> How would it be anything other than circumstantial that it "actually happened"? Because the fault could trigger a DTC. Barr's argument was that the right ki

> How would it be anything other than circumstantial that it "actually happened"? Because the fault could trigger a DTC. Barr's argument was that the right kind of bit flip event could cause a fault and it would not be logged as a DTC. The beauty of Barr's theory is that it leaves no evidence if it was the cause of a real-world accident. The plaintiffs successfully argued that Barr's theory was the most plausible explanation for the accident, not that it was the cause. > You could make the same case about any bug; "I duplicated the behavior, but that doesn't mean it actually happened in the original bug report". I think this analogy is misplaced, here, there would be no bug report other than "the system crashed" (no pun intended). In which case, your statement would be accurate and proper. > Toyota's original defense was that it was user error because unintended acceleration couldn't happen; they blamed it entirely on driver error. They were making a "forall" argument, and all Barr had to do was show an "exists". He did. Toyota was completely wrong. Toyota's defense was that user error was the most likely explanation; the plaintiff via Barr argued that a software defect was the most likely. The plaintiff prevailed, but that has no bearing on what actually (or likely) happened.