California Personal Injury Lawyers Demand that "Safety is Not Optional" in Suit Against Toyota
An auto products liability lawsuit has been filed against Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. and Toyota Motor Corporation by the California personal injury lawyers of BISNAR | CHASE. The suit arises from a car accident involving Eleanor Gnup and her husband, Edward, in their 1999 Toyota Camry that left Mrs. Gnup suffering from catastrophic injuries.
On June 12, 2009 Eleanor Gnup was driving her Toyota Camry with her husband in the front passenger seat. As they made a legal left-hand turn at intersection of Hermosa Avenue and Harbor Boulevard in Fullerton, CA, their car was struck on the driver's side by another vehicle. The Camry was impacted in a "T-bone" shape and completely crushed the driver's side of the car. Despite being properly restrained in her seatbelt, Mrs. Gnup's head and body were forcefully slammed against the Camry's interior, causing her to suffer severe injuries.
Toyota Knew Their Vehicle Did Not Meet Superior Safety Standards
Although injury is likely to happen in car accidents, the injuries Mrs. Gnup endured were worsened by the fact that the Camry was unsafe. Side air bags are not offered as a standard safety feature on this model of Camry; they are an additional option. Toyota has performed numerous specific crash tests -- tests such as occupant crash protection, side impact protection, seat belt assemblies and seat belt assembly anchorages -- to verify their vehicle's compliance with safety requirements. During testing, Toyota found that the Camry performed significantly better with side air bags but chose not to make them standard equipment.
"Safety should not be an optional item," said John Bisnar of BISNAR | CHASE Orange County Auto Products Liability Law Firm.
The lawsuit, on behalf of the Gnups alleges that Toyota's refusal to mandate an important safety feature, such as the side air bags, is a "callous and conscious disregard," especially since the technology to install side air bags was completely available and widely used in 1999. If Toyota knew of the danger and refused to manufacture their vehicles without an important safety feature, it seems they should have made it clear to the public and consumers that the Camry model was truly lacking in safety areas that would be necessary should one be involved in a serious accident. By providing consumers with this knowledge, they would be able to choose a safer option.
"We allege that not only did Toyota consciously fail and refuse to warn consumers of such risks, it failed to make certain design modifications, such as the installation of side air bags as standard equipment, in order to enhance its financial interests," said Bisnar.
For Toyota to advertise their Camry model as a safe choice of vehicle while knowing it is indeed lacking in safety features, puts many drivers at risk. It's unfortunate to see instances of drivers who have been badly hurt because Toyota wouldn't spend the extra buck for safety.
Medical expenses, loss of earnings and earning ability, damages for loss of consortium and emotional distress are all sought on behalf of the Gnups.
You can find more information about this case at California Personal Injury Lawyers File Products Liability Lawsuit Against Toyota. Also, be sure to stay current with BISNAR | CHASE press releases.
