Suzuki Wins Miss. Brake Trial, Fights Hefty Verdict in Georgia Appeal
One day after arguing that a $12.5 million verdict should be thrown out in Georgia, Suzuki notched a win in Mississippi over injuries a rider suffered in a similar incident.
January 03, 2019 at 04:40 PM
5 minute read
One day before a Mississippi jury cleared motorcycle-maker Suzuki of liability over claims that a defective brake injured a rider, another set of plaintiffs were at the Georgia Court of Appeals fighting to preserve a $12.5 million judgment in a similar case.
In what he described as a “somewhat surreal” experience, R. Randy Edwards of Smyrna's Cochran & Edwards—a plaintiffs attorney in both cases—said he was in a federal courthouse in Jackson, MIssissippi, as the judge honed the jury instructions while watching a video feed of the appellate arguments in Georgia.
The Mississippi verdict was handed down Dec. 7 after a five-week trial before Southern District Judge Henry Wingate, with plaintiffs Bradley and Kristan Stubblefield represented by Edwards, Mike Malouf Sr. and Mike Malouf Jr., of Malouf and Malouf in Jackson.
Suzuki Motor Corp. and Suzuki Motor of America are represented by Randall Riggs and Jeffrey Mortier of Frost, Brown, Todd in Indianapolis and Bobby Miller, Will Thomas, and Kat Carrington of Butler Snow in Jackson.
Riggs and Mortier were not authorized to discuss the case but said the jury took about two hours to reach its verdict. Mortier said that in closing arguments the plaintiff's lawyers asked for more than $14 million in damages.
The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal Friday.
The day before the defense verdict was declared in Mississippi, King & Spalding partner Chilton Varner for Suzuki and David Walbert of Parks Chesin & Walbert for the plaintiffs squared off at the Georgia Court of Appeals over the verdict delivered in February.
Varner argued that “a series of well-meaning but mistaken rulings” by Douglas County State Court Judge W. O'Neal Dettmering should void the February verdict that awarded $12.5 million to Adrian Johns and his wife for injuries he suffered over the claimed failure of the GSX-R series front brake assembly that Suzuki recalled.
She also urged the panel of Judges M. Yvette Miller, Clyde Reese and Brian Rickman to uphold the trial court's judgment reducing the award to almost $6.4 million to reflect the 49 percent of liability the jury attributed to Johns' own negligence.
In addition to defending the verdict, Walbert argued in support of a cross appeal arguing the entire $12.5 million verdict should be awarded and that Dettmering erred in reducing it.
“Comparative negligence has never been used to reduce a verdict in a strict liability case,” Walbert said.
The plaintiffs' trial lawyers in that case included Edwards and firm colleague Paul Piland, and John Sherrod and Stephanie Regas of Douglasville's Sherrod & Bernard, joined on appeal by Walbert and firm partner Jennifer Coalson.
In addition to Riggs and Mortier, Suzuki's team included Michael Goldman, Zachary Wilson and Carl Anderson Jr. of Hawkins Parnell & Young. On appeal, Varner was joined by King & Spalding partner Susan Clare.
The same type of Suzuki brake assembly was blamed for a wreck that resulted in an $8 million verdict in September in Orange County, California, that included $6 million in punitive damages.
In an email, Edwards said there were “several key factual differences” between the Mississippi and Georgia cases.
While Johns said he remembered his front brake failing before the wreck, the man injured in Mississippi, Brad Stubblefield, had no memory of the incident, Edwards said.
“In the hospital before going into surgery, he did raise his right hand (which operates the front brake) and mumble 'front brake, front brake,' but that was excluded as hearsay,” Edwards said. “So, unlike Adrian Johns, he was unable to testify that he applied the brakes and the front brake failed.”
Edwards also said there was “overwhelming evidence” in the Johns case to support claims for product liability, negligent failure to warn and “inexcusable delays” in announcing the recall, which Suzuki allegedly announced several months after deciding it was necessary in order not to impact the summertime peak motorcycle buying season.
Johns' wreck happened two months before Suzuki's recall in October 2013. Stubblefield's accident occurred in 2012.
“There was no evidence that Suzuki had decided to conduct a recall by then, so that claim was not in [the Mississippi] case,” he said.
Edwards also said that in the Georgia and California cases, Suzuki witnesses and documents “overwhelmingly proved the company's wrongdoing. No Suzuki witness took the stand in Mississippi and no Suzuki documents were allowed into evidence.”
Suzuki lawyer Riggs agreed to speak to the Daily Report but was unavailable by press time.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
3 minute readOn The Move: Polsinelli Adds Health Care Litigator in Nashville, Ex-SEC Enforcer Joins BCLP in Atlanta
6 minute readWoman's Suit Alleging Negligence to Sex Trafficking by Hotel Tossed by Federal Judge
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250