Toyota Confirms That Recall May Not Solve Problems

Featured Blog of the Week by Gary Shipman

In emotionally charged testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Tuesday, Toyota USA President Jim Lentz confirmed that the “runaway car” problems have still not been fixed, despite Toyota spending millions in  television and newspaper ads stating that they have.  In responding to questions from Rep. Henry Waxman, in which Rep. Waxman asked “Do you believe that the recall on the carpet changes and the recall on the sticky pedal will solve the problem of sudden unintended acceleration?”, to which Lentz (remarkably) responded, “No totally.”  Lentz also confirmed that Toyota had replicated a demonstration, shown on ABC News, in which professor David Gilbert demonstrated that a short circuit produced unintended acceleration without triggering an “error code” in the car’s computer.

Tearful Toyota owners testified before the Congressional Committee about their efforts to get Toyota to address problems.  Eddie Smith told the Committee that he and his wife were “called liars and actually accused of ruining our own brakes and transmission.”  Smith’s wife, Rhonda, told the Committee of the night when her new Lexus, in 2006, ran away and would not slow down, even after she stood on the brakes and threw the car into reverse.  “Shame on you, Toyota, for being so greedy”, Mrs. Smith said.

While Toyota offered “excuses” for the problems, namely, a “confusion of priorities” in its quest for growth, that excuse does not provide an explanation for why the company turned a blind eye to complaints about its cars problems, while reaping millions of dollars in profits worldwide. 

It has now also been revealed that as early as 2004, NHTSA was aware of the sudden acceleration problems.  Instead of conducting a full blow investigation, NHTSA employees that may have been involved in the investigation were later hired by Toyota.  Go figure.

All of this amplifies a total breakdown in the rules and regulations that are designed to protect unwary consumers.  Ultimately, it may require the Courts to provide justice for consumers.