Toyota's Admission May Free Jailed Man

fatchowmein

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/25/national/main6242192.shtml?tag=strip

Toyota's Problems May Free Jailed Man
Koua Fong Lee Imprisoned in Minnesota for Vehicular Homicide but Case May Get 2nd Look Amid Toyota Safety Problems

(AP) Ever since his 1996 Toyota Camry shot up an interstate ramp, plowing into the back of an Oldsmobile in a horrific crash that killed three people, Koua Fong Lee insisted he had done everything he could to stop the car.

A jury didn't believe him, and a judge sentenced him to eight years in prison. But now, new revelations of safety problems with Toyotas have Lee pressing to get his case reopened and his freedom restored. Relatives of the victims - who condemned Lee at his sentencing three years ago - now believe he is innocent and are planning to sue Toyota. The prosecutor who sent Lee to prison said he thinks the case merits another look.

"I know 100 percent in my heart that I took my foot off the gas and that I was stepping on the brakes as hard as possible," Lee said in an interview Wednesday at the state prison in Lino Lakes. "When the brakes were looked at and we were told that nothing was wrong with the brakes, I was shocked."

Lee's accident is among a growing number of cases, some long resolved, that are getting new attention since Toyota admitted its problems with sudden acceleration were more extensive than originally believed. Numerous lawsuits involving Toyota accidents have been filed over the recent revelations, and attorneys expect the numbers will climb.

In testimony before Congress, company executive renewed their apologies for underestimating the safety problems but also acknowledged that they still may not have identified all the causes for the sudden acceleration.

The uncertainty could wind up helping Lee and others. Attorneys for both the 32-year-old St. Paul man as well as the victims' families say they're encouraged by the evidence that the problems went beyond models that originally were recalled.

If Lee's car was defective, "We don't want an innocent man sitting in prison," said Phil Carruthers, who prosecuted the case for Ramsey County.

A Toyota spokesman declined to comment on Lee's case.

Lee, a recent Hmong immigrant with only about a year of driving experience, was driving his pregnant wife, 4-year-old daughter, father and brother home from church the afternoon of June 10, 2006, when their Camry zoomed up an Interstate 94 exit ramp in St. Paul. Police said it was traveling between 70 and 90 mph when it rear-ended an Oldsmobile stopped at a red light.

Javis Trice Adams, 33, and his 10-year-old son, Javis Adams Jr., died at the scene. Adams' 6-year-old niece, Devyn Bolton, was paralyzed from the neck down, and died shortly after Lee was convicted.

At his 2007 trial, Lee testified he was certain he tried to brake. But a city mechanic testified the brakes worked fine, and Carruthers, the prosecutor, argued Lee must have hit the gas by mistake. Lee's attorney at trial, Tracy Eichorn-Hicks, seemed to concede as much, arguing Lee's actions fell short of gross negligence.

In the end, a jury convicted Lee on two counts of criminal vehicular homicide. At sentencing, Ramsey County District Judge Joanne Smith gave Lee the maximum after emotional testimony that included Devyn Bolton's mother, Bridget Trice, saying to Lee: "I hope you understand what you've done to my family, Mr. Lee. You have ruined it."

Lee's Camry wasn't among those subject to Toyota's recent safety recalls, but Toyota did recall some 1996 Camrys for defective cruise controls that could cause sudden acceleration.

Lee's current attorney, Brent Schafer, said several '96 Camry owners whose cars were not in the recall have filed sudden-acceleration complaints with federal regulators.

Bob Hilliard, a Texas attorney, is preparing a lawsuit by the victims in the Lee crash. Hilliard said other federal complaints suggest a defect more widespread than recalled cruise controls - something with engine control modules that could extend to other Toyota makes and model years.

Hilliard said he's aware of about 16 potential class-action cases filed around the country on the basis of the automaker's recent revelations. Attorneys for the victims' family declined to make them available, but Hilliard said they feel differently about Lee now. "They seem to have made peace with the fact that he's telling the truth," Hilliard said.

Lee said he's grateful.

"I feel like them believing in me is a gift that I've received from God," he said.

Schafer said he'll file paperwork soon asking to reexamine the wrecked Camry, which still sits at the St. Paul police impoundment lot. All sides expect that request to be granted. Then Schafer would have to persuade the judge that new evidence merits a new trial.

Judges usually are skeptical about claims of new evidence, but Joseph Daly, a law professor at Hamline University in St. Paul, said Lee's chances appear to be good. "I really think a judge would be inclined to let that evidence be presented," Daly said.

Still, Carruthers said several factors would work against Lee. Lee testified his brakes didn't work, not that his car suddenly accelerated. And two experts - a city mechanic and an engineer hired by Lee's insurance company - didn't identify sudden acceleration as a problem with the car. Schafer said sudden acceleration is the only reasonable explanation for what happened.

Lee said he never had driven before immigrating to the United States and settling in St. Paul's large Hmong community in 2004. He was working to get his high school equivalency degree before the crash, and he's still working on it in prison. He wept as he described the impact of his imprisonment on his wife and four children, ages 8, 5, 3 and 2, who are on welfare.

"Right now it is very difficult for them," Lee said tearfully. "It's because my children are still very young. My wife is going to school and there aren't people to help her out. My kids ask about me constantly. They ask me when I'm going to come home. They ask about me. I don't know what to say to them."

bobman1235

The stopping power of brakes should be able to overcome any acceleration provided by the engine. If he did everything he could, he certainly wouldn't be traveling 70-90 mph unless he has the leg muscles of a crippled woman.

It may not be "gross negligence" but it's certainly inexperienced and no matter what the problem was at least some if not MOST of the fault lies in the operator. There were plenty of things a more experienced driver coudl and would have done.

concealer404

It's a 1996 Camry.... no drive by wire. If anyone lets this fly, they're stupid. End of story.


5sfe or 1mzfe motor.

thsmith

concealer404 wrote: »

It's a 1996 Camry.... no drive by wire. If anyone lets this fly, they're stupid. End of story.


5sfe or 1mzfe motor.

Lee's current attorney, Brent Schafer, said several '96 Camry owners whose cars were not in the recall have filed sudden-acceleration complaints with federal regulators.

Bob Hilliard, a Texas attorney, is preparing a lawsuit by the victims in the Lee crash. Hilliard said other federal complaints suggest a defect more widespread than recalled cruise controls - something with engine control modules that could extend to other Toyota makes and model years.

concealer404

On a traditional throttle cable system, engine controls CANNOT introduce any amount of acceleration that would be deemed anything close to uncontrollable. It's a fact of basic engine theory. When the throttle butterfly is controlled by an actual cable, there is no other way to open it to introduce the additional air needed to create more power or accelerate.

Cruise control is the only other way that happens, and touching ANY pedal disengages cruise control. You'd have to have a series of coincidental failures in order for that to happen on a 96 Camry. Possible? Maybe. But to say that it's highly unlikely would be the gross understatement of the century.



That all said anyways... this dude did not have his brake pedal pushed if his brakes were in fact functioning correctly. I can tell you right now that the completely gutless 5sfe or 1mzfe is absolutely NOT capable of overpowering the braking system on a Camry. You could have had no brake pads on that car, your gas pedal mashed to the floor, and if you stomped on the brakes, you're still slowing down.

madmax

In this case the driver should have had time to pull it into neutral or turn the key. I can imagine some cases where reaction time would be critical, such as pulling into a parking space, but an on ramp? No...
madmax

wz2p7j

Cars are funny you guys. When I was younger I had a vehicle that stuck at WOT (wide open throttle) about 3 times. I hadn't pressed the throttle all the way down so WTF? I've worked on cars all my life and was an ASE certified master mechanic at one point in my life, so I know a few things about cars. Dunno?

It was a "traditional" throttle cable vehicle. It was also a 5 speed manual, so I just calmly depressed the clutch pedal when this happened. Wonder what someone would have done if they panicked? At slower speeds the brake pedal will stop the car. If some one doesn't think fast enough and the car gets going, say, 80 mph at WOT, nadda chance.

Really weird. It only happened a couple times and I never took it to the dealer as I just could never reproduce the problem.

Chris

nooshinjohn

If the guy is released, I bet they go after Toyota next for witholding exculpatory evidence that would have resulted in him not being incarcerated in the first place.

concealer404

Is anyone else aware that it takes about 15 minutes to get to 90mph in a 96 Camry? Or is that just me?

The car i race with is powered by the same motor, and it's INFURIATINGLY slow.

disneyjoe7

When did Toyota build driven by wire into their vehicles? I'm not questioning this statement, just getting my learning thing on.

concealer404

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

When did Toyota build driven by wire into their vehicles? I'm not questioning this statement, just getting my learning thing on.

In general, i believe 2002, started in the Lexus division.

disneyjoe7

Thanks, I can I assume for emissions proposes?

concealer404

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

Thanks, I can I assume for emissions proposes?

Either that or just to make something more complicated than it needed to be, just like every other car company on the face of the planet.

But really, yeah, emissions.

Though i'll be honest, i don't see the point. Honda DBW systems have been notorious for needing to be reflashed because of an RPM hang between shifts, particularly on manual cars. If the motor is hanging up in a high rpm, it's going to throw out more emissions.

The whole thing is stupid.

disneyjoe7

I say emissions because there's high emissions as the driver gets off the gas quickly. In the old days they placed something to prevent the butterfly in closure back to idle. So I'm thinking this is why, maybe not I don't know for sure.

concealer404

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

I say emissions because there's high emissions as the driver gets off the gas quickly. In the old days they placed something to prevent the butterfly in closure back to idle. So I'm thinking this is why, maybe not I don't know for sure.

Ah. Yeah, that makes sense, so you don't cause a real quick rich condition and spew raw unburnt fuel.

disneyjoe7

But.....


Now with all that proper fuel being spent you're flying in mid air at times!

concealer404

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

But.....


Now with all that proper fuel being spent you're flying in mid air at times!

Lost me there...? You talking about being at partial throttle with no acceleration?

disneyjoe7

Jk Jk Jk that's all

concealer404

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

Jk Jk Jk that's all

Ah hell... I'm still slow today... only one Mt. Dew deep.

bobman1235

wz2p7j wrote: »

If some one doesn't think fast enough and the car gets going, say, 80 mph at WOT, nadda chance.

This is blatantly untrue. Brakes are designed to overpower the engine. Car and driver recently did a test on a bunch of Toyota products (because of this recall) locking the throttle wide open and trying to stop the car, and they all stopped. Without exception.

The problem is that people who buy Toyotas generally don't know how to drive. Case closed.

Serendipity

bobman1235 wrote: »

This is blatantly untrue. Brakes are designed to overpower the engine. Car and driver recently did a test on a bunch of Toyota products (because of this recall) locking the throttle wide open and trying to stop the car, and they all stopped. Without exception.

The problem is that people who buy Toyotas generally don't know how to drive. Case closed.

Wouldn't the brakes function properly for a certain period of time, then lose their effectiveness due to brake fade?

disneyjoe7

bobman1235 wrote: »

The problem is that people who buy Toyotas generally don't know how to drive. Case closed.

Only someone who had his Brain Frozen living in New Hampshire would even think that. Case Re-OPENED.

disneyjoe7

Serendipity wrote: »

Wouldn't the brakes function properly for a certain period of time, then lose their effectiveness due to brake fade?

Yes, and I believe is what we're seeing. Someone placing their foot on brake trying to slow car down, while car is trying to accelerate up causing brakes to fade. If a driver stood on brakes at first, place car in lower gear, turned car off problem solved.

concealer404

Serendipity wrote: »

Wouldn't the brakes function properly for a certain period of time, then lose their effectiveness due to brake fade?

The clutch/torque converter would wear out before fade became a problem enough that the car wouldn't stop.

Serendipity

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

Yes, and I believe is what we're seeing. Someone placing their foot on brake trying to slow car down, while car is trying to accelerate up causing brakes to fade. If a driver stood on brakes at first, place car in lower gear, turned car off problem solved.

That's what I thought was happening. People panicking and trying to slow the car down, without putting the car in neutral or turning the ignition off.

concealer404

Honestly... looking at this case alone, of the 96 Camry, i think you guys are

1) WAY underestimating the brakes on these things
2) WAY overestimating the power of the engine
3) Missing the fact that this dude could have possibly been going 90mph on a ramp. I'll come right out and say that if he had his foot pressing the brake pedal, this is impossible


If you're looking at cases other than this, i'll grudgingly admit that what you're saying is possible, but way beyond unlikely, and that the car in question would have been traveling at a very high rate of speed for an extended period of time in order for the brakes to fade to the point of being ineffective. By which point, the driver would have had ample time to attempt other avenues. Shutting off the car, shifting into neutral, etc etc etc.

wz2p7j

bobman1235 wrote: »

This is blatantly untrue. Brakes are designed to overpower the engine. Car and driver recently did a test on a bunch of Toyota products (because of this recall) locking the throttle wide open and trying to stop the car, and they all stopped. Without exception.

The problem is that people who buy Toyotas generally don't know how to drive. Case closed.

What about the guy in the Lexus that called 911 where they've been playing the sound clip on the news? He got going pretty fast and was standing on the brakes. The brakes got white hot and were no longer effective. They think the hot brakes were part of the reason the car caught fire after it crashed.

Chris

wayne3burk

Didn't a an off-duty california state trooper die when his toyota prius went into isntant acceleration mode? He was a cop and didnt have the where with all to turn the damn thing off - or pull on the emergency brake. or use the jersey barrier to grind to a halt.

And why would a guy with a pregnant wife and and a 4 year old kid in his car go off an off-ramp at 90mph and slam into someone stopped at a stop light?

A suicide driver terrorist?

was the car a standard or an automatic? probably an automatic if he's only been driving a year.

so my guess is he has really square feet and his foot was on the brake and the gas peddle a the same time -- and the harder he pressed the brakes the more he was standing on the accelerator.

Damn the square feets.

bobman1235

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

Only someone who had his Brain Frozen living in New Hampshire would even think that. Case Re-OPENED.

Why? It's true. Toyotas are personality-less cars designed for people who don't like driving. They are made to separate you from the actual experience of driving as much as possible. The people who drive them do so because they don't want to drive, they want a car that basically drives for them. When something goes wrong they're too stupid to throw the car into neutral before they plow into a tree. The fact that some guy stood on his brakes long enough for them to get "white hot" before ever realizing he could shift gears is a perfect illustration of this.

concealer404

wayne3burk wrote: »

Didn't a an off-duty california state trooper die when his toyota prius went into isntant acceleration mode? He was a cop and didnt have the where with all to turn the damn thing off - or pull on the emergency brake. or use the jersey barrier to grind to a halt.

And why would a guy with a pregnant wife and and a 4 year old kid in his car go off an off-ramp at 90mph and slam into someone stopped at a stop light?

A suicide driver terrorist?

was the car a standard or an automatic? probably an automatic if he's only been driving a year.

so my guess is he has really square feet and his foot was on the brake and the gas peddle a the same time -- and the harder he pressed the brakes the more he was standing on the accelerator.

Damn the square feets.

I'm more interested how he managed to get this car up to 90mph in the first place on a ramp....

Jstas

concealer404 wrote: »

On a traditional throttle cable system, engine controls CANNOT introduce any amount of acceleration that would be deemed anything close to uncontrollable. It's a fact of basic engine theory. When the throttle butterfly is controlled by an actual cable, there is no other way to open it to introduce the additional air needed to create more power or accelerate.

Cruise control is the only other way that happens, and touching ANY pedal disengages cruise control. You'd have to have a series of coincidental failures in order for that to happen on a 96 Camry. Possible? Maybe. But to say that it's highly unlikely would be the gross understatement of the century.



That all said anyways... this dude did not have his brake pedal pushed if his brakes were in fact functioning correctly. I can tell you right now that the completely gutless 5sfe or 1mzfe is absolutely NOT capable of overpowering the braking system on a Camry. You could have had no brake pads on that car, your gas pedal mashed to the floor, and if you stomped on the brakes, you're still slowing down.

"basic engine theory"...wha? You mean physics?

OK, first off, you're wrong. My truck has a cable operated throttle attached to the gas pedal. However, it can and will accelerate by itself if the IAC motor fails and gets stuck open under vacuum pressure. The IAC is the Idle Air Control motor. It controls the amount of air the engine gets under idle conditions. It's controlled by the ECM. Most OBD-II systems use similar systems to control idle speed. OBD-II was introduced in 1994 and made mandatory on all pollution controlled vehicles for the 1996 model year. It is entirely possible that a failed idle control system could open the throttle far enough to cause acceleration. Not wide-open throttle acceleration but strong enough acceleration to be very alarming.

bobman1235 wrote: »

This is blatantly untrue. Brakes are designed to overpower the engine. Car and driver recently did a test on a bunch of Toyota products (because of this recall) locking the throttle wide open and trying to stop the car, and they all stopped. Without exception.

The problem is that people who buy Toyotas generally don't know how to drive. Case closed.

OK, you're wrong too. Brakes are not designed to over-power the engine. They are designed to stop the vehicle. There are quite a few vehicles out there capable of overpowering the brakes. Most Mustangs, Camaros and other pony cars can. Hell, my 94 Thunderbird had upgraded brakes and the engine still produced enough torque to move the 2 ton pig under full braking power. Most SUVs and pick-up trucks can do it too. Especially when you get in to torque monsters like diesels or the hot rod versions like SRT-10 Rams and Lightnings. For a large majority of vehicles out there, the brakes can provide enough whoa to mitigate the go. But with the power levels of even basic economy cars now, that's not always true. Especially if the car's brakes are worn and haven't been serviced in a while. Bleeding the brakes to drain contaminated brake fluid does wonders for stopping power.