Rear-end Collision Costs Toyota $242 Million

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems
rear end collision costs toyota 242 million

After deliberating eight hours, a Texas jury ordered Toyota to pay $242.1 million to compensate a Dallas family involved in a 2016 rear-end collision that seriously injured two children.

The children, aged 3 and 5, were rear-seat occupants in a 2002 Lexus ES300 driven by parents Benjamin and Kristi Reavis on Dallas’ North Central Expressway. While stopped in traffic, a Honda Pilot collided with the rear of the car at a high rate of speed, causing the front seatbacks to collapse.

The boy and girl, sitting in child seats, sustained serious head trauma as a result of the collision. Of the hefty total, the Aug. 17th verdict rendered by the Dallas County District Court jury includes $143.6 million in punitive damages for “gross negligence.”

Frank L. Branson, founder of the law office that bears his name, argued Toyota designed the seatbacks to favor the safety of front seat occupants over those in the rear — a claim Toyota disputes.

“This is a danger that Toyota has known about,” Branson said in a statement. “This company has had plenty of time to design around these safety shortcomings or at least provide the public with warnings. Our children deserve better.”

While a collapsing seatback would certainly help reduce the chance of whiplash in a rear-end collision, as Branson claims, it also places front-seat occupants in danger of sliding out from under their seatbelts, thus increasing the risk of a different type of injury. This author has personally attended an accident scene where a high-speed rear-end collision (in this case, with a tree) resulted in the driver’s death after the seatback failed.

“While we respect the jury’s decision, we remain confident that the injuries sustained were the result of factors specific to this very severe collision, not a defect in the design or manufacturing of the 2002 Lexus ES300,” a Toyota spokesman said in an emailed statement to Reuters.

The automaker claimed it will consider its options going forward.

[Image: Lexus]

Join the conversation
5 of 93 comments
  • IBx1 IBx1 on Aug 20, 2018

    I reckon the driver of the Pilot was negligent for plowing full highway speed into stopped traffic, but then the Pilot driver doesn't likely have $240M...

    • PandaBear PandaBear on Aug 20, 2018

      Exactly, deep pocket always loses (and lawyers sue for whatever insurance coverage it has regardless of damage).

  • PandaBear PandaBear on Aug 20, 2018

    So the lawyer is going to sue whether Toyota prioritize the safety of the front occupants (in this case hurting his rear occupants), or prioritize the safety of the rear occupants (in that case hurting his front occupants). This is why I hate lawyers. His whole family should have died so nothing left to sue for.

    • See 1 previous
    • BeSavvy BeSavvy on Aug 21, 2018

      @PandaBear To: @IBx1 and @PandaBear Ahh...WHY oh WHY...aren't facts important to you. The speed limit was 70...driver of Pilot was going 48.So why do you say "full highway speed", @IBx1? No matter what speed he was going, yes, he still plowed into the car; but everyone else involved walked away. The airbags didn't even deploy. What was it that caused the devastating injuries for 2 backseat passengers? Yes, something in the the car designed by the manufacturer who knew of the dangers a long time ago and which Congress has written letters to ask them to address. @PandaBear, actually those same designed seats in many accidents have maimed the driver/front seat passengers with spinal injuries, etc. Congratulations on being happy that it may keep them from getting whiplash. They really might prefer several weeks of that to being paralyzed or having TBI (traumatic brain injury) for the rest of their lives. Since you are already horrifically suggesting a "whole family" should have died, I guess you are not interested in safety and cannot imagine that others might be interested in saving you or the person you love most from a horrible tragedy.

  • RHD Inexpensive gasoline appears to be a thing of the past. ILO is correct - we have enough sunlight, wind and emerging ocean wave energy to power the entire country and then some. Clean air is nice, and being free of the whims of OPEC, geopolitics and hugely profitable oil companies will do all of us a world of good.
  • Raymond Segura Can you tell me where I can get the rear bumper for 69 impala?
  • Art Vandelay some of the crazy numbers I get. Percentages look bigger with any fluctuations with low volume makes and brands leaving the market will see massive month over month changes. But what’s with Buick? I still see the occasional ad on TV and yet the drop is disproportionate even compared to all the other GM brands.
  • Master Baiter "There is no mandate for consumers to buy EVs, not in any country or state. That’s made up."Right. And you are not mandated to purchase a toilet that only uses 1.6 gallons/flush. You could choose to not have a toilet--just go in the woods, like the bears do.
  • Inside Looking Out I did not get how Daewoo pops up from nowhere. It never was mentioned before.