Running head: TOYOTA LAWSUIT 1

Toyota Lawsuit
Frank Antonetti, Shane Fuller, Mbeta King, Levi Kirkland, Stephanie Sherant, David Tellechea
Law 531
July 11, 2014
Jay Hinkel








TOYOTA LAWSUIT 2



Issue:
In this case Toyota is facing both potentially criminal and civil lawsuits as a result of a
defect that has killed roughly three dozen people. There is the need to prove that a design defect
was causing cars to accelerate unintentionally resulting in accidents and deaths in some
situations. There is a burden of proof of the injured victims to prove that the unintentional
acceleration is the cause of the deaths. In addition, there is a burden of proof to show that
Toyota knew about this issue for several years and did not take actions to prevent the accidents.
One of Toyotas lawyers stated that the car manufacturer was aware of the potential issue. The
victims must prove that Toyotas negligence was the actual cause; a defendants negligent act
must be the actual cause (also called causation in fact) of the plaintiffs injuries (Cheeseman
2013).
Rules:
According to Toyota Recall and Lawsuits (2014), Toyota acted intentionally to mislead
and defraud shareholders and consumers. By covering up and failing to act upon the facts of the
issue, Toyota Motors Corp. became negligent in both repairing and preventing tragic accidents.
The rules of this case include negligence, which requires a duty expected by the public and
shareholders that the vehicles were safe and free of defect, and fraud - an intentional tort.
Because parties of lawsuits were intentionally misled, Toyota made false representation, had
prior knowledge with intent to deceive, parties relied on the information, and parties were
TOYOTA LAWSUIT 3

injured, intentional tort of fraud is proven (Cheeseman, 2013). This duty was breached and the
breach is an actual and cause of the damage (Saylor v. Toyota Motor Corp., 2010).
Application/Analysis:
In the case of the injured individuals or the plaintiffs against Toyota, The injured
individuals will sue Toyota for all of the medical bills they have received due to the injuries
sustained by the particular automobile. The Injured individuals will also sue for compensation in
regards to losing their significant others and other mental distress that the family have
succumbed to. The plaintiffs will have a strong case against Toyota due to the fact that Toyota
representative admitted to knowing about the potential problem thus resulting in significant
negligence (Cheese man 2013). This case will be a
Conclusion:
The injured victims will prevail because Toyota was aware of the existing defects and
failed to take the necessary actions to correct the issues. Toyota will not prevail because it knew
about the defects in advance and as a direct result of their inaction, dozens of deaths have
occurred. The damages that Toyota will be liable for will not surpass the loss or injuries in
which victims have experienced.
In closing, it is clear to see by using the method of IRAC that there was clear negligence
on the part of Toyota in not reacting to the malfunctions of a faulty braking system in many of
the vehicles when it became apparent. The injured have proven their case; in fact, that Toyota
was aware of the defects in the vehicles sold and did not uphold their part in correcting problems
before injury could occur. Toyota breached their duty of care to their customers by failing to
TOYOTA LAWSUIT 4

recall any vehicles that had faulty breaking systems, which was the cause of the injuries to their
customers, thus requiring payment of damages to plaintiffs.






References
Cheeseman, H. R. (2013). Business Law: Legal Environment, Online Commerce, Business
Ethics, and International Issues, (8th ed.). Retrieved from The University of Phoenix
eBook Collection database.
John Saylor v. Toyota Motor Corp., 37-2010- 00086718, California Superior Court, San Diego
County.