Steve Waldman is Board Certified in Personal Injury Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization
BBB Logo Site Notes

Loading...

Toyota’s Case for Lawyers

Toyota’s current recall fiasco is not its first tangle with vehicle safety, and it is not the first time the Japanese car giant resisted a fix that would save American lives.  Several years ago, the Prius had a side airbag problem that resulted in a partial recall. Cars excluded from the recall malfunctioned, and people died. Toyota fought every claim in much the same manner we have seen with the “unintended acceleration” issue. They dodged and denied.

The “$100 million memo” that surfaced during the Congressional investigation of Toyota, in which a company official suggested that fixing the acceleration problem would be too costly, was newsworthy.  However, it did not surprise lawyers who lock horns with big companies in product liability lawsuits.  What is notable about the Toyotathon of Trouble is that Congress is actually paying attention to how little the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has done to promote safety.  Had it not been for a horrific incident, when an off-duty police officer and three of his family members died after a Lexus ES350 raced out of control and crashed, this problem might have been swept under the corporate rug along with safety hazards of other companies that have kept lawyers busy for years.

Many of us are old enough remember the Ford Pinto and its exploding gas tank.  Ford was caught with its own “$20 million memo” that declared it would be cheaper to deal with the lawsuits than recall and fix the cars that ultimately caused 27 people to suffer fiery deaths.  Lawyers, not Congress, discovered that memo.

The truth is that our government has neither the time nor the resources to chase down every corporate wrongdoer.  When it comes to policing Big Auto, NHTSA is undermanned and underfunded.  That is why lawyers, and a vigorous civil justice system,  serve such an important purpose.  We have been called “private attorney generals,” as we enforce society’s demands for a safer world and punish those who act as recklessly as Toyota.  The “litigation tax” you hear big business complain about is the cost of making products, industry, buildings and other aspects of life safer.  Those in a position to make our lives safer can either act now or pay later.

Toyota chairman Akido Toyoda appeared at a news conference to apologize for his company’s miscues, and then in a scene out of a bad movie, drove off in an Audi.  In the 1980s, Audi had its own problem with runaway cars.  Is it odd how these events fit into a pattern?

Be Careful What You Ask For…

Just when you think things in Texas courts cannot get more absurd, the Supreme Court of Texas issued an opinion today (February 19, 2010) on a case pending before the Court since 2005, reversing both the trial court and the court of appeals.  What is amazing is not just how long it took for the Court to decide the case (this was the Court’s oldest case), or even that they reversed both lower courts (the Court is never skittish about reversing cases).  The best part of the story is that the Houston lawyer for the plaintiffs (the party that won before the trial court and the court of appeals) SUED the nine justices of the Supreme Court of Texas in federal court, to force them to make a decision.

Well, they made a decision eight days after being sued.  And the decision the Court gave that Houston lawyer was this: “You lose!”

I had a similar case many years ago.  I represented a truck driver in a dispute with an insurance company pending in Galveston federal court.  Both sides had filed motions that would decide the case.  After waiting several months for a decision, the Dallas lawyer representing the insurance company wrote the judge a letter and asked when he was going to rule on the motions.  Moments after I received that letter, a fax came in from the judge, and guess what he told that Dallas lawyer.  That’s right – “You lose.”

I suppose the lawyers in both cases had darn good reasons for poking their fingers in the eyes of the judges who were going to decide their cases.  Certainly, justice delayed is justice denied.  Still, it is seldom a good idea to push a judge too far.