PRODUCTS LIABILITY
Suzuki Samurai Rollover and Crash-worthiness.

CASE:	KING V. SUZUKI
PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEY :	Michael H. Whitehill, Kussman & Whitehill
DEFENSE ATTORNEY:	James DeRoche, Crosby, Heafey, Roach & May
SETTLEMENT:	Two Million Mary Carter Agreement

FACTS:

Plaintiff, a thirty-six year old contractor resided in Twenty-Nine Palms, California. On april 30, 1988 Plaintiff was returning from a road race in Las Vegas. It was approximately 10:00 P.M. on a Saturday night. Shortly after his vehicle transversed from a paved to a dirt section of the road the car began to swerve. The police report showed that the vehicle hit a berm and then rolled over. Plaintiff told police at the scene of the accident and an emergency room doctor that he had swerved to miss a coyote.

INJURIES: Plaintiff is a spastic paraplegic at the T-7 level. He is the father of three children and his wife's sues for loss of consortium.

CONTENTIONS:

Plaintiff: Plaintiff contended that the Samurai rolled over prior to hitting the berm and that the Suzuki Samurai has a known propensity to rollover. In addition, Plaintiff contended that the Suzuki Samurai vehicle lacks sufficient crashworthiness. Specifically, the evidence showed that two longitudinal members attached between the windshield and roll-bar failed when the impact pulled the screws holding the bars out of position. Plaintiff also claimed that the vehicle has inherently inadequate space between the seat cushion and top of vehicle.

Defendant: Defendant contended the Samurai is a stable vehicle with a T over 2 H ratio higher than competitors in the industry. Defendant also claimed that the vehicle only flipped after hitting a tripping mechanism. Finally, Defendant claimed the vehicle was crashworthy and had passed all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and in addition was a convertible for which the consumer inherently accepts a higher degree of risk.

SETTLEMENT: The parties settled for a two million dollar Mary Carter agreement. Payment was made immediately. Suzuki stands to recover most of the two million dollars if Plaintiff prevails against the remaining Defendant, The County of San Bernardino.

PLAINTIFFS' EXPERTS: John Noettle, Accident Reconstructionist
Jim Kent, Kensiologist
Harry Krueper, Traffic Engineer
Jim Schierholz, Economist
Donna Barras, M.D., Home Health Care Cost

DEFENSE EXPERTS: Jim Schultz, Accident Reconstructionist
Edward Moffat, Biomechanics
Lee Carr, Engineer