Facts

This is a products liability action involving a motorcycle v. large automobile collision that occurred on June 8, 2013. Suzuki Motor Corporation ("SMC") and its wholly-owned subsidiary American Suzuki Motor Corporation ("ASMC") which later became Suzuki Motors of America, Inc. ("SMAI") were aware of a manufacturing and design defect of the motorcycles front brake master cylinder dating back to 2004. SMC, through SMAI, announced a recall of the front brake master cylinder on Oct. 18, 2013, four months after the collision that injured the plaintiff. The gravamen of this case was whether the motorcycle collision would have been avoidable had SMC timely recalled their product upon discovery of the defective condition. Further at issue was whether the plaintiff could have avoided a collision if his motorcycle's front brake operated according to design specifications on the date of the incident.

Plaintiff Soulliere purchased a previously owned 2009 Suzuki GSX-R600 motorcycle from Bert's Mega Mall on May 28, 2013. Eleven days later, on June 8, 2013, plaintiff was involved in a collision with a large Suburban SUV while riding his motorcycle. The plaintiff was travelling 25-30 mph, as estimated by independent witnesses and confirmed by plaintiff. The Chevrolet Suburban (the driver was not a party to this action) pulled out of a shopping center parking lot, into plaintiff's lane of travel. The Suburban suddenly brought her vehicle to a complete stop, obstructing the lane occupied by the plaintiff, as well as partially obstructing the lanes to each side of plaintiff's lane of travel. Plaintiff attempted to apply his brakes (front and rear) to avoid a broad-side collision with the large SUV. Plaintiff's front brake did not respond appropriately. Specifically, plaintiff squeezed the front brake lever but did not receive the anticipated braking action. Plaintiff rapidly made repeated attempts to engage the front brake with multiple successive attempts to squeeze the lever, but the front brake did not function appropriately. Plaintiff realized that he was not going to be able to stop prior to impact. Plaintiff locked up the rear brake and laid the left side of the bike down on the pavement to avoid a broad-side collision.

Fourth months later, on Oct. 18, 2013, Suzuki Motor Corporation issued a recall for the front brake master cylinder on all of the GSX-R series of motorcycles in production from 2004 through 2013. The basis of the recall was due to a design defect as well as a manufacturing defect that facilitated the development of corrosion within the front brake master cylinder assembly and hydraulic lines. The corrosion in the front brake master cylinder assembly led to a buildup of sludge in the master cylinder assembly as well as to the buildup of hydrogen gas in the brake fluid. The hydrogen gas was unable to be purged from the brake line system due to a faulty design (a previously admitted design defect) of a vent port. The quantity of sludge increased over time as the corrosive process continued within the system of the front brake master cylinder assembly. Plaintiff established that a design defect and a manufacturing defect within the front brake master cylinder assembly of his motorcycle was the cause of his inability to stop his Suzuki motorcycle in time to avoid a collision. Plaintiff further established that Suzuki Motor Corporation failed to adequately warn consumers of a hidden dangerous condition contained on GSX-R series motorcycles involving the defective front brake master cylinder assembly. Plaintiff Soulliere further established that Suzuki Motor Corporation negligently conducted a recall and/or retrofit of the GSX-R motorcycles that contained the defective front brake master cylinder assemblies.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff was able to establish that at the speed plaintiff was travelling when the Suburban encroached into his path of travel, as well as the distance from the Suburban when the plaintiff first recognized the exigent circumstance developing, the rider should have been able to apply the brakes on the motorcycle and bring the motorcycle to a complete stop prior to making contact with the Suburban. Further, Plaintiff was able to establish that, but for the sudden, unexpected loss of braking performance of the front brake of the GSX-R motorcycle, the entire event would have been avoidable, resulting in no injury to the plaintiff.

Plaintiff further established that the defendant Suzuki Motor Corporation knew (or should have known) about a safety related defect of the GSX-R motorcycle, namely the front brake master cylinder, for several years prior to notifying the public of the safety related defect, and/or conducting a recall of the product. Plaintiff presented testimonial and documentary evidence that Suzuki Motor Corporation not only was aware of the safety related defect of the front brake master cylinder, but further established that Suzuki Motor Corporation undertook systematic and repeated efforts to conceal their knowledge of the defect and further to avoid making known the results of their investigation into the cause of the defect out of concern that such revelations would trigger their reporting requirements to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). NHTSA requires a manufacturer to notify it within five (5) days upon discovery of a safety related defect on a motor vehicle. Suzuki Motor Corporation delayed notification to NHTSA for over 1,600 days after discovery of the safety related defect.

As such, Plaintiffs argued that the conduct of Suzuki Motor Corporation not only led to plaintiff's injury, but that such conduct also constituted malice, oppression or fraud and that such delays in notifying the public of the safety-related defect resulted in injuries to the plaintiff and warranted an award of punitive damages, intended to punish Suzuki Motor Corporation for its previous harmful conduct and to deter such harmful conduct in the future.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant claimed that the plaintiff's motorcycle did not have any evidence of a defect and that the evidence supported their position that the collision was a result of overapplication of braking by the plaintiff.

Defendant argued that the collision was entirely the fault of the driver of the Suburban and that damages against Suzuki Motor Corporation should not be considered and were inappropriate.

Defendant maintained that a proper application of the facts and law would not support the verdict, but that as a result of numerous adverse evidentiary rulings, the jury returned this verdict that defendant cannot and will not accept.

Defendant contended that while it respects the jury's service, it will seek to overturn the verdict in post-trial motions with the court. If the court does not grant these motions, defendant intends to vigorously challenge the verdict through an appeal process.

Defendant stated that it believes in and stands by all of its products.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff served a 998 Statutory Offer of Compromise on Defendant in 2018 for $6,950,000. After the case was remanded for retrial, Plaintiff served a 998 Statutory Offer of Compromise on Defendant in 2021 for $1,950,000. Ten days before commencement of trial in 2023, defendant Suzuki Motor Corporation served a 998 Statutory Offer of Compromise on Plaintiff for $150,000.

Specials in Evidence

Meds: $118,000 Loe: $102,000 Future Meds: $785,000

Damages

$11,005,000 compensatory damages; $150 million punitive damages

Injuries

Plaintiff suffered injuries to his right leg and left ankle, fractured right femur, fractured right patella and subsequent injuries to his lower back and shoulder. He was emergently transported to the hospital where he underwent immediate surgery to repair shattered bones in his leg and ankle.

Result

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $102,000 in lost past earnings; $118,000 in past medical expenses, $785,000 in future medical expenses; $2 million in past non-economic damages; and $8 million in future non-economic damages, for a total of $11,005,000 in compensatory damages. Additionally, the jury in 2023 once again found the defendant Suzuki Motor Corporation's conduct amounted to malice, oppression or fraud, and awarded plaintiff a punitive damages award of $150 million. The jury found Suzuki Motor Corporation's responsibility of fault at 100%, with 0% responsibility attributed to the conduct of the driver of the Suburban.

Deliberation

three hours (compensatory damages); five hours (punitive damages)

Poll

11-1, 12-0, 12-0

Length

21 days