1 TINA TRAN DANG, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of HIEN THI TRAN,
Plaintiff, v.
HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, LTD., a foreign corporation, HONDA R & D CO., LTD., a foreign corporation, AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a foreign corporation, HONDA OF AMERICA MFG., INC., a foreign corporation, TAKATA CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, TAKATA, INC., a foreign corporation, TK HOLDINGS INC., a
foreign corporation,
Defendants.
/
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.:
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff, TINA TRAN DANG, as Personal Representative of the Estate of HIEN THI TRAN, sues the Defendants, HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, LTD., HONDA R & D CO., LTD., AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., HONDA OF AMERICA MFG., INC., TAKATA CORPORATION, TAKATA, INC., and TK HOLDINGS INC., and states:
INTRODUCTORY ALLEGATIONS
1. This is an action for damages against Defendants in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) exclusive of interest and costs.
2. At all times material hereto, Decedent, HIEN THI TRAN was a resident of Orlando, Orange County, Florida.
2
3. TINA TRAN DANG has been appointed the Personal Representative of the Estate of HIEN THI TRAN. The Letter of Administration duly appointing TINA TRAN DANG as the Personal Representative to act for the benefit of all potential beneficiaries is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.
4. All potential beneficiaries to a recovery for wrongful death of HIEN THI TRAN, and their relationship to the deceased, are as follows:
a) The Estate of HIEN THI TRAN, c/o Tina Tran Dang, as Personal Representative of the Estate;
b) TINA TRAN DANG, the sister of the decedent, HIEN THI TRAN; c) PHI NGOC TRAN, the brother of the decedent, HIEN THI TRAN; d) TUAN NGOC TRAN, the brother of the decedent, HIEN THI TRAN; e) PHU NGOC TRAN; the brother of the decedent, HIEN THI TRAN; f) THUY THI TRAN; the sister of the decedent, HIEN THI TRAN; g) THANH THI TRAN; the sister of the decedent, HIEN THI TRAN; h) LOAN THI TRAN; the sister of the decedent, HIEN THI TRAN; and i) TRAN VIET HUNG; the brother of the decedent, HIEN THI TRAN. 5. The above referenced survivors and potential beneficiaries to a recovery for the wrongful death of HIEN THI TRAN (hereinafter “TRAN”), are all blood relatives and siblings of TRAN who were partly dependent upon same, and whom in their respective individual capacities received support and services, including, but not limited to, tasks, usually of a household nature, regularly performed by the decedent that will be a necessary expense to such survivors of the decedent. TRAN was unmarried and had no lineal or adopted children. TRAN’s parents are deceased. TRAN was fifty-one (51) at the time of her death.
3
6. The Defendants, HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD., HONDA R & D CO., LTD, AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., HONDA OF AMERICA MFG., INC., TAKATA CORPORATION, TAKATA, INC., and TK HOLDINGS INC., are all directly responsible for the wrongful death of TRAN that was caused by the explosion of the inflator incorporated into the airbag safety system (herein referred to as “airbag safety system”, “Airbag Safety System”, “airbag system”, “safety system”, or “airbag”) in the 2001 Honda Accord, VIN # 1HGCG165X1A005057, she owned (herein referred to as “her vehicle” or “Subject Vehicle”) on September 29, 2014 that sent metal fragments of the airbag safety system’s inflator itself through the airbag cushion striking TRAN causing fatal injuries that resulted in her ultimate death on October 2, 2014.
7. Defendant HONDA MOTOR CO. LTD. (“HMC”) is a foreign for-profit corporation with its principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan. HMC designs, develops, manufactures, assembles, tests, markets, promotes, advertises, distributes and sells motorcycles, automobiles, and power products through its related subsidiaries and/or operating units, including HONDA R & D CO., LTD., AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. and HONDA OF AMERICA, MFG., INC., independent retail dealers, outlets, and authorized dealerships primarily in Japan, North America, Europe, and Asia, including the Subject Vehicle. HMC has been directly involved in the safety investigation and determinations made as to the motor vehicle safety issues arising from the defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of certain Honda brand vehicles it designs, manufactures and distributes for sale to the consuming public, including the Subject Vehicle. HMC has actively been involved in the developing knowledge of this motor vehicle
4
safety issue by Honda entities over the last decade, and the actions and/or inactions of same relating to this public safety hazard.
8. Defendant HONDA R & D CO., LTD. (“HRD”) is a foreign for-profit corporation with its principal place of business in Waco, Japan. HRD, is a subsidiary of HMC, and working in conjunction with HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD., AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. and HONDA OF AMERICA, MFG., INC., is responsible for the research, design and development of certain aspects of Honda brand vehicles, including testing and developing safety technologies for same, and was responsible for the design, development, manufacture, assembly, testing, distribution and sale of Honda brand vehicles utilizing Takata airbags primarily in Japan, North America, Europe, and Asia, including the Subject Vehicle. HRD has been involved in the safety investigation and determinations made as to the motor vehicle safety issues arising from the defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of certain Honda brand vehicles it designs, manufactures and distributes for sale to the consuming public, including the Subject Vehicle. HRD has actively been involved in the developing knowledge of this motor vehicle safety issue by Honda entities over the last decade, and the actions and/or inactions of same relating to this public safety hazard.
9. Defendant AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. (“AHM”) is a California corporation, with its headquarters in Torrance, California, that designs, manufactures, assembles, tests, markets, promotes, advertises, distributes and sells HMC and/or Honda brand cars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles in the United States, including the Subject Vehicle. AHM has been identified by HMC as the “Manufacturer’s Agent” in its NHTSA communications related to this motor vehicle safety issue involving exploding Takata airbags in Honda brand vehicles, and
5
AHM has been directly involved in the safety investigation and determinations made as to the motor vehicle safety issues arising from the defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of certain Honda brand vehicles it makes, including the Subject Vehicle. Additionally, AHM is responsible for the distribution of such Honda brand vehicles in the United States, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Moreover, AHM has actively been involved in the developing knowledge of this motor vehicle safety issue by Honda entities over the last decade, and the actions and/or inactions of same relating to this public safety hazard. Finally, to the extent the United States Department of Transportation (“DOT”) by and through the Secretary of Transportation has delegated authority to the Chief Counsel of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (hereinafter “NHTSA”) by a “Special Order” dated November 5, 2014, to investigate this safety issue, it is AHM who has been ordered to provide responses to “demands [for] certain information and documents” provided and “signed under oath” no later than “December 15, 2014”, as to its newly initiated “PE14-016 Air Bag Inflator Rupture” investigation. See, Special Order Directed to American Honda Motor Co., Inc., dated November
5, 2014, attached hereto as Exhibit “B”.
10. Defendant HONDA OF AMERICA, MFG., INC. (“HAM”) is an Ohio corporation, with its principal place of business in Marysville, Ohio, that designs, manufactures, assembles, tests, markets, promotes, advertises, distributes and sells HMC and/or Honda brand cars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles in the United States, including the Subject Vehicle. HAM has been directly involved in the safety investigation and determinations made as to the motor vehicle safety issues arising from the defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of certain Honda brand vehicles it makes, including the Subject Vehicle. Moreover, HAM has actively
6
been involved in the developing knowledge of this motor vehicle safety issue by Honda entities over the last decade, and the actions and/or inactions of same relating to this public safety hazard.
11. Defendants HMC, HRD, AHM, and HAM are collectively referred to as “Honda” or “Honda entities” or “Honda Defendants” herein.
12. Defendant TAKATA CORPORATION (‘TAKATA”) is a foreign for-profit corporation with its principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan. Takata is a specialized supplier of automotive safety systems, that designs, manufactures, assembles, tests, markets, distributes, and sells vehicle restraint systems to various Original Equipment Manufacturers (“OEM’s”), including Honda, in the United States and abroad, including specifically the airbag incorporated and used by Honda in its supplemental airbag safety system in the Subject Vehicle. Takata is a vertically-integrated company and manufactures component parts in its own facilities, and, then, distributes same.
13. Defendant TAKATA, INC. (“TAKATA, INC.”) is a Delaware corporation and subsidiary and/or operational unit of TAKATA. TAKATA INC. is in the business of designing, manufacturing, assembling, testing, promoting, advertising, distributing and selling vehicle restraint systems to various OEM’s, including Honda, including specifically the airbag incorporated and used by Honda in its supplemental airbag safety system in the Subject Vehicle. Takata is a vertically-integrated company and manufactures component parts in its own facilities, and, then, distributes same.
14. Defendant TK HOLDINGS INC. (“TK HOLDINGS”) is a Delaware corporation and subsidiary and/or operational unit of TAKATA. TK HOLDINGS, with its headquarters in
7
Auburn Hills, Michigan, is in the business of designing, manufacturing, assembling, testing, promoting, advertising, distributing and selling vehicle restraint systems to various OEM’s, including Honda, including the airbag incorporated and used by Honda in its supplemental airbag safety system in the Subject Vehicle. Additionally, TK HOLDINGS has also been identified in various materials as manufacturing the “inflators” in the airbags which are rupturing or exploding sending metal fragments or shrapnel into vehicle users, and the “propellant” or explosive charge used within the inflator itself. TK Holdings also is involved in the distribution of such airbag systems to OEM’s, including Honda. Moreover, to the extent the United States Department of Transportation (“DOT”) by and through the Secretary of Transportation has delegated authority to the Chief Counsel of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (hereinafter “NHTSA”) by a “Special Order” dated October 30, 2014, to investigate this safety issue, it is TK HOLDINGS who has been ordered to provide responses to “demands [for] certain information and documents” provided and “signed under oath” no later than “December 1, 2014”, as to its newly initiated “PE14-016 Air Bag Inflator Rupture” investigation. See, Special
Order Directed to TK Holdings, Inc., dated October 30, 2014, attached hereto as Exhibit “C”.
15. TAKATA, TAKATA INC., and TK HOLDINGS are collectively referred to as “Takata”, “Takata entities” or “Takata Defendants” herein.
16. Honda vehicles sold in the United States and abroad contain airbags designed and manufactured by Takata in its own manufacturing facilities, who, then, also distributes same for incorporation and use in Honda’s “Honda” and “Acura” brand vehicles as designed, manufactured, assembled, marketed, promoted, advertised, distributed and sold by Honda in the United States and abroad, including, specifically, the airbag that ruptured or exploded in the
8
Subject Vehicle, a 2001 Honda Accord, causing the fatal injuries that directly led to the wrongful death of TRAN that is the subject of this Complaint.
17. Defendant, HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, LTD. (“HMC”), is a foreign corporation organized and existing under the laws of Japan with its principal place of business at 1-1, 2-chome, Minami-Aoyama, Minato-ku, Tokyo 107-8556, Japan. HMC may be served by and through the Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, and President of HMC under Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention consistent with Florida law. In addition, HMC may be served through Japan’s central authority pursuant to Article 5 of the Hague Convention by APS International, Ltd., or similar entities. HMC conducts business in the State of Florida, and regularly causes its products to be sold in Florida, specifically, Orange County.
18. The Defendant, HMC, submitted itself to the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court by doing, personally or through its agents, at all times material to this cause of action, the following acts:
a) Committing a tortious act within this state by selling and delivering defective vehicles, including the Subject Vehicle which is the subject of this Complaint, to persons, firms, or corporations in this state via its distributors, dealers, wholesalers, and brokers. Such Honda vehicles were used by consumers in Florida in the ordinary course of commerce and trade;
b) Conducting and engaging in substantial business and other activities in Florida by selling and servicing Honda vehicles and component parts to persons, firms, or corporations in this state via its distributors, wholesalers, dealers, and brokers. Such Honda vehicles were used by consumers in Florida in the ordinary course of commerce and trade;
c) Causing injury to persons in Florida, including TRAN. At or about the time of said fatal injuries, the Defendant engaged in solicitation activities in Florida to purposefully promote the sale, consumption, and use of Honda vehicles, including the Subject Vehicle which is the subject
9 of this Complaint; and
d) Selling Honda vehicles and component parts, including the Subject Vehicle which is the subject of this Complaint, with knowledge or reason to foresee that their Honda vehicles would be shipped in interstate commerce and would reach the market of Florida users or consumers.
19. Defendant, HONDA R & D CO., LTD. (“HRD”), is a foreign corporation organized and existing under the laws of Japan with its principal place of business at Wako Research Center, 1-4-1 Chuo, Wako 351-0-113, Japan. HRD may be served by and through the Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, and President of HRD under Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention consistent with Florida law. In addition, HRD may be served through Japan’s central authority pursuant to Article 5 of the Hague Convention by APS International, Ltd., or similar entities. HRD conducts business in the State of Florida, and regularly causes its products to be sold in Florida, specifically, Orange County.
20. The Defendant, HRD, submitted itself to the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court by doing, personally or through its agents, at all times material to this cause of action, the following acts:
a) Committing a tortious act within this state by selling and delivering defective vehicles, including the Subject Vehicle which is the subject of this Complaint, to persons, firms, or corporations in this state via its distributors, dealers, wholesalers, and brokers. Such Honda vehicles were used by consumers in Florida in the ordinary course of commerce and trade;
b) Conducting and engaging in substantial business and other activities in Florida by selling and servicing Honda vehicles and component parts to persons, firms, or corporations in this state via its distributors, wholesalers, dealers, and brokers. Such Honda vehicles were used by consumers in Florida in the ordinary course of commerce and trade;
10
c) Causing injury to persons in Florida, including TRAN. At or about the time of said fatal injuries, the Defendant engaged in solicitation activities in Florida to purposefully promote the sale, consumption, and use of Honda vehicles, including the Subject Vehicle which is the subject of this Complaint; and
d) Selling Honda vehicles and component parts, including the Subject Vehicle which is the subject of this Complaint, with knowledge or reason to foresee that their Honda vehicles would be shipped in interstate commerce and would reach the market of Florida users or consumers.
21. Defendant, AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. (“AHM”), is a California Corporation authorized to conduct business in the State of Florida, and regularly causes its products to be sold in Florida, specifically, Orange County.
22. The Defendant, AHM, submitted itself to the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court by doing, personally or through its agents, at all times material to this cause of action, the following acts:
a) Committing a tortious act within this state by selling and delivering defective vehicles, including the Subject Vehicle which is the subject of this Complaint, to persons, firms, or corporations in this state via its distributors, dealers, wholesalers, and brokers. Such Honda vehicles were used by consumers in Florida in the ordinary course of commerce and trade;
b) Conducting and engaging in substantial business and other activities in Florida by selling and servicing Honda vehicles and component parts to persons, firms, or corporations in this state via its distributors, wholesalers, dealers, and brokers. Such Honda vehicles were used by consumers in Florida in the ordinary course of commerce and trade;
c) Causing injury to persons in Florida, including TRAN. At or about the time of said fatal injuries, the Defendant engaged in solicitation activities in Florida to purposefully promote the sale, consumption, and use of Honda vehicles, including the Subject Vehicle which is the subject of this Complaint;
11
Vehicle which is the subject of this Complaint, with knowledge or reason to foresee that their Honda vehicles would be shipped in interstate commerce and would reach the market of Florida users or consumers; and e) Voluntarily qualifying to conduct business in this state by registering with the Florida Department of State and designating a resident agent for service of process in Florida at all times material to this action.
23. Defendant, HONDA OF AMERICA MFG., INC. (“HAM”), is an Ohio Corporation authorized to conduct business in the State of Florida, and regularly causes its products to be sold in Florida, specifically, Orange County.
24. The Defendant, HAM, submitted itself to the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court by doing, personally or through its agents, at all times material to this cause of action, the following acts:
a) Committing a tortious act within this state by selling and delivering defective vehicles, including the Subject Vehicle which is the subject of this Complaint, to persons, firms, or corporations in this state via its distributors, dealers, wholesalers, and brokers. Such Honda vehicles were used by consumers in Florida in the ordinary course of commerce and trade;
b) Conducting and engaging in substantial business and other activities in Florida by selling and servicing Honda vehicles and component parts to persons, firms, or corporations in this state via its distributors, wholesalers, dealers, and brokers. Such Honda vehicles were used by consumers in Florida in the ordinary course of commerce and trade;
c) Causing injury to persons in Florida, including TRAN. At or about the time of said fatal injuries, the Defendant engaged in solicitation activities in Florida to purposefully promote the sale, consumption, and use of Honda vehicles, including the subject Honda vehicle which is the subject of this Complaint; and
d) Selling Honda vehicles and component parts, including the Subject Vehicle which is the subject of this Complaint, with knowledge or reason to foresee that their Honda vehicles would be shipped in interstate commerce and would reach the market of Florida users or consumers.
12
25. Defendant, TAKATA CORPORATION (“TAKATA”), is a foreign corporation organized and existing under the laws of Japan with its principal place of business at Shigeshisa Takada, 12-31 Akasaka 2-Chome, Minato-Ku, Tokyo, Japan. TAKATA may be served by and through the Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, and President of TAKATA under Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention consistent with Florida law. In addition, TAKATA may be served through Japan’s central authority pursuant to Article 5 of the Hague Convention by APS International, Ltd., or similar entities. TAKATA conducts business in the State of Florida, and regularly causes its products to be sold in Florida, specifically, Orange County.
26. The Defendant, TAKATA, submitted itself to the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court by doing, personally or through its agents, at all times material to this cause of action, the following acts:
a) Committing a tortious act within this state by selling and delivering defective vehicles and/or component parts, including the Subject Vehicle which is the subject of this Complaint, to persons, firms, or corporations in this state via its distributors, dealers, wholesalers, and brokers. Such products were used by consumers in Florida in the ordinary course of commerce and trade;
b) Conducting and engaging in substantial business and other activities in Florida by selling and delivering defective products, including the subject airbag system, to persons, firms, or corporations in this state via its distributors, wholesalers, dealers, and brokers. Such products were used by consumers in Florida in the ordinary course of commerce and trade;
c) Causing injury to persons in Florida, including TRAN. At or about the time said fatal injuries occurred, Defendant engaged in solicitation activities in Florida to promote the sale, consumption, and use of its products and such products were consumed within Florida in the ordinary course of commerce, and Defendant was engaged in substantial and not
13 isolated activity within this state; and
d) Selling and delivering defective products to persons, firms, and corporations via its distributors, dealers, wholesalers, and brokers, with knowledge or reason to foresee that they would be shipped in interstate commerce and would reach the market of Florida users and consumers.
27. Defendant, TAKATA, INC. (“TAKATA INC.”), is a Delaware Corporation authorized to conduct business in the State of Florida, and regularly causes its products to be sold in Florida, specifically, Orange County.
28. The Defendant, TAKATA INC., submitted itself to the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court by doing, personally or through its agents, at all times material to this cause of action, the following acts:
a) Committing a tortious act within this state by selling and delivering defective vehicles and/or component parts, including the Subject Vehicle which is the subject of this Complaint, to persons, firms, or corporations in this state via its distributors, dealers, wholesalers, and brokers. Such products were used by consumers in Florida in the ordinary course of commerce and trade;
b) Conducting and engaging in substantial business and other activities in Florida by selling and delivering defective products, including the subject airbag system, to persons, firms, or corporations in this state via its distributors, wholesalers, dealers, and brokers. Such products were used by consumers in Florida in the ordinary course of commerce and trade;
c) Causing injury to persons in Florida, including TRAN. At or about the time said injuries occurred, Defendant engaged in solicitation activities in Florida to promote the sale, consumption, and use of its products and such products were consumed within Florida in the ordinary course of commerce, and Defendant was engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within this state; and
d) Selling and delivering defective products to persons, firms, and corporations via its distributors, dealers, wholesalers, and brokers, with
14
knowledge or reason to foresee that they would be shipped in interstate commerce and would reach the market of Florida users and consumers.
29. Defendant, TK HOLDINGS INC. (“TK HOLDINGS”), is a Delaware Corporation authorized to conduct business in the State of Florida, and regularly causes its products to be sold in Florida, specifically, Orange County.
30. The Defendant, TK HOLDINGS, submitted itself to the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court by doing, personally or through its agents, at all times material to this cause of action, the following acts:
a) Committing a tortious act within this state by selling and delivering defective vehicles and/or component parts, including the Subject Vehicle which is the subject of this Complaint, to persons, firms, or corporations in this state via its distributors, dealers, wholesalers, and brokers. Such products were used by consumers in Florida in the ordinary course of commerce and trade;
b) Conducting and engaging in substantial business and other activities in Florida by selling and delivering defective products, including the subject airbag system, to persons, firms, or corporations in this state via its distributors, wholesalers, dealers, and brokers. Such products were used by consumers in Florida in the ordinary course of commerce and trade;
c) Causing injury to persons in Florida, including TRAN. At or about the time said injuries occurred, Defendant engaged in solicitation activities in Florida to promote the sale, consumption, and use of its products and such products were consumed within Florida in the ordinary course of commerce, and Defendant was engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within this state;
d) Selling and delivering defective products to persons, firms, and corporations via its distributors, dealers, wholesalers, and brokers, with knowledge or reason to foresee that they would be shipped in interstate commerce and would reach the market of Florida users and consumers; and
15
registering with the Florida Department of State and designating a resident agent for service of process in Florida at all times material to this action.
THE SUBJECT ACCIDENT
31. On September 29, 2014, TRAN was driving her vehicle, a 2001 Honda Accord, VIN # 1HGCG165X1A005057, when she was involved in a moderate automobile accident at the intersection of Valencia College Lane and Chickasaw Trail, in Orange County, Florida, as she was making a left hand turn. See, Florida Highway Patrol diagram attached as Exhibit “D”. While properly restrained by the Subject Vehicle’s shoulder and lap belt, TRAN made such turn with the green light, and her vehicle was struck in the front by an oncoming motorist, triggering the deployment of her 2001 Accord’s airbag safety system which was designed and manufactured for use in her vehicle to provide protection from injuries in such foreseeable type crashes. See, Id. However, instead of providing such protection as intended, the airbag system failed, with the inflator of the airbag safety system rupturing and exploding upon receiving a signal to deploy the airbag in this crash shooting metal fragments of the airbag safety system itself through TRAN’s vehicle, such metal fragments or shrapnel striking her in the face, neck and upper chest causing fatal injuries that resulted in her ultimate death three (3) days later on October 2, 2014.
32. The accident involving TRAN was initially investigated by the Orange County Sheriff’s Office (“Orange County”) as a homicide based upon the “stab like” wounds to TRAN’s face, neck and upper body. In fact, as law enforcement worked diligently to identify the circumstances surrounding the potential stabbing incident leading to TRAN being in a suspected post-stabbing automobile accident as she may have fled an assailant, Orange County pursued various leads and even identified a possible ”person-of-interest”. However, as the investigation
16
continued, and with the Medical Examiner’s Office becoming involved after October 2, 2014, when TRAN passed away three (3) days post-accident, the discovery that her fatal injuries were caused by an exploding airbag in her 2001 Honda Accord was made. Orange County then closed its investigative efforts, pending an investigation by the Florida Highway Patrol (“FHP”) who is charged with investigating vehicular deaths in Florida like that involving TRAN. To date, the final reports of Orange County, the Medical Examiner’s Office and FHP have not been released, but, an examination by FHP of the Takata airbag safety system from the Subject Vehicle with the assistance of NHTSA has confirmed that the inflator ruptured sending metal fragments from the inflator itself through the airbag cushion. See, Photographs taken November 11, 2014 at the
FHP Investigative Inspection with NHTSA showing the ruptured inflator, a metal fragment found, and the airbag cushion with documented exit holes from metal fragments, attached hereto as Exhibit “E”.
33. Throughout this time, the family of TRAN was forced to live with the wide range of emotions, questions, doubts, stress and trauma that accompanied not knowing or understanding why TRAN was fatally killed. Now, as more and more is learned every day about Honda and Takata, and their knowledge about the dangers posed by exploding Takata airbags like that which killed TRAN, the family of TRAN must confront, process and come to grips with the apparent wanton disregard for human life of Honda and Takata as demonstrated by their actions and inactions leading to a death that was avoidable and unnecessary.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
34. When looking at the publically available historical record and continually developing facts, as are plead with specificity herein, surrounding the public safety hazard posed
17
by unreasonably dangerous and defective exploding Takata airbags in Honda brand vehicles, like the airbag that ruptured and exploded in the 2001 Honda Accord that was being driven by TRAN on September 29, 2014, causing her fatal injuries, a pattern of conscious disregard for the safety of the consuming public, including, specifically, Honda brand vehicle owners like TRAN, is seen.
35. The knowing and intentional decisions to voluntarily act or not act to notify the public and/or voluntarily recall these unreasonably dangerous and defective vehicles with Takata airbags, to disclose information or conceal it with respect to Other Similar Incidents (“OSIs”) involving these defective airbags, or to comply with federal law or violate it by not timely and appropriately reporting information known of with respect to other serious injuries and deaths caused by such airbags to NHTSA, all reflect a series of historical corporate decisions by both the Honda Defendants and Takata Defendants, and their upper management, to knowingly and actively conceal and/or misrepresent to the public, NHTSA and persons like TRAN, who owned a 2001 Honda Accord with an incorporated Takata airbag, the nature, scope and risks posed by these airbags of which they knew or should have known. Such conduct, and their failure to act or warn of same in a reasonable and responsible way over the years naturally and in a continuous sequence, directly caused and contributed to the death of TRAN.
Takata and its Manufacture of Airbag Systems and Inflators
36. The Takata Defendants were responsible for the design, manufacture, assembly, testing, marketing, promotion, advertising, distribution and sale of the Takata airbag safety system that was incorporated into the Subject Vehicle by the Honda Defendants, who designed, manufactured, assembled, tested, marketed, promoted, advertised, distributed and sold same.
18
37. The Takata Defendants are reported as being the world’s second largest maker of automotive safety devices, including airbags. Takata was a pioneer in developing driver side airbags, being the first to market driver side airbags in the early 1980s.
38. Takata has supplied airbags to U.S. consumers and to state and local governmental purchasers since at least 1983, and, as of 2007, it is reported that airbag safety systems making up approximately 37.3% of Takata’s automotive safety products business.
39. Takata also designs, develops, tests and builds in-house other safety technologies, including cushions, inflators, and propellants utilized in same, which are all components of Takata-manufactured airbag safety systems.
40. Airbags are a normal part of a vehicle’s supplemental occupant restraint safety system. When an accident occurs, airbags inflate faster than the blink of an eye. Airbags are key components in almost all automotive safety systems, and, although consumers cannot see them perform under normal conditions with the naked eye, they soften the impact of collisions by keeping passengers from contacting the steering wheel, dashboard, front glass, and other parts of the automobile. Operators and passengers of a motor vehicle with airbags rely on the manufacturers of such safety systems, and the vehicle it is incorporated into, to ensure the airbags and vehicle are safe to use. Airbags have been one of the central safety features of any motor vehicle made since 2000, like the 2001 Honda Accord owned by TRAN.
41. The Subject Vehicle, like potentially millions of similar vehicles that remain in use on American roadways today, contains an airbag which was designed, manufactured, assembled, tested, promoted, advertised, distributed and sold by the Takata Defendants to
19
various original equipment manufacturers (“OEM’s”), including Honda, to be incorporated and used as a supplemental safety restraint system.
41. However, as designed, made and distributed, the Takata airbags, instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during foreseeable accidents, violently rupture and explode sending potentially lethal metal fragments through the airbag cushion and into vehicle occupants who were meant to benefit from the supplemental protective benefits of what is intended to be a safety device.
42. The airbags at issue in this case were developed by Takata in the late 1990’s in an effort to make airbags more compact and to reduce the toxic fumes that earlier airbag models emitted when deployed. The redesigned airbags are inflated by means of a “propellant”, or explosive charge. With respect to Takata, such propellant has historically used “ammonium nitrate” as a primary compound. That “propellant” or explosive is encased in a metal canister, the “inflator”.
43. As can be seen from the below illustrative diagram, “propellant” is encased within the airbag’s “inflator”. During assembly, the airbag inflator is inserted into the steering wheel housing or module where the “airbag cushion” is held. In an accident the propellant is ignited in the inflator to create rapidly expanding gases which serve to “deploy” the airbag itself when an airbag is deemed necessary to provide supplement occupant protection in foreseeable frontal crashes.
21
44. The two Takata plants that manufacture airbags like that used in TRAN’s 2001 Honda Accord are Moses Lake, Washington, and Monclova, Mexico. These plants manufacture propellant, airbag inflators, and modules as used in such airbag safety systems. Based upon identifying marks on the airbag from the Subject Vehicle, it is believed that the propellant was made in Moses Lake, Washington, and the inflator and module were made in Monclova, Mexico in August, 2000. See, Photograph of Subject Vehicle airbag markings “HONDA 000 8414, 09 08
00, ‘S’ Assembled in Mexico with U.S.A. Components”, taken November 11, 2014, attached hereto as Exhibit “F”. Additionally, Takata has distribution centers located within the United
States, with the main Distribution Center being located in Texas to facilitate the transportation and distribution of its products.
45. Airbags manufactured by Takata, including the airbag at issue in this case, have been installed in vehicles manufactured by at least ten different automakers, including Honda.
46. Takata has long promoted itself as a maker of “quality” airbag safety systems, and has claimed to prioritize driver safety as its “dream.”
47. Based on that “dream,” they claimed to be “motivated by the preciousness of life” and pledged to both “communicate openly and effectively.” The Takata Defendants have failed to live up to this dream by designing, manufacturing, assembling, distributing, and selling airbags that can cause serious bodily injury or death when they explode sending deadly shrapnel into vehicle occupants, while, also, actively concealing and failing to communicate what was known by them of these dangerous airbags over the past decade.
Honda and Takata Defendants Historical Knowledge of Safety Problem and Violations of Federal Law
22
48. The Honda and Takata Defendants have had actual knowledge of the nature, scope and risks posed by the unreasonably dangerous and defective Takata airbags over the past decade, with Honda and Takata having actual knowledge of an exploding Takata airbag incident in 2004.
49. According to Honda, “[t]he first known rupture of a Takata airbag occurred in Alabama” in 2004 and involved a 2002 Honda Accord, the same model vehicle as the Subject Vehicle. See, The New York Times article entitled “Takata Saw and Hid Risks in Airbags in
2004, Former Workers Say”, dated November 6, 2014, attached hereto as Exhibit “G”.
50. With respect to the Takata Defendants, not only were they aware of the exploding Takata airbag incident in Alabama in 2004, but, did a series of “secret tests” after it occurred to look at why it happened. See, Id. As reported by The New York Times, “two former employees” of Takata, “one of whom was a senior member of its testing lab”, “secretly conducted testing on 50 airbags it retrieved from scrapyards” after a Takata airbag “ruptured and spewed metal debris at a driver in Alabama” in 2004. See, Id. During the secret tests “[t]he steel inflators in two of the airbags cracked…, a condition that can lead to a rupture, the former employees said.” See, Id. According to the article, the Takata employees were startled by the results, and “engineers began designing possible fixes in preparation for a recall”. See, Id. “But instead of alerting federal safety regulators to the possible danger, Takata executives discounted the results and ordered the lab technicians to delete the testing data from their computers and dispose of the airbag inflators in the trash”. See, Id. (emphasis added). “The secret tests, which have not been previously disclosed, were performed after normal work hours and on weekends and holidays during summer 2004 at Takata’s American headquarters in Auburn Hills, MI, the former employees
23
said”, and, “were supervised by Al Bernat, then Takata’s vice president for engineering”. See, Id.
(emphasis added).
51. Not much else is publically known of this 2004 Alabama incident, as “Takata and Honda have declined to disclose further details of that accident, which ended in a settlement between the automaker and driver, according to Honda.” See, Id. But, obviously, it is undisputed that the danger of exploding Takata airbags in Honda brand vehicles has been known to Honda and Takata for a decade.
52. Since 2004, both Honda and Takata have had a growing and continuing awareness of consumer complaints, claims, and lawsuits that has provided them with knowledge of the safety dangers of Takata airbags used by Honda.
53. Such knowledge, however, has been closely held amongst and between Honda and Takata, while incident after incident occurred.
54. Honda, as an OEM who uses Takata airbags, and Takata, as a supplier of such airbag systems, have contractual agreements that apply to their business dealings and the purchase and use of such airbags in Honda brand vehicles. As is relevant to the claims and settlements that have been entered into by Honda relating to exploding Takata airbags in Honda brand vehicles, like the Alabama incident in 2004, an “indemnity” agreement exists that provides that Takata reimburse, pay or otherwise compensate Honda for the financial impacts of settling property, personal injury or wrongful death claims and/or lawsuits. Such agreements are just one way Takata would obtain information of incidents involving Honda brand vehicles, and, by which Honda would gain information from Takata over time.
24
55. Additionally, while working in concert and sharing information, Honda and Takata have systematically implemented a strategy to “generally settle quickly” claims and/or lawsuits alleging that an exploding Takata airbag caused property damage, a personal injury or a wrongful death “before plaintiffs’ lawyers could seek internal documents”. See, Businessweek
article entitled “Warning: This Air Bag May Contain Shrapnel”, dated October 30, 2014, attached hereto as Exhibit “H”. Such conduct by the Honda and Takata Defendants has involved
the decisions by the upper management of said companies, their legal departments, and the outside counsel and agents utilized by these corporations to ensure the rapid settlement and concealment of many incidents from the public, NHTSA and vehicle owners, like TRAN.
56. Moreover, by concealing such information, and actively undertaking to aggressively and confidentially resolve claims and/or lawsuits, both Honda and Takata have reaped the benefits of limiting future liability for such prior incidents by obtaining “releases” from “liability” from said personal injury and wrongful death claimants to protect the Honda and Takata Defendants from future claims by any such persons, estates or legally appropriate parties or entities who resolved their claim(s) without the benefit or discovery of the knowledge that Honda and Takata actively concealed for financial gain and protection from future liabilities.
57. Moreover, while Honda and Takata both have obligations to report such serious injuries and deaths pursuant to federal law and regulations, both actively and knowingly concealed certain events, information and incidents known to them, specifically including those in which they were able to quickly and quietly resolve claims utilizing settlement tactics requiring the execution of settlement documents with “confidentiality provisions” to keep said incidents secret from the public, NHTSA and vehicle owners, like TRAN.
25
58. A review of information developed to date regarding exploding Takata airbag incidents in support of the knowing, intentional conduct and scheme of Honda and Takata to hide what was known to them of these events and incidents is apparent from a review of their legal obligations as are imposed by federal law and regulations and Honda and Takata’s knowledge of exploding Takata airbags incidents in Honda brand vehicles involving serious injuries and deaths over the decade prior to the death of TRAN.
Legal Obligations of Honda and Takata to Report Incidents involving Serious Injuries or Death pursuant to Federal Law and Regulations
59. As more and more becomes known about Honda and Takata’s knowledge of the public safety hazard posed by exploding Takata airbags and Takata’s actions to hide its knowledge, see, CBS News report entitled “Report: Takata covered up airbag dangers decade
ago”, dated November 7, 2014, attached hereto as Exhibit “I”, and Honda brand vehicles
continue to be recalled in staggering numbers as scrutiny of Honda intensifies, see, Reuters
article entitled “Facing U.S. safety probe, Honda expands air bag recall”, dated November 6, 2014, attached as Exhibit “J”, the failures of both the Honda and Takata Defendants to comply
with their legal obligations to report serious injuries and deaths under the TREAD Act and 49 CFR § 579.21 must be examined and considered.
Honda and Takata have Violated Federal Law in the way of the Early Warning Reporting Requirements of the TREAD Act and 49 CFR § 579.21
60. Pursuant to the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act, Honda and Takata, to the extent it had actual knowledge, had an obligation pursuant to said federal law to provide “Information on incidents involving death or injury” for “all light vehicles manufactured during a model year covered by the reporting period
26
and the nine model years prior to the earliest model year in the reporting period.” 49 C.F.R. § 579.21(b) (2009).
61. 49 U.S. Code § 30166(m)(3)(A) permits NHTSA to require manufacturers to report information on "claims submitted to the manufacturer for serious injuries (including death) from alleged defects in a motor vehicle or in motor vehicle equipment," and on "customer satisfaction campaigns, consumer advisories, recalls or other activity involving the repair or replacement of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment." NHTSA defines claim as:
A written request or written demand for relief, including money or other compensation, assumption of expenditures, or equitable relief, related to a motor vehicle crash, accident, the failure of a component or system of a vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, or a fire originating in or from a motor vehicle or a substance that leaked from a motor vehicle. Claim includes, but is not limited to, a demand in the absence of a lawsuit, a complaint initiating a lawsuit, an assertion or notice of litigation, a settlement, covenant not to sue or release of liability in the absence of a written demand, and a subrogation request. A claim exists regardless of any denial or refusal to pay it, and regardless of whether it has been settled or resolved in the manufacturer's favor. The existence of a claim may not be conditioned on the receipt of anything beyond the document(s) stating a claim.
49 C.F.R. § 579.4(c) (2009).
62. 49 U.S. Code § 30166(m)(3)(B) allows NHTSA to also require manufacturers to report other "such information" that may help or assist in identifying safety defects.
63. Lastly, Section 30166(m)(3)(C) gives NHTSA authority to require reports where the manufacturer receives actual notice of incidents involving deaths or serious injuries which are alleged, or proven, to have been caused by a possible defect in the manufacturer's vehicle or equipment. NHTSA defines notice as: "a document, other than a media article, that does not include a demand for relief and that a manufacturer receives from a person other than NHTSA."
27 NHTSA requires manufacturers to:
report each incident in which one or more persons are injured in the United States that is identified in a claim or notice, if the product was identified with minimal specificity and, as to notices, it was alleged or proved that the injury was caused by a possible defect in the product. For these manufacturers, the report would be combined with the reporting of incidents involving fatalities and include the same types of information.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 67 Fed. Reg. 45840-41 (July 10, 2002) (to be codified at 45 C.F.R. pt. 579).
It is also important to note NHTSA’s definition of injury:
At a minimum, we believe the reporting of some non-physical injuries may be desirable under the early warning rule. Consider for example a situation where an inadvertent air bag deployment did not cause physical injury but there is an alleged emotional injury. The inadvertent air bag deployment would be of interest to NHTSA since it could lead to physical injuries in other incidents.
Id. at 45840.
64. This definition emphasizes the purpose and importance of these Early Warning Reporting (“EWR”) requirements. EWR requirements have been put in place to protect the consumer. NHTSA cannot potentially satisfy their mandate and assess and evaluate potential recalls if manufacturers, like Honda, are withholding or concealing information. NHTSA feels that these reports are so imperative that they believe even reporting non-physical injuries is important.
When Information Must be Reported
65. 49 U.S. Code § 30166(m)(3)(A) and (B) explain that the information covered by those paragraphs shall be reported "periodically or upon request" by NHTSA.
66. 49 U.S. Code § 30166(m)(3)(C) states that the information covered by that paragraph shall be reported "in such manner as [NHTSA] establishes by regulation." NHTSA has
28
established that reporting shall be done on a quarterly basis. These quarterly reports must be submitted not later than 30 days after the end of each calendar quarter. NHTSA states, “[a]fter all, the entire point of these rules is to obtain early warning information, and we want to minimize any unnecessary delays in our review of this information.” Id. at 45864.
Takata is Included Under These Requirements
67. Under the TREAD Act, NHTSA also requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to submit Early Warning Reporting (“EWR”) information that may help or assist in identifying safety-related defects. NHTSA states:
There are approximately 10,000 to 14,000 individual items of [original equipment] OE in a contemporary passenger car. Some are fabricated by the vehicle manufacturer, some by independent parts manufacturers, and some parts are incorporated into systems or modules assembled by various suppliers. There is a growing trend to packaging individual parts into a single unit, or module. For example, a steering wheel assembly may include an air bag, horn control, turn signal control, wiper control, ignition switch, cruise control, lighting controls, as well as associated wiring. Many of these units are assembled by a supplier, often with components from various manufacturers. Each of these fabricators or assemblers is also a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment.
Id. at 45832.
Therefore, the EWR requirements also apply to Takata, the manufacturer of the air bag inflator and airbag at issue. However, NHTSA did not feel that it was necessary to require OE manufacturers to have to report every incident involving an injury because the vehicle manufacturer should be reporting this information. NHTSA adopted the policy that it would require OE manufacturers to report only incidents involving deaths.
68. With the legal obligations of both Honda and Takata in mind, a historical review of what was known by each of serious injury and death incidents in the decade prior to TRAN being killed by an exploding Takata airbag in her 2001 Honda Accord evidences a systematic
29
course of conduct to conceal, delay and under report incidents by Honda and Takata as required by federal law and regulations.
69. Also, Honda and Takata by affirmatively and intentionally concealing their knowledge of the safety issues relating to exploding Takata airbags as such information became known to them, violated the EWR requirements of Section 30166 of Title 49, United States Code.
70. The historical facts known to date in that regard include, but are not limited to, the incidents and events discussed below.
Takata Airbag Incidents Known of by Honda and Takata in Honda Vehicles
71. While not much information is available at this time about the exploding Takata airbag incident that has been identified as having occurred in 2004 in Alabama in a 2002 Honda Accord, such incident is currently recognized as the first known exploding Takata airbag incident in a Honda brand vehicle.
72. In 2007, when looking at Honda brand vehicles, it is understood that Honda and Takata were aware of at least three (3) Takata airbag ruptures resulting in jaw, facial and other injuries between January and July 2007, with such incidents being investigated by Honda and Takata beginning in July of that year. Little more is known of these incidents at this time.
73. Then, in mid-2008 another exploding Takata airbag incident occurred involving an injury in another Honda brand vehicle. This incident, like those in 2004 and 2007, was known to Honda and Takata, but, again, little information is publically available.
74. While it is clear that Honda was aware of the 2004 and 2007 incidents, and did limited reporting to NHTSA, according to a report by The New York Times entitled “Air Bag
30
Flaw, Long Known to Honda and Takata, Led to Recalls”, dated September 11, 2014, “In none of those four instances of ruptured airbags, The Times found, did Honda go beyond the standard form and separately alert safety regulators to the most critical detail: that the airbag posed an explosion risk.” See, The New York Times article entitled “Air Bag Flaw, Long Known to Honda
and Takata, Led to Recalls”, dated September 11, 2014, attached hereto as Exhibit “K”.
75. Then, in early 2009, within eight (8) months of each other, one woman was seriously injured and two other women died in three (3) separate exploding airbag incidents. The serious injury incident involved a 2001 Honda Civic, and the two (2) deaths in 2009 both involved 2001 Honda Accords, the same model year vehicle as that of TRAN, who was also driving a 2001 Honda Accord when she was killed over five (5) years later in 2014 by the same defect.
76. On April 27, 2009, the first 2009 incident, Jennifer Griffin was severely injured while driving a 2001 Honda Civic. The airbag in the vehicle exploded and sent a two-inch piece of shrapnel flying into Ms. Griffin’s neck. Although Ms. Griffin survived, when highway troopers found her, blood was gushing from the gash in her neck. As this incident involved an alleged or proven serious injury caused by a possible defect in the manufacturer’s vehicle incorporating a Takata airbag, and Defendants had actual knowledge of same, Defendants had independent legal obligations to report this incident to the NHSTA consistent with the Early Warning Report requirements of the Tread Act and 49 CFR § 579.21. The Defendants reported this accident to NHSTA only after the accident was widely reported in the media. See, materials
related to this incident involving Ms. Griffin, including the accident report and pictures of the car, airbag, and shrapnel, attached hereto as Exhibit “L”.
31
77. On May 27, 2009, Ashley Parham was killed while driving a 2001 Honda Accord equipped with an airbag manufactured by Takata. Ms. Parham’s car bumped into another car in a parking lot, resulting in the airbag deploying and exploding. Metal shrapnel sliced opened her carotid artery and she bled to death while her brother observed from the backseat of the vehicle. A lawsuit arising out of the accident was filed on behalf of the brother against the Defendants in this case in the District Court of Oklahoma. As this incident involved an alleged or proven serious injury caused by a possible defect in the manufacturer’s vehicle incorporating a Takata airbag, and Defendants had actual knowledge of same, Defendants had independent legal obligations to report this incident to the NHSTA consistent with the Early Warning Report requirements of the Tread Act and 49 CFR § 579.21. The failure to timely and appropriately report such incident involving a defective Takata airbag in this vehicle for which Defendants had actual knowledge is a violation of federal law, is an act of affirmative concealment with respect to the defect involved, and, reasonably could be expected to thwart the ability of the NHTSA to perform their regulatory function to protect the public. See, materials
related to this incident involving Ms. Parham, including the Complaint, Answer, and Order approving judgment, attached hereto as Exhibit “M”.
78. On December 24, 2009 Gurjit Rathore was killed while driving a 2001 Honda Accord. Ms. Rathore’s neck was severed by metal shrapnel from the airbag inflator manufactured by the Defendants. A lawsuit arising out of the accident was filed against the Defendants in this case in Virginia. As this incident involved an alleged or proven serious injury caused by a possible defect in the manufacturer’s vehicle incorporating a Takata airbag, and Defendants had actual knowledge of same, Defendants had independent legal obligations to
32
report this incident to the NHSTA consistent with the Early Warning Report requirements of the Tread Act and 49 CFR § 579.21. The Defendants reported this accident to NHSTA only after receiving notice that a lawsuit was filed in relation to Ms. Rathore’s injuries. See, media reports
related to this incident involving Ms. Rathore, attached hereto as Exhibit “N”.
79. In 2010, the cycle of serious injuries from exploding Takata airbags continued. 80. On April 2, 2010, Kristy Williams was severely injured while driving a 2001 Honda Civic. Ms. Williams’ carotid artery was severed by shards of metal propelled from an airbag manufactured by the Defendants. Her loss of blood led to several strokes, a seizure, and a speech disorder. On May 20, 2010, a lawsuit arising out of the accident was filed against the Defendants in this case in the State Court of Clayton County Georgia. As this incident involved an alleged or proven serious injury caused by a possible defect in the manufacturer’s vehicle incorporating a Takata airbag, and Defendants had actual knowledge of same, Defendants had independent legal obligations to report this incident to the NHSTA consistent with the Early Warning Report requirements of the Tread Act and 49 CFR § 579.21. The Defendants reported this accident to NHSTA only after receiving notice that a lawsuit was filed in relation to Ms. Williams’ injuries. See, the Complaint filed in the suit arising out of this incident attached hereto
as Exhibit “O”.
81. On November 8, 2010, Suetania Emmanuel was severely injured while driving a 2002 Honda Civic. Ms. Emmanuel’s face and throat were split open by shards of metal propelled from an airbag manufactured by the Defendants. On November 10, 2011, a lawsuit arising out of the accident was filed in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands against the Automobile Mechanic who allegedly may have negligently repaired the airbag inflator which
33
was recalled by Honda. Based on information and belief, Honda and Takata reached a confidential settlement with the Plaintiff before suit was filed. As this incident involved an alleged or proven serious injury caused by a possible defect in the manufacturer’s vehicle incorporating a Takata airbag, and Defendants had actual knowledge of same, Defendants had independent legal obligations to report this incident to the NHSTA consistent with the Early Warning Report requirements of the Tread Act and 49 CFR § 579.21. The failure to timely and appropriately report such incident involving a defective Takata airbag in this vehicle for which Defendants had actual knowledge is a violation of federal law, is an act of affirmative concealment with respect to the defect involved, and, reasonably could be expected to thwart the ability of the NHTSA to perform their regulatory function to protect the public. See, materials
related to this incident involving Ms. Emmanuel, including the accident report and Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit “P”.
82. With five (5) years having already passed since Honda and Takata first learned of the dangers posed by exploding Takata airbags, another incident occurred in 2012. This 2012 incident yet again involved a 2001 Honda Accord, and happened two and a half (2 ½) years prior to the Takata airbag in TRAN’s 2001 Honda Accord exploding.
83. On March 8, 2012, Sharonda Blowe was severely injured while driving a 2001 Honda Accord. Ms. Blowe suffered lacerations to the head and accompanying skull fractures when she was struck by shards of metal propelled from an airbag manufactured by the Defendants. The Defendants settled this matter confidentially. Based upon information and belief, Defendants would have had actual knowledge of this incident that occurred on March 8th, 2012, in or about October, 2012. Accordingly, as this incident involved an alleged or proven
34
serious injury caused by a possible defect in the manufacturer’s vehicle incorporating a Takata airbag, and Defendants had actual knowledge of same, Defendants have independent legal obligations to report this incident to the NHSTA consistent with the intent of the Early Warning Report requirements of the Tread Act and 49 CFR § 579.21. The failure to timely and appropriately report such incident involving a defective Takata airbag in this vehicle for which Defendants had actual knowledge is a violation of federal law, is an act of affirmative concealment with respect to the defect involved, and, reasonably could be expected to thwart the ability of the NHTSA to perform their regulatory function to protect the public.. See, materials
related to this incident involving Ms. Blowe, including the accident report and a copy of the VOQ complaint filed with NHSTA by Ms. Blowe’s representatives, attached hereto as Exhibit “Q”.
84. In 2013, the incidents of Takata airbags exploding in Honda brand vehicles continued to pile up, with more serious injuries occurring.
85. On August 6, 2013, Joseph C. Nasworthy was severely injured while driving a 2005 Honda Civic. Mr. Nasworthy suffered severe eye and nose lacerations when he was struck by shards of metal propelled from an airbag manufactured by the Defendants. The Defendants settled this matter confidentially. Based upon information and belief, Defendants would have had actual knowledge of this incident that occurred on August 6, 2013, in or about November, 2013. Accordingly, as this incident involved an alleged or proven serious injury caused by a possible defect in the manufacturer’s vehicle incorporating a Takata airbag, and Defendants had actual knowledge of same, Defendants have independent legal obligations to report this incident to the NHSTA consistent with the Early Warning Report requirements of the Tread Act and 49 CFR §
35
579.21. The failure to timely and appropriately report such incident involving a defective Takata airbag in this vehicle for which Defendants had actual knowledge is a violation of federal law, is an act of affirmative concealment with respect to the defect involved, and, reasonably could be expected to thwart the ability of the NHTSA to perform their regulatory function to protect the public. See, materials related to this incident involving Mr. Nasworthy, including the accident
report and a copy of the VOQ complaint filed with NHSTA by Mr. Nasworthy’s representatives, attached hereto as Exhibit “R”.
86. On or about September 1, 2013, Stephanie Erdman was severely injured while driving a 2002 Honda Civic. Ms. Erdman was struck in the eye by shards of metal propelled from an airbag manufactured by the Defendants. On May 29, 2014 a lawsuit arising out of the accident was filed against the Defendants in this case in the District Court of Bexar County, Texas. As this incident involved an alleged or proven serious injury caused by a possible defect in the manufacturer’s vehicle incorporating a Takata airbag, and Defendants had actual knowledge of same, Defendants have independent obligations to report this incident to the NHSTA consistent with the intent of the Early Warning Report requirements of the Tread Act and 49 CFR § 579.21. The failure to timely and appropriately report such incident involving a defective Takata airbag in this vehicle for which Defendants had actual knowledge is an act of affirmative concealment with respect to the defect involved, and, reasonably could be expected to thwart the ability of the NHTSA to perform their regulatory function to protect the public. See,
materials related to this incident involving Ms. Erdman, including the Complaint and pictures of the car, airbag, and shrapnel, attached hereto as Exhibit “S”.
36
87. On September 3, 2013, Hai Ming Xu (Devin Xu) was killed while driving a 2002 Acura TL sedan, a Honda vehicle, equipped with an airbag manufactured by Takata. The Los Angeles County Coroner's Department report cited "apparent facial trauma due to foreign object inside air bag," explaining further, “[t]he strength of the impact was high enough as to produce a sudden, strong movement of the brain inside the skull which produced the bleeding.” As this incident involved an alleged or proven serious injury caused by a possible defect in the manufacturer’s vehicle incorporating a Takata airbag, and Defendants had actual knowledge of same, Defendants have independent obligations to report this incident to the NHSTA consistent with the intent of the Early Warning Report requirements of the Tread Act and 49 CFR § 579.21. The failure to timely and appropriately report such incident involving a defective Takata airbag in this vehicle for which Defendants had actual knowledge would be an act of affirmative concealment with respect to the defect involved, and, reasonably could be expected to thwart the ability of the NHTSA to perform their regulatory function to protect the public. See, materials
related to this incident involving Mr. Xu, including the accident report and an article reporting on the accident, attached hereto as Exhibit “T”.
88. In 2014, after a full decade of developing knowledge of this safety defect, people continued to be seriously injured and killed, including TRAN.
89. On May 29, 2014, Corey Burdick was severely injured while driving a 2001 Honda Civic. Mr. Burdick was struck in the eye by shards of metal propelled from an airbag manufactured by the Defendants. On July 11, 2014, a lawsuit arising out of the accident was filed against the Defendants in this case in the Fifth Circuit of Florida. As this incident involved an alleged or proven serious injury caused by a possible defect in the manufacturer’s vehicle
37
incorporating a Takata airbag, and Defendants had actual knowledge of same, Defendants have independent obligations to report this incident to the NHSTA consistent with the intent of the Early Warning Report requirements of the Tread Act and 49 CFR § 579.21. The failure to timely and appropriately report such incident involving a defective Takata airbag in this vehicle for which Defendants had actual knowledge is an act of affirmative concealment with respect to the defect involved, and, reasonably could be expected to thwart the ability of the NHTSA to perform their regulatory function to protect the public. See, the Complaint involving this incident,
attached hereto as Exhibit “U”.
90. On or about July 7, 2014, Claribel Nunez was severely injured while driving a 2001 Honda Civic. Ms. Nunez was injured when shards of metal from the airbag were propelled into her forehead. On October 23, 2014, a lawsuit arising out of the accident was filed against the Defendants in this case in the Southern District of Florida. As this incident involved an alleged or proven serious injury caused by a possible defect in the manufacturer’s vehicle incorporating a Takata airbag, and Defendants had actual knowledge of same, Defendants have independent obligations to report this incident to the NHSTA consistent with the intent of the Early Warning Report requirements of the Tread Act and 49 CFR § 579.21. The failure to timely and appropriately report such incident involving a defective Takata airbag in this vehicle for which Defendants had actual knowledge would be an act of affirmative concealment with respect to the defect involved, and, reasonably could be expected to thwart the ability of the NHTSA to perform their regulatory function to protect the public. See, materials related to this incident
involving Ms. Nunez, including the accident report, Complaint, and pictures of the airbag and shrapnel, attached hereto as Exhibit “V”.
38
91. On September 29, 2014, after a decade of knowledge about exploding Takata airbags seriously injuring and killing unsuspecting consumers, users and owners of Honda brand vehicles, TRAN was killed in her 2001 Honda Accord when she was involved in a foreseeable frontal accident similar to those that occur every day around the country. See, Florida Traffic
Crash Report, dated September 29, 2014, attached hereto as Exhibit “W”. But for the defects in
her Takata airbag as incorporated by Honda in her vehicle, TRAN would have survived without any life threatening injuries.
92. Based upon what is known of the actual knowledge of Honda and Takata of exploding Takata airbag incidents in Honda brand vehicles alone, the Honda and Takata Defendants have failed to meet their legal obligations to report said incidents to NHTSA in a timely manner as required by federal law and regulations. Such conduct has placed the public at risk, thwarted NHTSA’s ability to perform its mandate to protect same, and stands in stark contrast to the public safety policies that underpin such obligations in the first instance for the benefit of consumers and persons like TRAN.
93. Such violations can be seen in reviewing the below incorporated “Summary Chart of Exploding Takata Airbag Incidents in Honda brand vehicles between 2009 and 2014”, as were identified in support of this Complaint as follows:
