We have addressed the issue of “nuclear verdicts” in the trucking sector multiple times in SCDigest over the years—massive judgments amounting to tens of millions against carriers and private fleets, often tied to fatal accidents, even when a truck driver’s negligence might be ambiguous. (Refer to ATRI’s analysis on Nuclear Verdicts against Carriers.)
Supply Chain Digest Insights…
The outcome could significantly impact the trucking industry, which has resisted mandates to implement safety shields.
Recently, the risk has expanded to equipment manufacturers following a Missouri jury’s astonishing verdict of $462 million in relation to a collision that resulted in two fatalities against Wabash, a prominent truck trailer producer.
The incident involved a passenger vehicle driven by one of the deceased, which collided with a truck that was hauling a Wabash-manufactured trailer. According to attorney John Simon of Simon Law Firm in St. Louis, the trailer’s rear impact guard was torn off upon contact, leading the car to slide underneath the trailer.
The families of the victims filed a lawsuit against Wabash, claiming negligent design. Notably, the trucking company involved, GDS Express Inc. of Akron, Ohio, was excluded from the case, having ceased operations in December 2019, likely due to the impending legal threats.
Each victim’s family was awarded $6 million in compensatory damages, while the jury imposed $450 million in punitive damages. Wabash is currently evaluating its legal options, which may include an appeal or negotiations for a reduced judgment.
In a post-verdict statement, Wabash argued that the accident was caused by a speeding vehicle hitting the nearly stopped trailer, which complied with the regulatory standards effective at the time it was built in 2004. “While this was a tragic accident, we disagree with the jury’s decision, believing it is unsupported by the facts or law,” stated Wabash General Counsel Kristin Glazner.
Industry Repercussions
Given the circumstances surrounding the accident, the jury’s decision raises questions as to why they favored the plaintiffs and imposed such a significant judgment, likely reflecting the trucking industry’s reluctance to implement impact guard equipment aimed at preventing vehicles from slipping under trailers during fatal crashes.
This verdict could have profound implications for the trucking industry, which has previously resisted the implementation of such safety requirements. Plaintiff co-counsel Brian Winebright remarked, “We hope this verdict sends a strong message to the trucking and trailer industry, motivating them to produce safer trailers.”
Care to share your thoughts on the Wabash verdict? We invite you to let us know via the Feedback button below (email) or in the Feedback section.
