Nissan Persuades Appeals Court to Decertify Brake Defect Class Actions

Nissan persuaded a federal appeals court on Friday to decertify 10 class actions accusing the Japanese automaker of selling cars and SUVs with defective automatic emergency braking systems that caused vehicles to stop suddenly for no reason.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati said it was improper to let drivers of 14 Nissan models sue in groups under the laws of 10 individual states simply by claiming that the braking systems did not work.

Drivers claimed they experienced “phantom” activations of the systems at low overpasses, parking garages and railroad crossings, instead of when collisions might be imminent.

Writing for a three-judge panel, however, Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton said some drivers may never have experienced sudden braking, or sought repairs to begin with.

He also said Nissan created “distinct” software upgrades for different models that appeared to fix the problem for some drivers, suggesting there was no common defect.

“Analyzing the various manifestations of the alleged defect is necessary to assess whether common evidence could vindicate the plaintiffs or Nissan on a classwide basis,” Sutton wrote.

Class actions let plaintiffs potentially obtain greater remedies at lower costs than if forced to sue individually.

The litigation covers Nissan’s Rogue from 2017 to 2020, Rogue Sport from 2017 to 2021, Altima from 2019 to 2021, and Kicks from 2020 to 2021.

The 10 states are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.

Lawyers for the drivers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Nissan and its lawyers did not immediately respond to similar requests.

The appeals court returned the case to a trial judge in Nashville, Tennessee, for further proceedings, potentially allowing new evidence supporting class certification. Nissan has plants in Smyrna and Decherd, Tennessee.

The case is In re: Nissan North America Inc Litigation, 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 23-5950.

Photo: AP Photo/Koji Sasahara, File