Takata lied about its defective airbags. And people died. - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025

The web is busting with stories on the Takata airbag mess.

By way of background, Takata, is a Japanese company that supplies airbags to several US car manufacturers. Former Takata engineers have indicated that years ago, cost factors compelled the company to turn to a less expensive propellant for use it its airbags. The propellant triggers inflation of the airbag. Unfortunately, Takata decided to use ammonium nitrate. And that decision had deadly consequences. Ammonium nitrate has a flaw. A very, very serious flaw. Ammonium nitrate can deteriorate over time. And, when it deteriorates it becomes unstable. And when the propellant in an airbag is unstable, it explodes unexpectedly. And when that happens, shards of metal and other shrapnel are shot into the interior of a vehicle. And people die or are grievously injured.

Other airbag suppliers had considered ammonium nitrate in the 1990s. But they tested it and determined that due to its instability, ammonium nitrate was simply too dangerous and could not be used. [It is hard to imagine that Takata wasn’t aware of the results of those studies. Even if Takata wasn’t aware of the results, it is difficult to believe Takata was not at least generally aware that its competitors were looking into the ammonium nitrate issue].

But for whatever reason, Takata continues using ammonium nitrate. For years. And, to make matters worse, Takata manipulated the test results that it submitted to car manufacturers. In 2004, a Takata airbag in a Honda Accord suddenly exploded and shot metal fragments toward the driver, causing serious injuries. The folks at Takata kept quiet and labeled the event an anomaly. The New York Times did a serious of articles on the defective Takata airbags and obtained internal emails from Takata that demonstrated a decidedly brazen approach to manipulating testing data. In 2006 one Takata airbag engineer wrote “Happy Manipulating” on an email referencing airbag test results. In 2010, Takata assured federal regulators that the airbag issue was an isolated manufacturing problem. But at the same time , Takata had Penn State researchers investigating the link between the ammonium nitrate and exploding airbags. Those same Penn State researchers concluded in a 2012 report that ammonium nitrate shouldn’t be used in Takata airbags. Takata sat on those finding for TWO YEARS before sharing them with regulators.

The exploding Takata airbags have now been linked to at least 16 deaths and hundreds of serious injuries – including horrific facial scarring and blindness. Some of those deaths or injuries could have been avoided if Takata had done the right thing in 2004 when they were first put on notice that there was something dangerously wrong with its airbags. Or in in 2010 when Takata became sufficiently concerned to hire researchers to examine the link between the ammonium nitrate and the explosions.

In 2015, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration fined Takata $70 million for its failure to promptly disclose information pertaining to the airbag defect.

In 2016, the Department of Justice went after Takata. In February, 2017, Takata agreed to plead guilty to wire fraud and pay a $25 million dollar criminal penalty. Yoichiro Nomura, Takata’s Chief Financial Officer[pictured above] entered the plea and admitted the actions of certain Takata employees were “deeply inappropriate.” An additional $975 million was set aside in a Victim’s Compensation Fund. Of that amount, $125 million has been set aside for victims who suffered injuries, while $850 million has been set aside for restitution to car companies. In the United States alone, 19 automakers are recalling over 42 million cars. Worldwide the recall is expected to exceed 100 million vehicles.

If you take a look at the Takata website, you will see a screen shot with text that says Takata dreams of a word “with zero fatalities from traffic accidents.” They should be ashamed.

Lawsuits filed last week in Florida charge that Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Ford and BMW were all aware that the Takata airbags were unsafe – but continued to install them in vehicles. The various companies insist they were deceived by Takata and should not be liable. This tragic story is far from over.

By Mark Loftus February 17, 2026
German Conglomerate makes a bid to end Roundup litigation 
By Mark Loftus February 17, 2026
By Mark Loftus February 3, 2026
THE ILLINOIS GENDER VIOLENCE ACT - IN A NUTSHELL Under the Illinois Gender Violence Act (GVA) 740 IlCS 82/1, victims of sexual assault, domestic violence and other forms of gender related violence can bring civil actions against perpetrators even when criminal charges are not filed. The GVA defines two of the four acts of “gender violence” - though the definitions are a bit convoluted: One or or more acts of violence of physical aggression satisfying the elements of battery under the laws of Illinois that are committed, at least in part, on the basis of a person’s sex; A physical intrusion or physical invasion of a sexual nature under coercive conditions satisfying the elements of battery under the laws of Illinois, whether or nor the act or acts resulted in criminal charges, prosecution or conviction. Under the Illinois Criminal Code, a person commits a battery when he or she knowingly, without legal justification, causes bodily harm or makes insulting/provoking physical contact with another individual. 720 ILCS 5/12-3. The Criminal Code requires physical contact. AND EMPLOYERS MAY NOW FACE LIABILITY In July, 2023 an amendment made it explicit that the GVA does extend to the workplace. As set forth in the Act, an employer is liable for gender-related violence in the workplace by an employee when the interaction arises out of and in the course of employment. Liability will only arise however, if the (1) the employee was directly performing his or her duties and the violence was the proximate cause of the injury or (2) while the agent of the employer was directly involved in the gender-related violence and the performance of the work was the proximate cause of the injury. Liability will only extend to the the employer however if it can be shown that (1) the employer failed to supervise, train or monitor the offending employee or 2) the employer failed to investigate and respond to reports directly provided to appropriate management personnel. Damages under the Act may include injunctive relief, and actual damages, damages for emotional distress and punitive damages. And importantly, the GVA is a fee-shifting statute - so a successful plaintiff may seek to recover attorneys fees. So, in cases of sexual harassment, may a plaintiff, include a count for damages under the GVA? The answer is an unqualified yes. And the contact need not be excessive or dramatic or prolonged - so long as there was no consent nor any justification for the physical contact. In fact, the Act notes that a legitimate threat that the harasser will commit an nonconsensual act is sufficient.
Red Tesla sedan driving on a road.
September 26, 2025
According to online reports, Tesla ignored a $60 million dollar settlement overture in the wrongful death case that ultimately resulted in a $242 million dollar jury verdict against the car maker. The lawsuit grew out of 2019 crash where a Tesla Model S with Autopilot engaged, plowed through a Florida intersection and crashed into a Chevy Tahoe. Neima Benavides Leon and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo were standing near the Tahoe when the Tesla crashed into it. Leon was killed and Angulo suffered serious injuries. A lawsuit was filed against Tesla, asserting that although the Autopilot feature was engaged, the vehicle did not brake. Florida law permits a monetary demand to be issued before trial. If the defendant fails to accept the demand within 30 days it is considered rejected. If the plaintiff then goes to trial and secures a verdict 25% greater than the offer, the defendant is on the hook for plaintiff’s investigative expenses and attorneys’ fees. Tesla is appealing the jury verdict, citing “substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial.”.
Johnson's baby powder container, white bottle, blue text, red seal, 400g.
September 26, 2025
This important ruling got kind of lost in the news cycle. A couple weeks ago, the United States Supreme Court refused to vacate a $2.2 billion dollar ovarian cancer verdict against Johnson & Johnson[“J & J”]. The verdict was originally returned by a Missouri jury in 2018 on behalf of 22 women. The original verdict was actually $4.7 billion but a Missouri Appellate Court reduced the award to $2 billion. Each of the women claimed that there was asbestos and asbestos-laced talc in J & J talcum powder products they used, and they developed ovarian cancer as a result. Asbestos is known to cause cancer. Talc, in its raw form is often found in close proximity to naturally occurring asbestos. When J & J mined talc, that talc sometimes contained asbestos. And that asbestos sometimes found its way into J & J personal hygiene products. [In 2019, J & J recalled 33,000 bottles of J & J products after FDA testing found asbestos in test samples]. J & J, has known of the risk of asbestos contamination in talc products since the 1970’s. Some 21,000 plus ovarian cancer cases are pending against J & J throughout the United States.