Quantcast

Judge issues mixed ruling in Toyota 4Runner rollover case

ST. LOUIS RECORD

Sunday, December 22, 2024

Judge issues mixed ruling in Toyota 4Runner rollover case

Toyota1280x640

ST. LOUIS – U.S. District Judge E. Richard Webber issued a mixed ruling in a case involving a Toyota 4Runner rollover accident that took place in 2012. 

On April 3, Webber granted in part summary judgment to defendants Toyota Motor Corp. and Toyota Motor Sales in a case brought by Kristin and Lloyd Smith, initially in state court in 2013. The Smiths had that case dismissed without prejudice and they refiled in federal court in 2016.

The ruling indicates that Webber granted summary judgment to Toyota on claims of strict liability and negligent design defect of the vehicle’s handling; strict liability and negligent design defect of the vehicle’s seatbelt; strict liability and negligent failure to warn; and the breach of warranty claims related to these underlying products liability claims

Webber, however, denied Toyota's motion for summary judgment with respect to the Smiths' claims of strict liability and negligent design defect of the vehicle’s rollover resistance; breach of warranty related to their claim; loss of consortium; and punitive damages.

According to background information in the ruling, Kristin Smith was driving a 1997 4Runner that had been purchased from a previous owner approximately five years earlier. When she rounded a curve, she lost control of the vehicle, crossed the center line and then crossed back over to the right and ultimately rolled over.

A few months after the crash, Lloyd Smith took the 4Runner to a scrapyard where the vehicle was destroyed.

The basis for the Smiths' lawsuit was products liability, claiming the crash was the result of a defect that caused the 4Runner to be unreasonably dangerous and defective.

With respect to the Smiths' move for summary judgment on Toyota's affirmative defenses, Webber granted summary judgment for them on "state of the art; compliance with industry standards and preemption." He denied their move for summary judgment on Toyota's "affirmative defenses: modification and superseding and/or intervening cause" affirmative defenses.

More News