars. 1980’s when one company I worked for a DWI was considered a “rite of passage” sick.
So she was in the rear middle seat? Must have been, that’s the only seating position that has lacked a shoulder harness for decades.
Were shoulder harnesses for this seating position legally required for a Toyota 4Runner in that model year? No.
Did the lap belt provided perform in preventing her from being ejected through the windshield in a high speed frontal impact? Apparently it did.
At what speed was the drunken teen driver traveling? Not specified but it must have been well above the legal limit.
And, how did plaintiff come to find herself in such a seating position traveling at a high rate of speed with a drunken teen driving the vehicle? She was impaired herself, is the obvious conclusion.
Lastly, what was the male/female mix of the jury? Heavy on female, I’m certain.
The guilty party is the driver. High speed drunken impacts cause injury and death, that’s why they’re illegal. There is no vehicle configuration that is going to prevent that.
It was a California jury. They'll give money to anyone. I'm sure this will get appealed. I doubt she'll see a dime.
A more appropriate target would have been the Feds for the CAFE standards. Of course in a sane world, which we no longer have, the blame would have been 50% on the drunk teen and 50% on her for getting in the car with a drunk driver.
why not sue the alcohol company?
due to Toyoto being Big Corp the jury prolly thought it had the magical money tree/
toyoto-toyota
Or they could stop selling cars in that state.
Jackpot justice!
It was a 1996 4Runner. Unless you want the government to ban older cars from use, you are going to end up with a wide variety of safety features. I had an old Ford that didn’t have any seat belts in the back, and only lap belts in the from. If someone got hurt in that car, is it Ford’s fault?
Appeal! Appeal! Appeal!
There was a bill like that one time before the New Mexico legislature around 2000.
Likely died in session- how would all the govt types get home if their cars would not start.
So how is it Toyota’s fault that the drunken teen crashed the car?
Bigger pocketbook than tean or insurance company.
Nailed it. Even before I went to the link I knew it had to be lib-centric California.
Up next: Suing small car manufacturers for injuries sustained in crashes with large trucks (or, conversely, suing truck manufacturers for the hazard they pose)...if they survive.
Got 'Smart' car? Have Donor Card. Survivors' Lottery. /s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.