Introduction
The number of product liability lawsuits as well as product recalls against the manufacturing companies has continued to heighten. This discourse aims at giving a detailed analysis on the issue of product safety and liability in relation to the case of Weimer versus Toyota of North America Inc.
Discussion
The paper will give limelight to Toyota Company as well as the product safety issue that led to its lawsuit. Also, it will discuss at length the legal theories that the plaintiff used in recovering the lawsuit and some of the changes that have taken place in the company since then to ensure the safety of the products. It will also give a detailed analysis of a related agency that can work with Toyota to ensure compliance and quality assurance. As a means to an end, the paper will briefly give rational recommendations.
Toyota and product safety issue that led to the lawsuit
Halbert and Ingulli (2011) in their book ‘law and ethics in the business environment’ assert that Toyota is the vastest automobile manufacturer in America. Its manufacturing headquarters are in Erlanger, Kentucky.
In the year 2009, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration agency was faced with a major crisis that resulted from the acceleration of the Toyotas. As is expected by Federal law, the carmakers are supposed to notify the agency to incase of any safety defects within five days. However, Toyota waited for a period of four months before it finally disclosed the issue of sticky pedal problems. As a result, the company paid $ 16, 385 million (Rupp, 2011; Mitsuhiro, 2010).
However, NHTSA is not the only player that sought accountability from the corporation as Daniel Weimer and other plaintiffs such as Colby and Ann Cavalier had a bone to chew with Toyota Company.
In the case of Weimer versus Toyota, it was noted that 5.3 million vehicles that were sold by Toyota had defects as they were uncontrollable and had unsafe acceleration. This was a class-action lawsuit against Toyota on behalf of all the consumers that were affected in the period between 2005 and 2010 by the Toyota gas pedal defects.
It ought to be noted that Toyota is not the only company that has suffered from lawsuits due to negligence. A similar case is that of Mitsubishi Motors Corporation vs. Peter Laliberte. The case resulted in a multi-million dollar judgment against the corporation due to defects that caused death to the plaintiff due to the injuries that he sustained in the accident (Baldwin et al, 1998).
Legal theories
In the case of Weimer versus Toyota, Toyota argued that the plaintiff’s legal theory defied rationality and they were confident that their cars offered security and reliable transport hence the plaintiffs had no credible claims. It would be naĂŻve to assume that the defendant was right and the plaintiffsâ theories defied commonsense.
In a similar case of Denny vs Ford motor company (Baldwin et al, 1998), the plaintiff offered rational-legal theories asserting that the company caused damages and hence had to pay for negligence, breach of an implied warranty, and strict liability. The plaintiff alleged that the vehicle had been defectively designed.
Some of the legal theories that were put forward by the plaintiff included breach of implied warranty and negligence.
Baldwin et al (1998) assert that negligence claims do require causation, damages and proof of duty. In this case, in their legal theory, the plaintiff argued that Toyota company had a duty to offer a safe product in manufacture and design, to let NHTSA know about the defects and warn NHTSA about the defective nature of the pedals which they never did hence were negligent. Additionally, the company breached its duty of care to the class members as well as the plaintiff when they designed the defective pedals in a manner that endangered the lives of people.
To continue with the theories, the plaintiff argued on the issue of breach of implied warranty. They argued that at the time, in which Toyota sold and distributed automobiles for use by the class members and the plaintiff, the company already knew the intended purpose of the vehicles and hence by selling defective vehicles, that was a clear breach of implied warranty and an obvious tort and a breach of contract.
Additionally the company had marketed the automobiles making everybody believe that the vehicles were safe and with no defects hence that was a tort. Moreover, the plaintiff argued that the vehicles sold were unfit for their intended purposes as they were defective and caused damages. It is clear that the company breached the warranties of fitness and merchantability when the vehicles were sold to the plaintiff and hence it is rational to allege that the company had a case to answer and the plaintiff legal theories were reasonable.
As a result, the panel gave considerable thought to the suitability of the wrongful death cases and personal injuries with the economic damages that were brought before the court by the plaintiff. The case of 2010 led to a great loss for the company as it was required by the law to pay a total fine of $ 32.4 million for recalls (Halbert and Ingulli, 2011).
Correspondingly, in a case between Anderson vs General Motors, the jury ordered the company to pay the plaintiff a total of $ 4.9 billion because of a defective and dangerous designed fuel system which had also been quoted as a massive suit which resulted in the vastest personal injury judgment in the historical books (Baldwin et al, 1998). The decision to fine Toyota such a huge amount of money was appropriate and justifiable as the company violated the products liability law hence rendering the vehicles in question unfit and useless for their intended use.
Toyota Company and changes to ensure safety of products
There have been several changes in the company to ensure safety of the products manufactured. They have come up with goal policy to heighten the level of workplace safety skills and to continue on improving and implementing proactive prevention activities that will help them avoid frustrations and losses that are as a result of lawsuits (Rothenberg and Maxwell, 2011). It has implemented ergonomic measures that will help in the prevention of musculoskeletal disorders and enhance strong measures against dust and noise.
To ensure safety, the company has introduced a management system that is usually focused on prompt decision making so as to speed up operations (Rothenberg and Maxwell, 2011). It has also implemented a unique culture which does emphasize on preventive measures and problem solving. This has helped in instilling a culture of safety as part of their aim to ensure zero danger and zero accidents.
Since the year 2010, Toyota Company has come up with measures which are aimed at eliminating incidents and providing maximum safety to all its consumers. It is clear that the company has undergone tremendous changes and even cut on their losses. For example in November of 2010, a lawsuit was filed against Toyota due to electronic defect.
As compared to the earlier lawsuits that led to heavy penalties, the November lawsuit failed as the company offered rational legal theories supporting the fact that their cars were safe. It also argued that the lawsuit ought to be dismissed as the plaintiff did not identify actual defect (Halbert and Inguli, 2011). This portrays a major change in the company towards designing a safe product.
The company has also come up with measures that will help secure their consumers. To correct the problem on gas pedals, it modified and replaced the gas pedals so as to reduce the danger of accelerating out of control (Rothenberg and Maxwell, 2011). These measures were designed so as to prevent the floor mats from jamming the pedal. As an additional precaution, the company has focused on modifying most of its cars so that the brake can override the accelerator incase the pedals were to be pressed instantly.
Regulatory Agency (NHTSA) and Toyota
Toyota Company can work effectively with NHTSA to enhance operations as well as product safety. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is an agency whose main responsibility is to prevent injuries, save lives and reduce traffic related accidents and economic costs.
Moreover it is responsible for investigating any defects caused by the manufactures and has a duty to serve the common good (Paolozzi, 2005). Toyota Company can work with NHTSA so as to have clear reference on the standards, regulatory programs, enforcement processes and reporting requirements. The agency has a mandate to investigate any defects caused by the manufacturers.
Recommendations
The main cause of the supposed defects is related to design and quality flaws. The company should have corrected the problem immediately they realized there were defects so as to enhance safety which they never did.
The company totally ignored on the need to ensure safety and product quality. It is crucial for the company to maintain its philosophy of âcustomer firstâ and guarantee safety to its consumers to avoid losing them. Under its high profit entity, the company continues to ignore on its corporate philosophy hence leading to recalls of over a million cars which can be easily avoided if the company sticks to its philosophy.
Additionally, the company has lost customer trust thus it needs to focus on regaining trust. This means that Toyota Company needs to change on its business strategies which are related to cost reduction so as to heighten its profits. It should treat its employees equally and ensure that their wages are raised. Generally, Toyota Company should fulfill its main social responsibility so as to produce high quality and safe cars thus achieving international and national trust. This will ensure expansion as well as stabilization hence recovering other related global economies.
Conclusion
It is apparent that cases related to product safety have increased and hence there is a need for companies to come up with effective strategies to curb the heightened causes of these lawsuits. This will help them to maintain their reputation as well as increase profits in their companies.
References
Baldwin, S., Hare, F & McGovern, F. (1998). The preparation of a product liability cases. Washington: Aspen publishers.
Halbert, T & Ingulli, E. (2011). Law and ethics in the business environment. New York: Cengage learning.
Mitsuhiro, F. (2010). Japanese financial instability and weaknesses in the corporate governance structure. Journal of economics, 11(4): 301-422.
Paolozzi, L. (2005). The role of sales of new motorcycles in a recent increase in mortality rates. Journal of safety research, 36(4): 364-366.
Rothenberg, S & Maxwell, J. (2011). Issues in the implementation of proactive environmental strategies. Business strategy and the environment, 1(4):1-12.
Rupp, N. (2011). Who initiates recalls and who cares? Evidence from the automobile industry. Journal of industrial economics, 50(2):123-449.