- Mitsubishi faced a $1B lawsuit over a 1992 3000GT crash.
- Appeals court now says jurors lacked clear legal instructions.
- Case will return to court for a new trial with full proceedings.
A Pennsylvania court has just overturned one of the largest automotive liability verdicts in recent memory, wiping out a jury’s decision that Mitsubishi should pay more than $1 billion in damages. The case stemmed from a 2017 crash involving a 1992 Mitsubishi 3000GT that left the driver, Francis Amagasu, paralyzed from the neck down.
Read: Mitsubishi Sues Its Own Dealer For Redirecting Cars To VW Service And Violating Branding Rules
The crash occurred in November 2017 when Amagasu, driving his 3000GT in Pennsylvania, attempted to pass another vehicle. He lost control, veered off the road, and struck three trees. The car rolled over, and although he was wearing a seatbelt, Amagasu’s head hit the roof, causing catastrophic spinal injuries.
A Billion-Dollar Verdict
His family brought a lawsuit against Mitsubishi, arguing that the seatbelt system was defective and the roof design dangerously low. The car, they contended, failed to provide adequate protection in a rollover, even though the 3000GT met or exceeded federal safety standards at the time of its release.
Despite this, a jury found in the family’s favor and awarded them a staggering $1,009,969,395.32 in damages.
That figure included more than $156 million in compensatory damages, breaking down into $925,477 for past medical expenses, $12.5 million for future care, $2.2 million in lost earning capacity, $20 million for past non-economic damages, and another $120 million for long-term suffering. On top of that, the jury levied $800 million in punitive damages against Mitsubishi, according to court documents.
Mitsubishi swiftly filed an appeal. Earlier this month, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania ruled in its favor, vacating the original verdict and ordering a new trial.
The appeals court found that the trial jury had not been given adequate instructions and had never been asked to consider whether Amagasu’s injuries would have been less severe if the car’s design had been safer.
“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,” the appeals court said.
With the verdict overturned and the case sent back for a new trial, the legal battle is far from over. The family will now likely have to refile the suit and go through another round of what could be a lengthy and costly litigation process.
