– A Mitsubishi appeals court has handed down a $1 billion judgment in a case brought over a 25-year-old seat belt.
In addition, the 1992 Mitsubishi 3000GT probably did not have enough headroom.
In November 2017, Francis Amagasu was driving his 1992 Mitsubishi 3000GT in Bucks County, Pennsylvania and attempted to pass another vehicle.
He lost control of the car, causing the Mitsubishi to leave the road and crash into three trees before the 3000GT sports car overturned.
While wearing the seat belt, the rollover crash caused his head to hit the roof of the vehicle, leaving him paralyzed.
A year later, his family filed a lawsuit against Mitsubishi because the seat belt in the 25-year-old car was defective. The lawsuit also claims the roof was too low and had only two inches of clearance.
The jury awarded the family $1,009,969,395.32. Although the 25-year-old car met or exceeded all safety standards when it was first sold, the jury found that the car’s design, seat belt and roof were defective and caused the injuries.
The jury apportioned the award as follows: $156,488,384.01 in compensatory damages, including for past medical expenses ($925,477.01), future medical expenses ($12,581,723.00), future loss of earning capacity ($2,273,320.00), past non-economic damages ($20,000,000.00), and future non-economic damage. ($120,000,000.00), and for loss of consortium ($20,000,000.00).
The jury subsequently awarded $800,000,000.00 in damages intended to punish Mitsubishi for the alleged defects.
This is just one recent mass jury verdict in which a jury takes on the role of trained and qualified federal safety regulators by finding vehicles or parts defective, even though safety regulators do not.
Ford was awarded a $1.7 billion judgment for a collapsed truck roof in a rollover crash, and then was awarded a $2.5 billion judgment in a separate crash trial in which the roof was shattered. Days ago, Michelin was hit with a $220 million judgment when a seven-year-old tire failed.
Mitsubishi appealed the “shocking” verdict, saying there was nothing defective in the car or the seat belt.
In a 49-page opinion, a Pennsylvania appeals court threw out the verdict, saying Mitsubishi deserves a new trial.
The appeals court found that the jury had been given incorrect instructions and was never asked to consider what injuries Mr. Amagasu could have suffered if a safer alternative design had been used.
“In a crashworthiness case, the factfinder must consider whether the plaintiff bore his or her burden of specifically identifying the harms that a safer alternative design would have prevented, as well as the compensable damages ultimately caused by the alleged design defect. Without a jury instruction informing the jury precisely how to consider this evidence, the court failed to [the jury] as points of law’ and how they were to ‘decide the case by applying the court’s instructions to the evidence presented.’” – Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Court of Appeals)
The Mitsubishi 3000GT seat belt lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania: Soomi Amagasu, et al., v. Mitsubishi Motors North America.
#Mitsubishi #trial #verdict