Before you cheer loudly, TOYOTA has been producing vehicles with this problem for many years. 

How many lives were jeopardized? 



How many owners were forced to JUNK their TOYOTA trucks before this was resolved? 




The TOYOTA WAY is Dilly Dally Delay & Stall! 

Toyota To Pay $3.4B To Settle Rusty Truck Frame Action

By Matthew Guarnaccia

Law360, New York (November 10, 2016, 12:50 PM EST) -- Toyota Motor Co. on Wednesday agreed to pay approximately $3.4 billion to compensate owners of certain truck models with frames that are prone to rust corrosion and perforation in order to settle a proposed class action lawsuit in California federal court.

The owners of certain Tacoma, Tundra and Sequoia trucks asked U.S. District Judge Fernando M. Olguin to preliminarily approve the deal, which provides inspections for the approximately 1.5 million vehicles possibly affected by the defect, as well as the replacement of frames for an estimated...

http://www.law360.com/articles/861439/toyota-to-pay-3-4b-to-settle-rusty-truck-frame-action

Predictable TOYOTA! Dilly, Dally, Delay, Stall & Bill 'em!

TOYOTA never presented EXPERTS!

Did anyone notice? They presented statements and a clown who contradicted videos he presented to the jury.


Instead of correcting TOYOTA DEFECTS....TOYOTA pays a gaggle of attorneys....

Toyota asks judge to overturn $10.9 million verdict in fatal Camry crash

• Article by: RANDY FURST , Star Tribune 
• Updated: March 4, 2015 - 12:15 PM

Toyota Motor Co. is asking U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery to overturn a $10.9 million award to the driver and victims of a 2006 accident, arguing the jury should not have found the company at fault.

In legal documents filed Tuesday, Toyota also said that Koua Fong Lee, the driver of a 1996 Toyota Camry, and his wife and family were not entitled to the money they were awarded for emotional damages, because their testimony about their distress after the crash that killed three people was not backed up by medical testimony.

“We sympathize with the families affected by this unfortunate accident in 2006,” Toyota said in a statement released Wednesday. “However, based on our close review of the record, we do not believe the verdict is supported by the testimony presented at trial from plaintiffs’ expert and other incident witnesses. In our view, the evidence clearly demonstrated that Mr. Lee’s 1996 Camry was well-designed and not the cause of this crash.”

 

 

 

 

Toyota’s legal arguments will form the basis of an almost certain appeal to the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, should Montgomery reject the request.

In a brief signed by Minneapolis attorney Bard Borkon, Toyota contends that Lee’s chief technical witness, John Stilson, failed to prove his contention that two pulleys under the hood in Lee’s Camry became overheated and stuck together, causing the car to accelerate even as Lee applied the brakes. The accident occurred as he was exiting eastbound Interstate 94 at Snelling Avenue in St. Paul on June 10, 2006.

The Camry slammed into the rear of a 1995 Oldsmobile Ciera parked at a traffic light, killing the Ciera’s driver and his son, severely injuring the driver’s daughter, who died 16 months later, and injuring two other relatives in the Ciera.

 

 

 

Toyota said that rather than using road-tests to show that the Camry overheated the pulleys, Stilson inappropriately tested his theory by aiming a hair dryer at the accelerator to simulate the heat. Toyota underscored that its own tests showed no overheating.

 

 

In legal documents filed Tuesday, Toyota also said that Koua Fong Lee, the driver of a 1996 Toyota Camry, and his wife and family were not entitled to the money they were awarded for emotional damages, because their testimony about their distress after the crash that killed three people was not backed up by medical testimony.

Toyota’s legal arguments will form the basis of an almost certain appeal to the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, should Montgomery reject the request.

Attorneys for Lee and the families will file their response later.

 

http://www.startribune.com/local/295024531.html

 

 

 

tbaltazar 5ptsFeatured

I heard testimonies from 11 others during Mr. Lee's Evidentiary Hearing in 2010 when he was freed and fully exonerated. All 11 said the exact same thing, the Camry took off on it's own and they could not get it to stop by only using the brakes. You can't build up vacuum pressure when your throttle is stuck open if you have ABS brakes. Who does Toyota think the jury and judge should believe? The 3 men who testified at the recent liability lawsuit (who had nothing to gain by testifying and were not paid one red cent to testify) or the people Toyota paid millions to for testifying. Bob Hilliard exposed during this liability lawsuit that Exponent was paid $42 million + from Toyota alone. In 2009 and again in 2011 - $31 million in payments from Toyota to Exponent. Bob also pointed out Exponent was the company who tested asbestos in brakes and claimed it was safe, Exponent tested a contaminant in drinking water and said it was safe (it was proven later to cause cancer), and Exponent did the Ford roof crush test and said it passed when later was found not to be safe. Seems like Exponent will say whatever their client wants them to say. "Expert" Lee Carr testified for Toyota - who showed a video of a 60 yr old woman who apparently was driving while they were video taping her. It was a split screen and you could see her feet in one corner, her hands on the steering wheel in another corner, and the road ahead through the windshield in another section of the video. Lee Carr said this woman had been "driving along" their course when they intentionally opened up her throttle to video tape her reaction. Well she started stepping on the gas pedal. BUT, Bob Hilliard played that video back during his closing argument and had the courtroom watch the video again. Funny thing is the odometer read only 1 mph on her vehicle - was she really driving? Lee Carr said this woman swerved in a zig zag motion in and out of some cones but during the reply in Bob's closing statement, we saw that her hands never moved the steering wheel at all - and we saw no cones on the course. Hmmmm Bob pointed out that Lee Carr and his partner Karl Stopchinski were paid $1.4 million for this case. I'd say they were a little overpaid. You know how much Bob Hilliard paid for his 2 independent engineers to conduct their tests? less than $65,000. I think I'll take the word of those who testified who had nothing to gain by testifying.

tbaltazar 5ptsFeatured

If there was no defect, there would be no accident. Plain and simple.

tbaltazar 5ptsFeatured

They can file all they want. Stilson explained why he moved that tab - it was because the tab on the CC lever was sticking to the pulley and he said it wasn't supposed to do that. He showed the jury and the court room how rotating the tab (NOT cruise control lever itself) did not at all affect any function of the CC or accelerator and he demonstrated that. The 3 others who testified that the exact same thing happened in their 1996 Camry - let's see, one was flown back from Iraq during his 9 month tour as a pilot - he flies a black hawk and also flies for Sun Country Airlines. He's double trained on how to handle engine failures and engine problems. His '96 Camry was manufactured at the same factory as Mr. Lee's, in fact made on the same production line - made within minutes of Koua's Camry. This pilot testified he drove home one day going 45 mph without ever once having to step on the gas - he just kept shutting off his car to keep it from Exceeding 45 mph, and he said every time he would restart the car, the rpms spiked up to 5000 immediately - with both feet on the floor. That is a stuck throttle. If Toyota really wanted to prove that the upper plastic pulley isn't sticking against the metal bracket it's attached to, then they should have conducted some tests of their own. I saw no test results from them after the pulleys had been installed. The other 2 who testified that the same exact thing happened to their '96 Camry - one was a retired air force pilot who now volunteers for a VA hosp, one a former VP of Province College. One of them could only get their '96 Camry to slow down to 95 mph and that was with both feet on the brake pedal. You can't stop a car with ABS while the throttle is stuck open. It doesn't happen.

fred1goose 5ptsFeature

NO - I have had many toyotas over the years. Never again after the way they have treated these people.

Interest1959 5ptsFeatured

How could an automaker whose cars have been killing and injuring people and in some cases putting people in prison for its runaway, out of control cars, could be asking the judge to overturn the verdict? What a despicable automaker Toyota is!!! It makes me sick to see Akio Toyoda and his executive getting away with murder.

JUST MY OPINION...AT THE MOMENT!




 

Albany Rose, Dilly Dan, the TOYOTA FOLLIES and Timber Trespass!

As the Dilly, Dally, Delay, Stall & Bill 'Em crew have progressed.....

They focused greatly on amusing, yet unrelated matters.....

Discredit! Discredit! Discredit! #3 MR. ALBANY TOYOTA and TIMBER TRUST PASS

 

The Dynamic Duo of Dilly Dan [Attorney Dan Viera] ....

 

 

...and Albany Rose [Attorney Keith Rose, TOYOTA'S SOCK PUPPET] traveling from Albany for each brief encounter.....

 

 

 

...milking the TOYOTA CASH COW.....

 

 

 

 

...someone aware of the TOYOTA FOLLIES sent this.....

Check Before You Cut! Massachusetts Illegal Tree Cutting Carries Substantial Civil Penalties

by Rich Vetstein on January 27, 2013

 

in Adverse Possession, Boundaries, Environmental Law, Fences, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Real Estate Litigation, Safety, Trespass

 

 

Triple Damage Penalty for Willful Cutting Of Neighbor’s Trees

Neighbors typically get really mad when you chop down their trees. Really mad….and it can get the guy with the chainsaw into a lot of legal trouble. Can you say “triple damages”?

First enacted in 1698, the Massachusetts illegal tree cutting law (General Laws chapter 242, section 7) provides for up to triple damages for the malicious cutting, trimming, or destroying of another’s trees:

A person who without license willfully cuts down, carries away, girdles or otherwise destroys trees, timber, wood or underwood on the land of another shall be liable to the owner in tort for three times the amount of the damages assessed therefor; but if it is found that the defendant had good reason to believe that the land on which the trespass was committed was his own or that he was otherwise lawfully authorized to do the acts complained of, he shall be liable for single damages only.

That said, I always advise property owners who intend to cut trees near boundary lines to consult a survey or plot plan to ensure that the trees are not on their neighbor’s land.

Measure of Damages: Restoration Cost Value

The measure of damages for those harmed by the willful cutting of trees varies from case to case. The most common measure of damages is either the value of the timber cut, restoration cost, or the resulting diminution in value of the property. A claimant is entitled to assert a claim for either value, whichever is highest.

Where the trees cut are tall, hard to replace or have a particular function like screening, or all the above, it is wise to engage a certified arborist to perform a comprehensive restoration cost analysis. The restoration cost analysis takes into account the aesthetics, functionality, age, height, girth, and species of the trees, and formulates a restoration value for the replacement of the removed trees. The method, known as cost-of-cure, involves determining the cost of planting trees and the estimated time for the replacement trees to grow to the size of the destroyed trees (years to parity).

In recent cases, Land Court judges have awarded $30,000 (tripled) for the cutting of 10 mature oak trees and nearly $45,000 (tripled) for the clearing of an 800 square foot woodland area which provided privacy screening. In both of these cases, expert arborist testimony was offered on the restoration cost of the cut trees. And who can forget the case where a Somerset family recovered a $150,000 wrongful death settlement after a women dropped dead after her neighbor wrongfully cut down a swath of sentimental trees.

Branches Over The Property Line

Under Massachusetts common law, you may remove branches of a neighbor’s tree extending over your property line as long as you don’t kill or damage the tree. Also, the neighbor has no liability for roots growing into your yard and causing damage. Massachusetts law does not allow a person to cross or enter a neighbor’s property for these purposes without the neighbor’s consent, nor to remove any branches or other vegetation within the confines of the neighbor’s property. This is the “Massachusetts Rule.”

Utility Tree Cutting

I’ve been reading about many recent disputes between property owners and utility companies (Wayland v. NStar) over tree cutting within utility easements. The law provides a public utility the right to remove or trim your tree if it interferes with the necessary and reasonable operation of the utility. Furthermore, the utility is required to perform tree trimming as part of its program to maintain reliable service for its customers. The National Electric Safety Code requires utilities to trim or remove trees growing near power lines that threaten to disrupt service. Proper and regular tree trimming helps prevent the danger and inconvenience of outages.

Lastly, landscapers and tree cutting companies should get a signed directive from the homeowners and an indemnification prior to cutting trees, as my fellow real estate attorney Chris McHallam points out.

If your trees have been wrongfully removed by a neighbor or if you have mistakenly removed trees, you should consult an experienced Massachusetts property law attorney. Valuation of trees is a science, rather complicated, and best left to the professionals.

___________________________________________
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate attorney who has handled numerous illegal tree cutting and boundary line disputes. Please contact him at info@vetsteinlawgroup.com or 508.620.5352.




http://massrealestatelawblog.com/2013/01/27/check-before-you-cut-massachusetts-illegal-tree-cutting-carries-substantial-civil-penalties/

 

TOYOTA GETS FLEECED!

Middleborough has a great educational organization that the Town preserved called the 

Soule Homestead Education Center Inc.

Each year, SHEEP SHEARING is presented and it's always impressive the view BIG FUZZY SHEEP having their heavy winter coats removed.....

.....reminiscent of the FLEECING TOYOTA SUPPORTS.....


THE INTERROGATIONS [translation: DEPOSITIONS] by  ALBANY ROSE [formerly known as MR. ALBANY ROUTE 44 TOYOTA AKA KING OF CONFLICT]...... 

AND DILLY DAN  [AKA the Chronically Late Atty Dan Viera]......

...reveal their secrets......

...and the TOYOTA CASH COW keeps paying those billable hours.....

....and the TOYOTA CASH COW never reviews the FACTS.....

.....the TOYOTA CASH COW pays the bills.....

.....the TOYOTA CASH COW never notices Albany Rose can't remember the last question Albany Rose asked THE LEMON LADY..... 

...DILLY DAN can't remember that he asked a question that THE LEMON LADY was answering.....

...Yup!

....more BILLABLE TOYOTA HOURS!.....

You guys are too funny! 

The TOYOTA CASH COW GIVE-AWAY!

It's unclear how closely supervised TOYOTA'S CASH COW is.....

How many times has THE LEMON LADY ......

REQUESTED CLARIFICATION of INTERROGATION QUESTIONS?

How many times have the PAID TOYOTA SHILLS been forced to have the stenographer read back the previous questions?

DILLY DAN [previously  known  as Atty. Dan Viera] asked a question....

...as THE LEMON LADY reviewed the documents presented to her.....

...Oops! DILLY DAN protested that there was no question before THE LEMON LADY! 

Strangers stop me on the street to ask how long it's been with the TOYOTA CLOWNS.....

Toyota employs GAGGLES of ATTORNEYS to deny justice to consumers.....

...but TOYOTA LIED ABOUT LEATHER?

Not until TOYOTA gets caught with its pants down does TOYOTA amend their illegal business practice....

Toyota Busted for Faux Leather Claims
Published by Nadeem Muaddi

'









We recently inducted Kia Motors into The Hog Ring‘s “Hall of Shame” for duping customers into believing that its popular Sportage SUV is trimmed in genuine leather – when, in fact, it features almost no real leather at all.
Sadly, we must now induct Toyota Motor Corporation for a similar offense.

According to the Herald Sun, a popular Aussie newspaper, the Japanese automaker made false claims about leather interiors in several of its models for approximately four years.

Toyota has been busted by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for making false claims about leather seats across several car ranges sold between 2005 and 2009.

 

They were in fact partial or faux leather.

 

”The ACCC was concerned that consumers were likely to have been misled by these claims. If consumers are prepared to pay a premium to have quality finishes for their car interiors, they are entitled to get what they paid for,” ACCC chairman Rod Sims said.

 

Toyota issued a statement today apologising to customers: ”Toyota Australia acknowledges the statement from Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. We apologise if any customer felt they were misled as a result of our advertising.” [...]

 

Toyota says that as soon as it became aware of the issue it changed advertising to ‘leather accent’ or ‘leather accented’. [more]

 

In other words, Toyota – like Kia – is not owning up to its lies. Instead, it’s blaming customers for being either unknowledgeable or gullible. And, to make matters worse, is attempting to appease the situation by using another misleading term – “leather accented”.

If Toyota was really interested in honest advertising, it would use clear and obvious terms that customers are already familiar with – like faux or synthetic leather.

Related posts:

1. Kia Drivers Duped into Faux Leather
2. Grizzly Bear vs Toyota Interior

http://www.thehogring.com/2013/02/12/toyota-busted-for-faux-leather-claims/

DEPOSITION....INTERROGATION....

THE LEMON LADY is happy to report that Attorney Dan Viera [Henceforth known as DILLY DAN!] was only 5 minutes last for the DEPOSITION that began at 11:00.....

...sometimes an important consideration when retaining an attorney....



Attorney Daniel Viera has represented ROUTE 44 TOYOTA from the beginning...was quick to threaten a SLAPP SUIT when THE LEMON LADY posted the TRUTH......

Did THE LEMON LADY ever tell you about the disgruntled ROUTE 44 TOYOTA customer that DILLY DAN forced to go to trial and waste the court's time instead of returning her car?

THAT DISGRUNTLED ROUTE 44 TOYOTA CUSTOMER TELLS EVERYONE!



Judge told DILLY DAN to settle before trial and before the jury verdict.....

...when Deep Pocketed Clients, like Insurance Companies that ignore reason pay the tab....DILLY DALLY DELAY STALL & BILL 'EM win!



MR. ALBANY ROUTE 44 TOYOTA toodled 4 hours from Albany, NY to Plymouth, MA....

....four hours back to ALBANY, NY ......

....hair noticeably improved.....disposition NOT! .....

MR. ALBANY ROUTE 44 TOYOTA finally requested an 11 AM DEPOSITION to avoid waking the rooster......

Many DEPOSITION questions about BLOGS, WEB SITES, OWNERSHIP, AUTHORSHIP, SOCIAL MEDIA, FACE BOOK.....WOW!

POOR MR. ALBANY ROUTE 44 TOYOTA was so confused.....

....MORE TO COME ABOUT THE BRIEF [ONE AND A HALF HOUR] DEPOSITION......

JUST MY OPINION AT THE MOMENT.....