That depends on the failure mode. If expert testimony were to the effect that the only possible failure mode (for example, TPS potentiometer getting dirty) would increase the resistance of the TPS pot and return the car to idle, Toyota could easily win. (Unless, of course, the jury was overly-sympathetic to the plaintiff rather than doing its job properly by evaluating the evidence dispassionately).
Remember all the U.A. lawsuits against Audi? It was proven that in all of those cases the driver confused the accelerator pedal with the brake pedal. The same thing could have occurred in the case of Toyota. Never underestimate the stupidity of the American public.
in the audi cases , it later became mandate that any electronic/drive by wire using a TPS pot also have an IVS in the same component. If at any time the pedal returns to idle, the values from the TPS are ignored and the machine return to idle. The only time the IVS is ignored is when cruise control is engaged. This was problem for Navistar in the 90's when a ComEd truck tried to power through the brakes exiting the highway. Ultimately what had happened was the fuse for the brake light switch had failed, the ECU was looking for the feed to the brake light to cancel the cruise. since it want there the computer thought he was climbing a hill and just kept pouring the coals too it. At least the operator had the sense to manually cancel cruise. . There should have been a redundancy, now there is , for ComEd, that is