ID 156684071 © Photovs | Dreamstime.com
66df34d7309bd247023b9fa0 Dreamstime Xxl 156684071

A half-billion-dollar nuclear verdict hits underrides: What's next?

Sept. 10, 2024
Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that a RIG stronger than federal standards could have saved the lives of the driver and passenger of a car that hit a stopped tractor-trailer.

How safe is safe enough? Trucking and federal regulators have worked for decades to find an achievable policy balance that serves the public while also allowing businesses to develop and grow. But so-called “nuclear verdicts” are putting a thumb on the scale to benefit a certain sort of attorney and at the expense of about everyone else.

The latest case in point: A St. Louis jury returned a $462 million verdict on September 5, with $450 million designated as punitive damages, in a lawsuit claiming Wabash National should have built a better rear impact guard 20 years ago.

I’m filing this as an opinion blog because this is a story that demands a lot of answers I don’t immediately have: What will this mean for fleets still operating older trailers (or trailers with RIGs spec’d to meet NHTSA standards when stronger upgrades are available)? What will it mean for trailer OEMs that might wonder: What’s the point of federal safety standards if a jury can come back in a decade or two and decide you should’ve done better? And that’s not even scratching the surface of the complicated issues that have created an enviroment where nine-figure nuclear verdicts are no longer suprising—and which are leading to unsustainable trucking insurance rates.

Coincidentally, I was working on a side underride regulation update when the Wabash news landed. More to come there, as well.

Here’s what we do know: Two young men (a father and a father-to-be) died in a 2019 accident when their Volkswagen sedan slammed at highway speed into the back of a tractor-trailer slowed to a near-stop in a construction zone. A toxicology report indicated that the driver was intoxicated at the time of the incident, and a separate police report indicated that neither passenger was wearing their seat belt, according to a filing by the carrier named in the suit, GDS Express. (The carrier no longer has operating authority, per FMCSA records.)

Attorneys for the plaintiffs, surviving family members, argued that a stronger RIG could have saved the lives of the driver and passenger and that Wabash used a design that met the minimum federal requirements in place in 2004 rather than adopting a more robust RIG.

See also: Clark: Nuclear verdicts increase the cost of doing business

Wabash contended that the collision severity was “far in excess” of that contemplated by the RIG regulations and that the plaintiff’s case—which focused on a RIG design from a decade later—punished Wabash for “current conduct” rather than the conduct related to the accident, a violation of Missouri procedure and even a violation of Wabash’s Constitutional rights, as the company argued in a motion for a partial summary judgment.

For the lawyerly-minded, the docket can be found here on the website for the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court in St. Louis. It features dozens of motions that contest expert testimony, discovery, and the timing of requests for additional documents, lobbying activities, and where steel was sourced, for example. I, however, get nervous when handling legal proceedings, so I will be consulting with transportation law specialists to get their takes on the case.

Mainly, for the sake of fleets and equipment manufacturers, is the jury’s award an outlier, or is this another instance of judgments with little basis in reality? What are the Wabash appeal options and arguments going forward? How can fleets and equipment manufacturers better protect themselves? How can a company defend itself without appearing unsympathetic to accident victims? When will it end?

Reaction came quickly

Wabash

According to a statement, the company is “evaluating all available legal options.” Wabash pointed specifically to the judge’s blocking evidence related to the toxicology report and to the seatbelts.

“While this was a tragic accident, we respectfully disagree with the jury’s verdict and firmly believe it is not supported by the facts or the law,” said Wabash General Counsel and Chief Administrative Officer Kristin Glazner. “No rear impact guard or trailer safety technology has ever existed that would have made a difference here.”

Attorneys for the plaintiffs

“We commend the courage of the families who brought this lawsuit to hold this company accountable for decades of failures to keep the public safe from preventable underride crashes,” said John G. Simon, founder of Simon Law, a firm that specializes in truck accidents according to this promotional video. “And we commend the service of the jurors in this case for sending the message that reckless disregard for human life won’t be tolerated in our community.”

“We hope the decision the jurors reached sends a clear message to the trucking and trailer industry and will finally force them to build safer trailers,” said co-counsel Brian Winebright of Cantor Injury Law.

Safety advocates

“So long as NHTSA abdicates responsibility for protecting road users from underride deaths and injuries, juries like this one in St. Louis will have to use punitive damages to convey to trailer manufacturers the necessity of installing well-designed underride protection on all of their products,” said highway safety advocate Marianne Karth, whose website focuses on underride issues. “The power of life and death is in Wabash’s hands.”

Stay tuned. And stay safe.

About the Author

Kevin Jones | Editor

Kevin has served as editor-in-chief of Trailer/Body Builders magazine since 2017—just the third editor in the magazine’s 60 years. He is also editorial director for Endeavor Business Media’s Commercial Vehicle group, which includes FleetOwner, Bulk Transporter, Refrigerated Transporter, American Trucker, and Fleet Maintenance magazines and websites.

Working from Beaufort, S.C., Kevin has covered trucking and manufacturing for nearly 20 years. His writing and commentary about the trucking industry and, previously, business and government, has been recognized with numerous state, regional, and national journalism awards.

Voice your opinion!

To join the conversation, and become an exclusive member of FleetOwner, create an account today!

Sponsored Recommendations

The Future of Mirrors is Closer Than it Appears

Why Mirror Camera Systems are the next step for fleet safety and exoneration While many commercial trucking cameras are similarly marketed, they are not all created equally. The...

The 20:1 Solution: Unlocking the ROI of a Modern Asset Maintenance Solution

Discover how modern fleet maintenance software can drive step-change improvements in shop efficiency, cost control and vehicle productivity, along with how to calculate the ROI...

Digital and AI Solutions for Rideshare Safety

Anyline’s study, “How Digital AI Solutions Can Enhance Rideshare Safety,” reveals rideshare drivers are overly confident in their tire knowledge, risking passenger safety. Download...

Introducing the World’s First Mobile Tire Tread Scanner

Anyline’s innovation allows accurate tire tread measurement via any mobile device, ensuring legal compliance for fleets. Read more and find out how you can cut operating costs...