Nelson V. Toyota Motor Company Et Al

Case Background

Wesley Nelson filed a lawsuit against Toyota, claiming the safety features failed to deploy during a catastrophic rollover accident due to a manufacturing defect. The accident resulted in the tragic death of Cecile Bender.

The Toyota product liability lawsuit was brought before the United States District Court in Colorado, located in Denver. Judge Nina Y. Wang oversaw the case, with Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella handling referred matters. [Case number: 1:20cv3119]

Cause

Wesley Nelson, a Colorado resident, lived in Thornton at 15887 Clayton Street. On October 25, 2018, he was a front-seat passenger in a 2017 Toyota RAV4, operated by his grandfather, Dennis Bender. The vehicle, manufactured by Toyota Motor Corporation (TMC) and distributed by Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (TMS), was traveling eastbound on E. 168th Avenue when Bender lost control. The vehicle veered across lanes, went off-road, struck a utility pole, and rolled over three and a quarter times before resting on its driver’s side.

The rollover ejected 72-year-old rear passenger Cecile Bender, who died from her injuries. Nelson, 19 at the time, wore his seatbelt but suffered a severe brain injury when his head struck the passenger-side glass or the ground. Despite the collision and rollover, critical safety features failed. The front airbags, side-curtain airbags, and seatbelt pre-tensioners did not deploy.

The RAV4 included advanced safety systems designed to protect occupants during crashes. The vehicle featured a Supplemental Restraint System (SRS), airbags, and event data recorders (EDRs) meant to document crash details. However, the EDR did not record the pole impact or rollover event. Investigators found Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs) affecting the airbag control module, which contributed to the malfunction.

Toyota’s safety systems should have deployed the side-curtain airbags and pretensioners during the rollover. These systems could have mitigated Nelson’s injuries and prevented Cecile’s fatal ejection. Toyota described the conditions under which these features should activate, yet they failed during the crash. The malfunction highlighted a critical failure in the vehicle’s safety design, leaving Nelson with life-altering injuries.

Injury

As a result of the crash, Wesley Nelson sustained a severe brain injury, pulmonary contusions, and multiple lacerations. At the scene, his Glasgow Coma Scale score was 3, indicating a critical condition. Upon arrival at the emergency department, he was unresponsive and exhibited decorticate posturing, a sign of significant brain trauma.

Nelson spent several weeks in intensive care, requiring constant monitoring and medical intervention. Following his initial stabilization, he was transferred to Craig Rehabilitation Center to begin his recovery process. At the time of filing the complaint, he was 22 years old and would continue to face the long-term consequences of his injuries.

Damages

The failure of the restraint system to deploy caused Wesley Nelson to suffer significant personal injuries. His medical expenses have exceeded $1,582,222. These costs include payments for hospitals, physicians, therapists, and ongoing medical and assisted care. Nelson is expected to continue incurring such expenses in the future.

He also experienced economic losses, including lost wages and reduced earning capacity. Beyond the financial impact, he endured non-economic hardships, such as physical pain, emotional distress, and a diminished quality of life.

Medical professionals have informed Nelson that his injuries are permanent. As a result, he now lives with a lasting physical impairment and permanent disfigurement, further affecting his daily life and future opportunities.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Wesley Nelson by and through his guardian conservator, Amy Nelson
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Deirdre Elizabeth Ostrowski | George W. Thomas | Michael Alexander Zimmerman | W. Randolph Barnhart | Michael O’Brien Keating
  • Defendant(s): Toyota Motor Corporation a foreign corporation | Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. a foreign corporation [Terminated: 01/03/2024]
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Christina Trotz | Clarissa M. Collier | Jodi Munn Schebel | Katherine E. Freeman | Kurt C. Kern | Tanya S. Scarbrough

Claims

Strict Liability Claim Against Toyota Defendants

At all relevant times, Toyota Motor Corporation and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. designed, manufactured, assembled, sold, and distributed motor vehicles, including the 2017 Toyota RAV4 involved in the incident. The vehicle’s Airbag Sensor Assembly (ASA), Event Data Recorder (EDR), communication networks, and related hardware and software were critical for safe operation.

The RAV4 included a warning system intended to alert users to safety system malfunctions and advise them to stop operating the vehicle. However, this system failed to activate before the crash, leaving the driver unaware of the vehicle’s faults.

On October 25, 2018, Nelson and Dennis Bender used the vehicle in a foreseeable manner. When the RAV4 left Toyota’s control, it contained defects that made it unreasonably dangerous for expected use. These defects included the failure of the EDR to record crash data, the failure of the side curtain airbags to deploy, and the failure of the seatbelt pretensioners to function as intended.

Deficiencies in the design, manufacturing, inspection, and warnings related to the ASA, EDR, communication networks, hardware, software, and electrical components rendered the vehicle unsafe. These failures directly caused Nelson’s injuries, damages, and losses. The warning system also failed to alert the driver that critical components were malfunctioning or that vehicle use should cease.

Toyota’s defective vehicle systems contributed to the harm Nelson experienced, which could have been prevented if the vehicle had performed as an ordinary user would reasonably expect.

Defense

Toyota Motor Corporation (TMC) denied the presence of any defects in the design, manufacturing, assembly, testing, or marketing of the 2017 Toyota RAV4. TMC also rejected claims that any component or function of the vehicle, as originally distributed, caused the incident or the resulting injuries and damages. Additionally, TMC denied any negligence in the vehicle’s design, production, inspection, testing, or marketing, as well as in the warnings or instructions provided.

TMC asserted that all testing conducted on the vehicle before its distribution was reasonable and appropriate.

Furthermore, TMC argued that any injuries or damages claimed by Wesley Nelson were caused by Dennis Bender, his grandfather, or other third parties outside of TMC’s control. According to TMC, the negligence of Nelson, Bender, or these third parties either completely barred Nelson’s recovery or reduced TMC’s share of fault under comparative negligence principles.

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (TMS) were dismissed with prejudice on January 03, 2024.

Jury Verdict

On September 16, 2024, the 8-member jury found that Dennis Bender’s 2017 Toyota RAV4 had no manufacturing defect, rendering it unreasonably dangerous. Accordingly, a judgment was entered in favor of the Defendants.

Court Documents:

Documents are available for purchase upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com