In the wake of the extensive Toyota automobile recalls and the delay of said recalls, both the House and the Senate introduced auto safety bills in the spring of 2010. Both of these bills extend the penalty cap for car manufacturers with defects from $16.4 million which Toyota agreed to pay, to $200 million (House) or $300 million (Senate). This bill would also require certain safeguards on each automobile manufactured and strengthen the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). However due to pressure from some automobile manufacturers, neither bill has become law yet.

To answer the question as to why this legislation is needed is to look at the problems arising in the last few years with auto manufacturers reporting auto product defects late and not facing much of a penalty for doing so. People were killed or injured in accidents that just didn’t have to happen because the manufacturer had information about the defects, but did not release it immediately. The question being asked now is whether automobile safety is up to the federal government to regulate or be left to the free marketplace. Recent events seem to indicate that consumers cannot rely on the honesty of the automobile manufacturer when they have covered up a vehicle’s defects. Obviously, some regulation is necessary.

Some consumer groups are of the opinion that federal regulations work well with the civil justice system as an approach to consumer driver safety. This bill is very important as it defines and regulates areas of auto safety making it illegal and costly for manufacturers to ignore these regulations.

Auto defect litigation, however, has played a great part in deterring automobile manufacturers from cutting back on safety standards for a greater monetary return. Litigation can also uncover weaknesses in the regulatory system and help to reveal defects that have been covered up. As can be seen by this particular legislation, regulations take time to be enacted however important they might be to the consumer. Litigation though has often forced manufacturers to evaluate further whether cutting on safety measure is actually cost effective overall.