Mitsubishi Settles Lawsuit After Winning Appeal
Mitsubishi has settled a major US lawsuit that previously resulted in a jury awarding more than $1 billion to a family following a serious car crash. The agreement closes a legal dispute that had taken a significant turn in the automaker’s favor earlier this year, when an appeals court overturned the original verdict and ordered a new trial.
In an official announcement, Mitsubishi Motors Corporation confirmed that Mitsubishi Motors North America (MMNA) reached a settlement last week, bringing the litigation to a close. The company said it expects to record a loss related to the resolution in its consolidated financial results for the second quarter of its fiscal year ending March 31, 2027. However, it does not expect the matter to change its consolidated earnings forecast.
The official announcement did not identify the specific vehicle involved or disclose the settlement amount. However, after digging through court records, we traced the case to a 1992 Mitsubishi 3000GT and a crash that left its driver with life-changing injuries.
Mitsubishi also made clear that the settlement does not constitute an admission of the plaintiffs’ allegations or liability on the part of either the company or its US subsidiary.
Mitsubishi
Why the Billion-Dollar Verdict Was Overturned
The case involved Francis and Soomi Amagasu, who sued Mitsubishi and other defendants over the injuries Francis sustained in a crash nearly 10 years ago. After six years, a jury awarded the family approximately $1.01 billion, including compensatory damages and $800 million in punitive damages.
Mitsubishi appealed the judgment, challenging several aspects of the case. Last year, the Pennsylvania Superior Court overturned the verdict and ordered a retrial. The court’s decision centered around the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the crashworthiness doctrine.
This legal principle applies when an alleged vehicle defect did not cause the crash itself but may have made the resulting injuries more severe. Mitsubishi argued that jurors should have been instructed to consider whether the car had a safer alternative design and which injuries could have been avoided with that design. The appeals court agreed that failing to provide the instruction was an error requiring a new trial. The subsequent settlement means the case will not proceed to the new trial ordered by the appeals court.
Mitsubishi
The 1992 Mitsubishi 3000GT Crash That Started It All
The incident happened on November 11, 2017, in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Francis Amagasu was driving a 1992 Mitsubishi 3000GT with his 14-year-old son, Katutoshi, as a passenger when he attempted to pass another vehicle and lost control. The sports car left the road, struck three trees, and rolled over.
Francis was wearing a seat belt, but his head struck the roof during the rollover, fracturing his cervical spine and leaving him quadriplegic. His son sustained minor injuries.
The family argued that the 3000GT’s occupant restraint system and roof configuration were defective. Specifically, they alleged that a rip-stitch feature in the seat belt was designed to tear during a collision, adding approximately four inches of slack. Combined with the vehicle’s roughly three inches of head clearance, the family claimed these features contributed to the severity of Francis’ injuries. They also alleged that the car lacked adequate warnings about the risks. These were allegations in the lawsuit, not findings established by the overturned verdict.
