En Español

Auto Defect Case Press Releases

California Auto Defects Lawyers File Products Liability Lawsuit Against Toyota

Orange County, CA (Vocus) February 5, 2010

The California personal injury lawyers of BISNAR CHASE (www.BestAttorney.com) have filed an auto products liability injury lawsuit against Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. and Toyota Motor Corporation. The suit alleges that the 1999 Toyota Camry manufactured and sold by Toyota failed to protect Eleanor Gnup during a June 2009 side impact crash that caused her to suffer catastrophic injuries. The action was brought against the defendants by Eleanor Gnup and her husband, Edward Gnup, who was a passenger in the vehicle at the time of the crash. "We allege that Toyota manufactured, marketed, sold and failed to inspect and warn Eleanor and her husband that the subject vehicle lacked any side impact air bag protection and that its restraint system was defective and unsafe, resulting in Ms. Gnup's severe and permanently disabling injuries - safety should not be an optional item," said John Bisnar of the BISNAR CHASE Orange County Auto Products Liability Law Firm. The lawsuit is pending in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, case # 30-2010-00336522-CU-PL-CJC.

Catastrophic Injury Results From Side Impact T-Bone Car Crash

According to court records, on June 12, 2009, Eleanor Gnup was the properly restrained driver of -- and Edward Gnup the properly restrained passenger in -- a 1999 Toyota Camry as they traveled eastbound on Hermosa Avenue in Fullerton, California. While making a legal left-hand turn at the traffic signal-controlled intersection of Hermosa Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, the Toyota Camry was struck on the driver's side by another vehicle. The force of the side impact "T-bone" car crash in Orange County severely crushed the driver's side of the Camry, causing Eleanor to suffer catastrophic injuries when her head and body impacted against the car's interior components.

Suit Alleges Toyota Knew Camry Failed to Protect Occupants

During the design and development of the 1999 Toyota Camry -- a vehicle in which side air bags were not offered as standard equipment, but rather "optional" -- the automaker performed specific crash tests to determine the vehicle's compliance with the requirements set forth by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, including occupant crash protection, side impact protection, seat belt assemblies and seat belt assembly anchorages, among others. Toyota's side impact crash tests revealed the poor performance of the Camry's restraint system as well as its poor side impact performance and the potential for injury to occupants in side impact crashes due to the lack of side air bags.

The lawsuit alleges Toyota acted with a callous and conscious disregard, not only to the Gnups but also to other users of the vehicle, by failing to make side air bags standard equipment on the 1999 Toyota Camry, when side air bags were not only technologically feasible, but also readily available as optional equipment for little additional cost at the time the vehicle was designed and manufactured.

Further, the suit alleges Toyota knew the Camry's side impact crash protection was greatly reduced due to the vehicle's lack of side air bags and as a result of this knowledge, acted with a callous and conscious disregard to the Gnups and to members of the motoring public who were inexperienced and unfamiliar with the heightened risks of side impact head and torso injuries in vehicles that were not equipped with side air bags.

What's more, it's alleged that Toyota created a marketing and advertising campaign around the time the 1999 Toyota Camry was manufactured in which the vehicle was depicted as performing "safe" under certain conditions that Toyota knew were likely to cause catastrophic injuries and death. "We allege that not only did Toyota consciously fail and refuse to warn consumers of such risks, it failed to make certain design modifications, such as the installation of side air bags as standard equipment, in order to enhance its financial interests," said Bisnar.

The action seeks economic damages for Eleanor and her husband Edward, including medical expenses, loss of past and future earnings and earning capacity, damages for loss of consortium and emotional distress and suffering.

Have a question that wasn't answered here?

(800) 561-4887

Was This Page Helpful? Yes | No

Client Reviews of Bisnar Chase

“Great people in this office, everyone was really helpful explaining everything. I was referred by my aunt for my car accident in October and the case went pretty fast. No problems and very professional. I was kept in the loop thru [sic] the whole process and was able to get a better settlement than my insurance company said I would. I cant really compare them to other law firms because it was the first time I had to use an attorney, but my bad experience with the car accident was handled as good as I could have hoped.”

by Paige Montgomery

reviewed at Google+

“Undoubtedly the best firm I've ever encountered. It's not a huge firm, as I only worked with a few people, but it felt like a real place where work gets done. I never felt like a "little person," as my case wasn't small, but it wasn't huge either. I know lawyers have gotten a bad rap, but these guys bring the word classy back to law. I definitely can recommend these guys.”

by Clark G.

reviewed at Yelp

“My car accident happened in April. I called Bisnar Chase, and was able to get information that helped me deal with the insurance on my own. They didn't take my case, but Mary took my call both times I called; she was so very helpful!! I hope I don't need them again, but if I do, I know they'll help me. FIVE STARS!!”

by Amy Leone

reviewed at Facebook

See All Ratings And Awards

The BISNAR CHASE Difference

  • “I was in a serious auto accident when I was in law school. I had to hire a personal injury attorney and had a really bad experience.”

    John Bisnar

    on what made him want to become a personal injury attorney

  • “If you hire Bisnar | Chase and we don't recover money for you in your case, you owe us absolutely nothing.”

    Brian Chase

    on whether or not you would owe money if your case was lost

  • “Whatever the philosphy of the management is, is going to be carried through by the employees and it’s going to reflect on the experience the clients have.”

    John Bisnar

    on his philosophy on running a law firm

  • “The insurance companies are going to be investigating that accident the day it happens. You need to have a lawyer on your side the day it happens as well.”

    Brian Chase

    on when you should contact an attorney

  • “The first thing we want to do with our clients is to relieve the stress. Make them feel comfortable. Treat them as an honored guest.”

    John Bisnar

    on how he would define superior client representation

  • “It's hard to answer that question right up front without a thorough analysis. What I can guarantee you is, with the resources of Bisnar | Chase we will maximize the value of your case.”

    Brian Chase

    on what your case is worth

Bisnar Chase Personal Injury Attorneys
1301 Dove St #120
Newport Beach, CA 92660

local: (949) 203-3814
Get Directions

California Personal Injury Blog