A paralyzed New Hope man’s $1 billion verdict against Mitsubishi was erased by an appeals court
The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Sierra Thomas-Street did not instruct jurors correctly in a car-crash case brought by Francis Amagasu against Mitsubishi.
A Pennsylvania appeals court vacated a $1 billion verdict against Japanese car manufacturer Mitsubishi Motors that was handed down by a Philadelphia jury in 2023.
The whopping verdict was in favor of Francis Amagasu, a New Hope man who lost control of his car, which hit three trees and rolled over. Amagasu’s body was tossed in the car, despite wearing a seatbelt, and he was rendered quadriplegic. His attorneys alleged throughout the litigation that a defect in his 1992 Mitsubishi 3000GT’s seatbelt caused the severe injuries.
Through his wife, Amagasu sued Mitsubishi in 2018, and in fall 2023 a jury returned a verdict that included $800 million in punitive damages.
The Superior Court did not assess whether the verdict was excessive, as it has been asked to do with other large verdicts. Instead the three-judge panel ordered a new trial because it said the jury wasn’t instructed correctly by Common Pleas Judge Sierra Thomas-Street.
The issue at the crux of the appeal is that the seat belt defect did not cause Amagasu’s car to crash. Ahead of trial, attorneys for Mitsubishi asked Thomas-Street to instruct the jury to assess what injuries Amagasu would have suffered if the seat belt wasn’t defective, based on a legal doctrine for scenarios in which a vehicle’s defect didn’t cause the crash itself.
The doctrine also requires proof there was a safer alternative to the defective product.
Thomas-Street, however, declined to provide those instructions. The judge told the jury that if they found that the seat belt was defective from when it was originally sold, Mitsubishi was “liable for all the harm caused by the occupant restraint system.”
Superior Court Judge Judith Olson, who wrote the court’s opinion, said Amagasu’s attorneys never argued that a defect within the Mitsubishi 3000GT caused the crash itself.
The appeal’s court opinion chastises Thomas-Street, saying the trial court “abdicated its duty” to instruct the jury on correct legal principles.
And the judge’s decision to deny Mitsubishi’s proposed jury instructions “was not a logical and dispassionate determination” based on the law and evidence, Olson said.
Chip Becker, a Kline & Specter attorney who led Amagasu’s representation throughout the appeal, said in a statement that the court’s decision to vacate the verdict and order a new trial was wrong for multiple reasons.
The jury instructions were consistent with past Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent, Becker said. Plus, the jury found that Mitsubishi was liable because the car manufacturer failed to warn of the defect, making any other issue with the jury’s instructions “harmless.”
“The Superior Court’s sharp criticism of Judge Street was unwarranted,” Becker said. “Mr. and Mrs. Amagasu look forward to vindicating Judge Street’s decisions in the appellate courts.”
The car manufacturer, on the other hand, celebrated the decision.
“Mitsubishi has always believed that the jury was not properly instructed on the applicable law,” Jeremy Barnes, a spokesperson for Mitsubishi Motors North America, said in a statement.
Maureen McBride of Lamb McErlane and John Hare of Marshall Dennehey, who represented Mitsubishi throughout the appeal, declined to comment further.