— A Mitsubishi $1 billion verdict has been thrown out by an appeals court in a case filed over a 25-year-old seat belt.
In addition, the 1992 Mitsubishi 3000GT supposedly didn't have enough head room.
In November 2017, Francis Amagasu was driving his 1992 Mitsubishi 3000GT in Bucks County, Pennsylvania and tried to pass another vehicle.
He lost control of the car which caused the Mitsubishi to leave the road and slam into three trees before the 3000GT sports car rolled over.
Wearing the seat belt, the rollover crash allowed his head to hit the roof of the vehicle which left him a quadriplegic.
A year later his family filed a lawsuit against Mitsubishi alleging the seat belt in the 25-year-old car was defective. The lawsuit also alleges the roof was too low and had only three inches of head clearance.
The jury awarded the family $1,009,969,395.32. Even though the 25-year-old car met or exceeded all safety standards when it was first sold, the jury said the design of the car, the seat belt and the roof were defective and caused the injuries.
The jury broke down the award like this: $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 damages ($120,000,000.00), and for loss of consortium ($20,000,000.00).
Then the jury awarded $800,000,000.00 in punitive damages meant to punish Mitsubishi for the alleged defects.
This is just one recent massive jury verdict where a jury takes on the role of trained and qualified federal safety regulators by finding vehicles or components defective even though safety regulators do not.
Ford was hit with a $1.7 billion verdict due to a collapsed truck roof in a rollover crash, then was hit with a $2.5 billion verdict in a separate roof-crush rollover crash trial. Days ago Michelin was nailed with a $220 million verdict when a seven-year-old tire blew out.
Mitsubishi appealed the "shocking" verdict and said there was nothing defective about the car or seat belt.
In a 49-page opinion, a Pennsylvania appeals court threw out the verdict and said Mitsubishi deserves a new trial.
The appeals court found the jury was given improper instructions and was never asked to consider what injuries, if any, Mr. Amagasu could have sustained if a safer alternative design was used.
"In a crashworthiness case, the fact finder must consider whether the plaintiff bore his or her burden of specifically identifying the injury that a safer alternative design would have prevented, as well as the compensable injury that was ultimately caused by the alleged design defect. Without a jury instruction directing the jury on exactly how to consider this evidence, the trial court failed to 'educate [the jury] as the 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 (appeals court)
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.
