unintended acceleration

n what has widely been considered a rebuke to plaintiff law firms taking on Toyota for personal injury and economic claims resulting from the company’s unintended acceleration problems, a government study concluded this week that none of these car accidents were the result of electrical malfunctions. Instead, the report said, all unintended acceleration accidents were caused by either driver error or manufacturing problems like sticky accelerator pedals and brake pads. But despite the difficult news, plaintiff law firms are charging ahead with lawsuits against Toyota.

In 2010, Toyota was the only major auto brand to post reduced sales in the American marketplace, due largely to the company’s failing safety record following a string of allegations regarding unintended acceleration leading to car accidents. In an effort to improve auto safety (and likely their image), the Japanese auto giant has announced that it will put $50 million over five years toward a safety research center in Michigan. The planned center will work with universities, research entities, and federal agencies to study methods to reduce car injuries and deaths.

For the past few months, public opinion concerning the Toyota unintended acceleration lawsuits has largely favored the Japanese auto giant. But last week, a federal judge declined to dismiss 40 personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits against Toyota. Most notably, District Judge James Selna said he would address fraudulent concealment claims, which could carry significant punitive fees, and did not dismiss negligence, strict liability, or failure to warn counts against Toyota.

In an odd policy statement this week, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety criticized the government for focusing too much on distracted driving and unintended acceleration, and ignoring more important safety concerns. “The hypervisibility of these issues diverts attention from initiatives that have far greater potential to save lives,” said the group’s president Adrian Lund. “There’s nothing rational about the way we set highway safety priorities.”