Court Rules for Defense in Fatal Product Liability Crash, Awards $25,628 Fees
Parents filed a lawsuit after their daughter died in a car crash. They alleged the vehicle was defective and the manufacturer was negligent. The manufacturer argued the vehicle was not defective and they were not negligent. The court ruled in favor of the manufacturer, stating there was no defective product and no manufacturer negligence.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Defense
- Amount
- $25,628
- County
- Dallas County, OK
- Resolved
- 2025
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Wrongful Death
- Accident Type
- Other
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Accident
Case Overview
The parents of a daughter killed in a car crash filed a product liability lawsuit against Toyota Motor Corporation and several related entities. Their daughter died while being driven home from driver's education in a 2020 Toyota Corolla. The plaintiffs alleged the vehicle was defective and that the Toyota defendants were negligent in its manufacturing and design, contributing to the fatal accident.
The Toyota defendants contested the allegations, arguing there was no defect in the vehicle and no negligence in its manufacturing, design, or marketing. The court granted the Toyota defendants' partial motion for summary judgment regarding the strict liability claim in February 2025, finding the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence of a product defect making the vehicle unreasonably dangerous.
In June 2025, the court granted summary judgment in favor of all Toyota defendants on the remaining negligence claims, determining there was no manufacturer negligence. These rulings concluded the case with a complete victory for the defendants. In August 2025, the court awarded the Toyota defendants $25,628.18 in attorneys' fees and costs, to be paid by the plaintiffs.
VerdictlyTM Score
This outcome differs from typical similar cases
This score is calculated by analyzing injury type, accident details, geographic location, temporal trends, and comparing against 2,000+ similar cases in our database.
Need better results for your case?
Share your situation and we'll connect you with experienced motor vehicle accident attorneys who have handled cases like this in Dallas County.
Similar cases you may find useful
Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.
A civil case stemming from a motor vehicle accident was recorded in Oklahoma. Few details were available from the record regarding the specifics of the incident, the legal claims asserted by the plaintiff, or the final resolution of the case. The plaintiff engaged multiple experts, including professionals in forensic economics, vocational rehabilitation, accident reconstruction, physical medicine, and clinical psychology, to assist with the proceedings.
A motor vehicle accident led to a lawsuit where the plaintiff claimed post-traumatic stress disorder and sought damages. Both sides presented expert testimony related to neuropsychology, forensic economics, occupational medicine, vocational rehabilitation, and orthopedic surgery, likely disputing the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and the valuation of damages. Details regarding the case's conclusion, including any verdict or settlement, were not available in the record.
A policyholder purchased health insurance effective May 26, 2014. On September 30, 2014, the policyholder was involved in a motor vehicle crash, sustaining serious injuries and incurring over $123,200 in medical bills. In July 2015, the insurer denied coverage for the crash, stating the policyholder was ineligible at the time of the accident. The insurer later informed the policyholder that the policy was canceled due to "pre-existing conditions." The policyholder claimed this refusal forced him to pay $66,812.33 out-of-pocket for medical expenses. The policyholder filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, alleging breach of contract and bad faith dealing, and seeking damages. The defendant insurer asserted defenses including unclean hands, fraudulent inducement, deceit, and rescission of contract. The parties subsequently settled the case. A federal judge entered an order in August 2017, administratively closing the case without prejudice due to the compromise, and the parties later filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice.
A lawsuit was filed alleging a traumatic brain injury and claims of negligence, negligent hiring, and negligence per se. Few details were available regarding the specific incident or the parties involved in the complaint. Plaintiff's experts included specialists in economics, vocational rehabilitation, truck accident investigation and reconstruction, nursing, life care planning, neurology, neuropsychology, and accident reconstruction. Information about the case's resolution or outcome was not available.
Details regarding a motor vehicle accident case, which involved claims of injuries and damages, were limited in the record. The proceedings included expert testimony from a truck accident investigation and reconstruction specialist, an accident reconstructionist, an economist, and a life care planner. Few specifics about the incident, the legal claims filed, the arguments presented by the parties, or the ultimate resolution of the case were available.