Toyota drivers suing in US for a full refund

What is your explanation for the recall(s)? Is that not proof of a defect?

 

A recall is not evidence of an actual defect on a specific vehicle.

It's unclear how recalls tie in with lemon laws.

ETA: To clarify the first sentence. Certain recalls could be considered evidence of actual defects.. for instance the 2010 braking modification. However for most recalls, especially those covering physical items, I don't think this is the case.

 

Correct. Most recalls are precipitated by a tiny percentage of problems. In some cases recalls are initiated to correct potential problems that have not yet been detected in the field.

Tom

 

The recall (SSC AOB) "Toyota has received complaints of inconsistent brake FEEL" There is not a recall for sudden unintended acceleration.
And even the "brake feel is suspect". As i stated in an older post, the corvette, 350Z that I've owned in the past have fishtailed when I mash the accelerator, I don't like that way that feels (may lead to loss of control and a crash) I would not expect to receive a recall because of the way that feels.

 

Well, if the Corvette and 350Z had vehicle stability control and they fishtailed when the go pedal was pressed, there might have been a problem with the stability control system. If the fishtailing could not be cured by repairing the stability system, then the lemon law is a viable remedy. Whether a recall is in order is a different decision based on volume of affected vehicles. My point is that a recall changes the decision process. And each state has a different decision process.

 

It all comes down to the specifics of the particular situation. And where the lemon law remedy is being pursued. California has a pretty consumer-friendly lemon law. Other states are more manufacturer-friendly. 2 recalls for the same safety-related condition followed by reports of continued manifestation of the safety condition would probably get you into lemon law jurisdiction in California.

 

In Michigan, they take the consumer out back and beat him with rubber hoses.

Tom

 

Presuming you're within the lemon law window to begin with.

 

In California, once the consumer has met the failed repair threshold, the cost of legal representation for the consumer is covered from the get-go by the manufacturer.

 

The repair center gets multiple 'tries' ... to get the fix taken care of, and since the odds are astronomical of the acceleration event even happening (in the thousandths of one percent) on your toyota ... good luck with even a minor minority ever applying lemon laws in CA for this issue.

.

 

Again, we can wait and see. It will be nice to reduce the priui population by half. With so many Prius owners out there, I don't feel that special anymore.

 

IMO there is a better chance of the judge tossing this suit out. Plaintiff will need to produce evidence which I am absolutely sure they don't have. Owners claim their cars are unsafe. Did they return to the dealer for repair? Did they notify Toyota? Toyota should vigorously defend and perhaps file a counterclaim for defamation, libel, and slander.

 

Only 2 attempts for safety items.

 

2 recalls for a sudden acceleration issue and one sudden acceleration event after the 2nd recall equals lemon law jurisdiction in California. Once you are in lemon law jurisdiction (at least in California), there is a presumption that the car is a lemon and the burden shifts to the manufacturer to prove otherwise.

 

I don't see any mention of the California Lemon Law applying to vehicle recalls. It appears to be like my state's law -- the defect has to be in your specific car, not in the other people's cars that triggered the recall. And you have to report this defect directly to the manufacturer yourself.

Your 2007 model has passed the 18 month Lemon Law window, so you must fall back to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

 

I have mixed feelings about this. My Prius took off on me and wrecked itself last year (another thread) before all the publicity or the recalls, and is now at the dealer being extensively (I hope) tested.

I am very afraid of my car now. However, I am also willing to be convinced it is safe, based on evidence, and I got some good suggestions here that I asked the dealer to look at, in addition to their normal checks. Companies change - Toyota hasn't been all that frank and open either and seems to be focusing on attacking people vs fixing cars.

I think the lawsuit is BS; I'd rather see Toyota using the money to fix the intermittent problems that I think *some* individual cars really DO have. Not all of us are liars. My wreck was before all the publicity and it even strikes me as weird that all these copycat accidents are happening now. I also have trouble understanding the ones that left the vehicles drivable after the "runaway" - mine was practically destroyed, but I was only mildly injured and walked away with a slight limp.

If Toyota voluntarily came up to me and offered me an older, non fly-by-wire Toyota, I would probably gladly accept the offer and give them back my Prius, plus an appropriate financial adjustment since the Prius cost more than a 1990's Corolla probably would. But if the lawsuit is just going to stigmatize my car to the point where I will probably never be able to sell it, I wish it would go away.

Oh well . . . the dealer is giving it what is probably a thorough going-over now because of all the legal mess, and I have a loaner vs a rental while they do it. So I guess that's as close to a fair solution as I'll get. And I would be willing to have my car instrumented/monitored/whatever in case it happened again if they wanted me to do that.

 

If I were in charge of toyota, after all these stupid publicity stunts andlawsuits by get-rich-quick fools, I would simply stop selling prius in the US. If this keeps up Toyota might not think the headache is worth the slim profit margin they have on this niche car. And that would be bad, and a final ironic end to all these frivolous lawsuits. People now see Toyota as a big piggy bank, but when that pig walks out of the house who's going to have the last laugh?

 

Are you claiming that a recall is expressly precluded from the California lemon law? Your assertion that the recall defect must be present in your specific car when a recall is announced for a specific defect is a hyper-technical interpretation of the law. You might be correct in your interpretation as it is applied in your neck of the woods, but not in California. The reporting requirement is simply to provide notice to the manufacturer asking for them to provide assistance to the dealer in resolving the issue. Do you really think that consumers are not capable of sending a letter along to the manufacturer?

 

I wonder how long it will be before you get hounded off this board? You did not experience sudden acceleration.... Only 11 posts? A TROLL for certain. I wish you well in your attempts to get your car sorted out.

BTW, did you report your sudden acceleration episode to NHTSA?

 

My interpretation is 'hyper-technical'?

Now I understand why California is so often labeled "Land of Fruits and Nuts."