Lawsuit filed in Pismo Beach Toyota accident

February 8, 2010

A Bakersfield man is filing a wrongful death lawsuit against a Pismo Beach restaurant and the Japanese automaker Toyota, stemming from an accident in 2007.

As he was driving away from the Pelican Point Restaurant in Pismo Beach, Bulent Ezal, 72, stopped to enjoy the stunning ocean view. The next thing he knew his car had crashed through a fence and then plunged nearly 100 feet over the steep cliffs. [Telegraph]

He wife Anne Ezal, 72, did not survive.

When the accident occurred, police concluded that driver error caused the accident. Nevertheless, Ezal’s attorney is filing a lawsuit which blames Toyota’s acceleration problems for the accident and his wife’s death.

“An analysis of complaints recorded by America’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows that Toyota Camrys made from 2002 to 2006 have generated more complaints of unintended acceleration than any other Toyota model,” said  Donald Slavik, a lawyer handling Ezal’s wrongful death lawsuit, filed in a California court.


Loading...

9 Comments

  1. trainmasta says:

    my wife has had possibly 2 events of this nature in her 2002 camery. one in drive from a stop and one in reverse from a stop. I will contact toyota tomorrow about getting the same fix as for the later models.
    o2eric@charter.net

    (0) 0 Total Votes - 0 up - 0 down
  2. Lukenelson says:

    I hope Elizabeth Edwards takes that little werp for all she can.

    (-3) 3 Total Votes - 0 up - 3 down
  3. BeenThereDoneThat says:

    I’m a little confused on this one. I can understand suing Toyota but why the restaurant??

    If it is Toyota’s problem with the accelerator, why sue the restaurant? If you sue the restaurant, then it appears to be that you are just trying to get as much $$$$ as possible. I understand being upset but keep to the responsible parties.

    (20) 20 Total Votes - 20 up - 0 down
  4. Anon E. Muss says:

    So why is the restaurant named in the suit?

    (14) 14 Total Votes - 14 up - 0 down
    • racket says:

      Because they have money.

      (10) 10 Total Votes - 10 up - 0 down
      • BeenThereDoneThat says:

        Of course they have money. That is a given I think everybody understands. The point I think people would like to see, is a court of law, that would throw out this kind of frivolous B.S. from the get go and stick to the real parties at fault.

        (4) 6 Total Votes - 5 up - 1 down
        • racket says:

          I agree with you. My point — not well articulated — was that there was no readily-apparent reasonable basis to include the restaurant, other than the likeliness that they have insurance, and the insurance company will settle, rather than fund a defense. I think we are saying the same thing.

          (4) 4 Total Votes - 4 up - 0 down
          • BeenThereDoneThat says:

            Racket.

            This situation reminds me of the old lady and the McDonald’s coffee back about 15 or 20 years ago. You put a scalding beverage, in styrofoam no less, and act shocked that it was hot enough to burn.

            Unreal. This (deep pocket suing) is one of the many things that is a drag on our economy IMHO.

            I have an uncle that 40 years ago at a restaurant, had the bottom of a coffee pot suddenly break while the waitress was pouring, and dump on his lap. FULL POT! All he got was a sorry. Not even a comped meal but it was no biggie. You didn’t run down to Jacoboy and Meyers to see who to sue. People realized that s**t happens. Funny how things have changed and not for the better.

            (1) 3 Total Votes - 2 up - 1 down

Comments are closed.