Wrongful death suit against Toyota goes to jury

A jury on Tuesday will begin deliberating whether Toyota should pay as much as $5 million to the family of a Woodbridge man who died in a fiery car crash.

The family of Raminder Singh maintains that Toyota designed a faulty seat belt that jammed in the January 2003 crash, and that the auto maker didn't do enough crash tests.

They acknowledge that Singh was at fault in the collision, because he began passing vehicles on Lower Sacramento Road, though he had a solid yellow no-passing line. Apparently unaware that a van in front of him was going to turn left on Mettler Road, Singh sideswiped it as it turned, which then sent Singh's Toyota Corolla headlong into a tree.

"The question is, didn't Mr. Singh cause all of this? Isn't this all of his fault?" plaintiff's attorney Lou Franecke said, playing devil's advocate during his closing argument. "But he didn't design the car. He didn't design the seat belt. He didn't design the fuel system."

"He used his seat belt and drove in a foreseeable way. He would have lived, except for Toyota's negligence and defects," Franecke continued. "The moment he hit that tree, Toyota's negligence took over."

But Toyota argues that because the crash was head-on, nothing would have caused the seat belt latch to twist during the crash. To demonstrate, defense attorney Patrick Becherer seated himself in a working Toyota Corolla seat that had been placed before the jury, demonstrating as every person in the courtroom leaned forward.

He maintains that the seat belt latch twisted until after the car was fully engulfed in flames and the heat weakened the metal. A former fire chief testifying for Toyota testified during trial that the blaze probably reached 1,200 to 1,800 degrees, which is not enough to melt steel but will cause it to weaken.

Singh's body fell to the right as the fire increased, and it was his weight that bent the seat belt latch, Becherer said.

The seat belt was designed to hold people in place during crashes; if it gives way, that would do no good, he said.

"You can't design a car like you do in a courtroom, for one accident," he said. "Toyota designs one car for all the world to use and it has to be used in all accidents."

The seat belt isn't the only issue in the case, but it drew intense focus during the trial that began in late November.

Several witnesses, including Singh's 14-year-old son who was able to get out of the passenger seat unharmed, testified during the trial that tried and failed to unbuckle the seat belt. Though Toyota maintains that Singh died in the crash, other witnesses say he was still alive and was trying to escape from the car.

As the vehicle began to burn, a bystander passed a knife to Singh in hopes that he could cut the belt.

There was no time, and Singh burned to death as his son watched.

The plaintiff's attorney will have one last chance to talk to the jury Tuesday morning, and then they will face a number of questions. Unlike a criminal case, civil cases have different standards, which Judge Lauren Thomasson outlined during jury instructions.

Conduct, such as Singh's driving, is only one factor. Under California law, auto makers must design vehicles for "foreseeable use," which includes imperfect driving, since that is so common.

The possible outcome of the trial is varied.

Jurors could determine that Toyota's design was flawed and contributed to Singh's death, but that Singh's driving was a factor. In that case, they would determine what percent of the death was his fault, and a monetary award would be reduced by that much.

Or jurors could agree with Toyota's attorney, who maintain that the entire crash and subsequent death was Singh's fault. Becherer disputed Franecke's allegations that Toyota didn't do enough crash testing, saying that nobody can test for every possible situation.

"You wouldn't have any Corollas left — you'd be testing them all," Becherer said.

Contact reporter Layla Bohm at layla@lodinews.com.