Nissan Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Emergency Braking Defect

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

A Nissan class action lawsuit alleges that a Forward Emergency Braking system installed in some of its vehicles is defective.

Plaintiff Cathy Bashaw says she leased a 2017 Nissan Rouge SL AWD from a Nissan-authorized dealer in New York without being aware that the vehicle’s braking defect that could put her at risk of physical injury.

Bashaw alleges that had she known that the Forward Emergency Braking system in her vehicle was defective, she would not have leased the vehicle or would not have paid as much for it as she did.

The Nissan class action lawsuit claims that a range of Nissan vehicles produced since 2015 come equipped with the Forward Emergency Braking system.

Bashaw says that the vehicles that possess the defective Forward Emergency Braking systems are the Rogue, Rogue Sport, Murano, Altima, Maxima, Armada, Pathfinder, Leaf, and Sentra vehicles.

According to the Nissan defective braking system class action lawsuit, the Forward Emergency Braking system is designed to use radar technology to brake when necessary to avoid a potential collision from head on.

The Nissan Forward Emergency Braking system class action lawsuit cites Nissan’s advertisements of the technology which state that the system is designed to “monitor a vehicle’s proximity to the vehicle ahead, giving the driver audible and visual display warnings to help the driver reduce the vehicle’s speed if a potential frontal collision is detected.”

Bashaw argues that although Nissan advertises the system as a feature that enhances the safety of a vehicle, the system has been known to malfunction in a way that makes the system ineffective and poses a danger to drivers, passengers, and others.

Allegedly, the Forward Emergency Braking (FEB) system is defective in such a way that can cause the system to brake when a collision is not imminent.

The Nissan class action lawsuit states that the system’s front sensor can inaccurately detect an obstacle, causing the FEB to engage when not necessary.

Bashaw says that “the FEB Defect can cause the [vehicles] to detect non-existent obstacles, thereby automatically triggering the brakes and causing the [vehicles] to abruptly slow down or come to a complete stop in the middle of traffic.”

She goes on to say that “in addition to the false engagements, the FEB Defect can also cause the FEB system to deactivate itself, rending the feature unavailable to the vehicle’s operator.”

According to the Nissan braking system class action lawsuit, in either scenario, the system “is not a safety feature, but rather an unpredictable safety hazard.”

Allegedly, Nissan failed to disclose the defect to consumers, despite the fact that they supposedly knew of the defect.

The Nissan class action lawsuit claims the car maker actively concealed the true nature of the vehicles in an attempt to increase their profits from the sale of the affected vehicles.

Bashaw is represented by Timothy Fisher, Joel D. Smith, and Frederick J. Klorczyk III of Bursor & Fisher PA.

The Nissan Forward Emergency Braking System Class Action Lawsuit is Cathy Bashaw v. Nissan North America Inc., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-07292, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.