CJ-2026-1210 - Jessica Perez v. Toyota Motor Corporation

What's This Case About?

Let’s be real: you don’t expect your car seat to fold like a lawn chair during a rear-end collision. But in 2024, that’s exactly what happened to Jessica Perez in Edmond, Oklahoma—except instead of reclining for a nap, her 2000 Toyota 4Runner’s driver’s seat collapsed backward during a crash, turning a survivable fender bender into a life-altering injury nightmare. And now, she’s suing Toyota—not just for the wreck, but for allegedly knowing, for decades, that their seats could fail like this… and doing basically nothing about it, even though the fix might cost about as much as a fancy coffee.

Jessica Perez isn’t some stunt driver or conspiracy theorist. She’s a regular Oklahoman, living in Edmond, minding her business, driving her 24-year-old 4Runner like thousands of other loyal Toyota fans across the country. On July 14, 2024, she was stopped at a stop sign at the corner of Memorial and Frontage Road, obeying traffic laws, seatbelt fastened, probably thinking about her lunch or her to-do list. Then, out of nowhere, a Chrysler 200 plowed into the back of her at 40 to 50 miles per hour—on purpose? Distracted? We don’t know, and honestly, it doesn’t matter for this case. What does matter is what happened next: the impact caused her seatback to collapse, sending her body violently backward and then snapping forward like a human slingshot. The crash itself was bad. The seat failing? That made it catastrophic.

Now, if this were a one-off, freak accident, fine. But here’s where it gets spicy: Toyota might have known this could happen. And not just “maybe” known—documented, jury-decided, CBS News-covered known. The lawsuit name-drops a 2021 Texas appeals case, Reavis v. Toyota, where a jury found Toyota grossly negligent for the exact same issue: a collapsing seatback in a rear-end collision. There’s even a quote from a CBS News article dropped into the petition like a mic: Toyota knew the fix could cost as little as one dollar per seat. Let that sink in. One. Dollar. That’s less than the fee you get charged for not returning a rental car with a full tank. And yet, for over two decades, Toyota allegedly kept selling vehicles with a design flaw that turns a moderate crash into a potential spinal injury factory.

The legal claims in this case are like a greatest hits album of product liability law. First up: Product Liability, which basically says, “Your car was unreasonably dangerous when it left the factory.” Jessica’s lawyers argue the 4Runner’s seatback wasn’t just weak—it was defective by design, and that defect made her injuries way worse than they should’ve been. If the seat had stayed upright, maybe she walks away with whiplash. But because it folded like a folding chair at a bad picnic, she ended up needing four surgeries and extensive physical therapy. That’s not just bad luck—that’s what happens when a car fails at its most basic job: protecting you in a crash.

Next, Negligence. This one’s about duty. Toyota, as a carmaker, has a responsibility to make safe vehicles and fix known problems. But according to the filing, they’ve known about collapsing seats for years—thanks to lawsuits, complaints, and engineering reports—and did nothing. Not a recall. Not a retrofit. Not even a “hey, by the way, if you get hit from behind, your seat might give out.” That’s not just bad business—it’s potentially reckless. And in court, recklessness can open the door to punitive damages, which aren’t about covering medical bills—they’re about punishing a company for being, well, that guy.

Then comes Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability, which sounds like something your law professor mumbled on the third day of Contracts class. But in plain English? It means: “You sold me a car, and it should work like a car.” A car isn’t merchantable if it can’t protect its driver in a foreseeable crash. If the seat collapses during a rear-end collision—a common type of accident—then the car isn’t fit for its ordinary purpose. And Toyota, as the manufacturer and seller, guaranteed (impliedly, by law) that it was.

Finally, Failure to Warn—the “you didn’t tell me this could happen” claim. Even if the defect couldn’t be fixed, Toyota still had a duty to warn drivers like Jessica that their seats might collapse in a rear-end crash. But there’s no sticker. No manual warning. No recall notice. Nothing. So when the Chrysler hit her, she had zero idea that her seat could turn into a death trap. And that, the lawsuit argues, is on Toyota.

Now, what does Jessica want? The petition doesn’t specify a dollar amount—just says she wants “damages as proven at trial.” But given the injuries described—four surgeries, ongoing therapy, chronic pain—we’re likely talking six figures, maybe more. And while $50,000 might seem like a lot for a 24-year-old car, remember: this isn’t about the car’s value. It’s about the cost of a lifetime of pain, lost work, and medical bills. Plus, if the jury believes Toyota knew about this for years and did nothing, they might slap them with punitive damages—money meant to say, “Don’t be cheap with human lives.”

Here’s the absurd part: Toyota built a reputation on reliability. “You want a car that lasts? Get a Toyota.” And sure, the 4Runner’s still running—24 years later! But what good is a car that lasts if it can’t protect you when it matters most? It’s like bragging about a fireproof wallet while your house burns down. And the idea that a one-dollar fix could’ve prevented serious injuries? That’s not just negligent—it’s insultingly lazy. Imagine being a Toyota engineer in the early 2000s, running tests, seeing seats collapse, and someone saying, “Eh, it’s only a buck. Skip it.” That’s not cutting corners. That’s drawing a new map where safety is a dotted line.

We’re not rooting for ambulance chasers or frivolous lawsuits. But this? This feels like a classic David vs. Goliath moment, except David is a woman from Edmond who just wanted to drive safely, and Goliath is a trillion-dollar car empire that might’ve prioritized pennies over people. If the allegations are true—and again, these are allegations, not verdicts—then this case isn’t just about a broken seat. It’s about accountability. It’s about whether a company can ignore a known danger for decades just because the fix is cheap and the victims are scattered. And honestly? We’re rooting for the woman whose seat folded like origami. Because no one should pay for a car that protects the resale value more than the driver.

Case Overview

Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Edward L. White

Edward L. White, P.C.

Relief Sought

Plaintiffs

Jessica Perez individual
Rep: Edward L. White, OBA # 16549

Defendants

Toyota Motor Corporation business
Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. business
Toyota Motor North America, Inc. business
Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Product Liability	Defective seatback design in 2000 Toyota 4Runner caused Plaintiff's injuries
2	Negligence	Defendants failed to correct known defect in seatback design
3	Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchandise	Defendants sold 4Runner with defective seatback
4	Failure to Warn	Defendants failed to warn of known hazard of seatback collapse

Petition Text

1,670 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA JESSICA PEREZ, an individual Plaintiffs, v. 1) TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION; 2) TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC.; 3) TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC.; 4) TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA Defendants, FILED DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA February 16, 2026 12:16 PM RICK WARREN, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2026-1210 Case No.: PETITION Plaintiff Jessica Perez, for her causes of action against the Defendants Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. Inc., Toyota Motor North America, Inc., and Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. (collectively, “the Defendants”), and alleges and states as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Jessica Perez is a resident of Edmond, Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. 2. Defendant, Toyota Motor Corporation, is a foreign for-profit business corporation that does business in the state of Oklahoma. It is registered with the Oklahoma Secretary of State and can be served with process through its registered agent, CT Corporation System, 1833 S. Morgan Rd, Oklahoma City, OK 73128. 3. Defendant, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., is a foreign for-profit business corporation that does business in the State of Oklahoma. It is registered with the Oklahoma Secretary of State and can be served with process through its registered agent, CT Corporation System, 1833 S. Morgan Rd, Oklahoma City, OK 73128. 4. Defendant, Toyota Motor North America, is a foreign for-profit business corporation that does business in the state of Oklahoma. It may be served with process of this Court upon its headquarters: 6565 Headquarters Dr., Plano, TX 75024. 5. Defendant, Toyota Motor Engineering and Manufacturing North America, Inc., is a foreign for-profit business corporation and does business in the state of Oklahoma. It may be served with process of this Court upon its headquarters: 6565 Headquarters Dr., Plano, TX 75024. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. The Court has jurisdiction over this action because the Plaintiff resides in Oklahoma County, and Defendants conduct business in the State of Oklahoma. 7. Venue is proper in Oklahoma County pursuant to 12 O.S. §141 because the accident giving rise to these claims occurred in Oklahoma County. FACTS 8. On July 14, 2024, at approximately 12:25 p.m., Plaintiff Jessica Perez was stopped at an east bound stop sign at the intersection of Memorial Road and Frontage Road in Edmond, Oklahoma, in her 2000 Toyota 4Runner SR5 (hereinafter “the 4Runner"). 9. Plaintiff’s 4Runner was rear-ended by a Chrysler 200 driven by Brian Hiram Vasquez, who was traveling approximately 40-50 mph at the time of the collision. 10. The Plaintiff was in the driver’s seat of the 4Runner and was properly wearing her seatbelt at the time. 11. Plaintiff sustained injuries caused by the collision. 12. Plaintiff was fault-free in the car accident. 13. When the 4Runner was rear-ended at high-speed, Plaintiff’s injuries – including but not limited to back and neck injuries – were further exacerbated when her driver’s seat collapsed. 14. Collapsing is when a seatback collapses backwards after a rear-end collision and causes the occupant to be violently sent back and subsequently lurch forward in a similar motion. 15. Defendant Toyota Motor Corporation is well aware of the problem of collapsing seatbacks and have been held liable in similar crashes that resulted in seatback collapses. See Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. Reavis, 627 S.W.3d 713 (Tex. App. 2021); and “Texas jury finds evidence of ‘gross negligence’ by Toyota in seatback collision,” CBS News, Aug. 20, 2018 (available online at https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-jury-finds-evidence-of-gross-negligence-by-toyota-seatback-collision/). 16. The defect causing the seatback to collapse results in unreasonable danger during rear-end collisions. 17. Defendants have long been aware of the issue of front seats collapsing during high-speed rear-end collisions and the serious injuries this defect can cause to both front-seat occupants and backseat passengers. Defendants are also aware that the “cost to fix the problem could be on the order of $1 or so per seat.” From “Texas Jury Finds...” article. Despite this knowledge, Defendants have failed to take adequate steps to correct the defect or prevent seat collapse in their vehicles. COUNT I – PRODUCT LIABILITY 18. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the facts and allegations contained in the paragraphs outside this count. 19. Plaintiff was using the 4Runner in a reasonably anticipated and intended manner at the time the crash occurred. 20. Plaintiff suffered enhanced injuries as a result of design and manufacturing defects in the 4Runner’s driver’s seat. Defendants knew or should have known of the danger posed by this defect, which caused seatbacks to collapse during rear-end collisions. 21. Even if the defect in the seatback did not cause the accident, the Defendants are liable for the serious injuries sustained by the Plaintiff because the defect increased the severity of the injuries she would have otherwise suffered if the seatback collapse did not occur. 22. Defendants are in the business of designing, manufacturing, distributing, and selling vehicles such as the 4Runner. 23. The defect present in the driver’s seat of the 4Runner, which caused the seat to collapse backward, was a direct and proximate cause of the serious injuries suffered by the Plaintiff. 24. As a direct and proximate cause of the defect in the driver’s seat, the Plaintiff experienced serious injuries that required extensive physical therapy and at least four surgeries. 25. The defect in the driver’s seat of the 4Runner existed at the time the vehicle left the manufacturer’s control and possession. 26. The defect causing the seatback to collapse back made the 4Runner unreasonably dangerous for Plaintiff to use. 27. A feasible and safer alternative design existed that would have prevented the seatback failure and reduced the risk of injuries without impairing the functionality of the seat. 28. The danger posed by the collapsing seatback is of the kind that would not be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it. 29. The Defendants are strictly liable for harm caused by designing, manufacturing, distributing, and selling an unreasonably dangerous Toyota 4Runner. COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE 30. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the facts and allegations contained in the paragraphs outside this count. 31. Defendants owe a duty to exercise reasonable and ordinary care in designing, manufacturing, testing, and warning of potential dangers associated with the 4Runner. This duty includes ensuring the front seats perform safely during a foreseeable rear-end collision. 32. The duty owed to Plaintiff is commensurate with the foreseeable risk associated with the known hazards of the 4Runner’s design. 33. The Defendants have a continuing duty to monitor known safety concerns, address defects, and implement necessary corrective measures to protect consumers from foreseeable harm. 34. The Defendants breached the aforementioned duties owed to the Plaintiff when they failed to correct the known defect, despite knowing the defect posed a foreseeable risk of serious injury. 35. As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff suffered serious injuries from the rear-end collision. 36. As a result of the breach of these duties, the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for all direct and consequential damages resulting from the negligent acts and omissions in its design, manufacture, testing, and warning of potential dangers associated with the 4Runner. 37. Defendants were on notice of the risk posed by defective seatbacks based on prior litigation and consumer complaints. Despite this notice, Defendants failed to take reasonable corrective action to address the defect, further breaching their duty of care and demonstrating a conscious disregard for consumer safety. COUNT III – BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY 38. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the facts and allegations contained in the paragraphs outside this count. 39. Plaintiff is the purchaser of the 4Runner at issue here. 40. The Defendants are merchants with respect to the 4Runner at issue here within the meaning of 12A O.S. § 2-104(1) 41. The 4Runner is sold with an implied warranty of merchantability. 42. A warranty that the 4Runner was merchantable was implied by law in the sale of the vehicle to Plaintiff. 43. The 4Runner was not fit for its ordinary purpose for which such vehicles are used, which includes crashworthiness and reliable transportation. 44. The Plaintiff used the 4Runner in a reasonable and foreseeable manner 45. At the time the 4Runner at issue here was sold and left the Defendant’s control, it contained a defect in the front row driver’s seat. 46. By selling the 4Runner to the Plaintiff, Defendants breached its implied warranty of merchantability because of the defect present in the front-row seats and caused all direct and consequential damages to the Plaintiff. COUNT IV – FAILURE TO WARN 47. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the facts and allegations contained in the paragraphs outside this count. 48. Defendants are the suppliers of the 4Runner and owe a duty to warn of the known or reasonably foreseeable dangers associated with its use. 49. The Plaintiff was using the 4Runner in a likely, expected, and foreseeable manner at the time of the collision. 50. Defendants knew or had reason to know that the front seats of the 4Runner were likely to collapse rearward in the event of a rear-end collision, creating a foreseeable risk of injury or death to the seat's occupant and any backseat passengers. 51. Defendants had no reason to believe the Plaintiff was aware or should be aware of the hazardous condition. 52. Defendants did not exercise reasonable care to inform Plaintiff of the dangerous condition or of the facts which make it likely to be dangerous. 53. The failure to warn was a proximate producing cause of the enhanced injuries suffered by the Plaintiff. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgement against the Defendants, Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. Inc., Toyota Motor North America, Inc., and Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., and respectfully request the following relief: a) That Plaintiff be awarded damages as a result of the Defendants’ acts and omissions in an amount proven by evidence at trial. b) That Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants for actual and punitive damages pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs, and such other relief the Court may deem proper. c) That Plaintiff be awarded costs, attorney fees, and such other relief as the law may allow and the Court deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted, Edward L. White Edward L. White, OBA # 16549 Edward L. White, P.C. 829 East 33rd Street Edmond, Oklahoma 73013 Telephone: (405) 810-8188 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED