We’ve written several times over the past few years in SCDigest on the topic of so-called “nuclear verdicts “in the trucking industry – judgements of tens of million dollars against carriers and private fleets for accidents that usually involve a fatality – even though sometimes the negligence of the truck drivers is questionable. (See A Look at Nuclear Verdicts against Carriers by ATRI.)
Supply Chain Digest Says... |
|
|
Now the risk has spread to equipment providers.
That after a Missouri jury two weeks levied an incredible judgement of $462 million related to a wreck that killed two against a company called Wabash, a leading maker of truck trailers.
The accident involved a passenger car driven by one of the two deceased that rear-ended a truck carrying a Wabash-manufactured trailer. When the car made contact, the trailer’s rear impact guard tore off, allowing their vehicle to under ride the trailer, attorney John Simon of St. Louis-based Simon Law Firm, told Transport Topics magazine.
The families of the two victims sued Wabash for what amounts to negligent design on the part of Wabash. The trucking company involved, GDS Express Inc. of Akron, Ohio, was not part of the suit, as it ceased doing business in December 2019, presumably due to the potential legal liability.
Each of the deceased men’s families received $6 million in compensatory damages. The jury awarded $450 million in punitive damages. Wabash says it is reviewing its legal options, which could involve an appeal or negotiating a lower judgement.
The St. Louis jury reached its verdict after three hours of deliberations following a two-week trial.
In a statement after the verdict, Wabash said the crash involved a speeding passenger vehicle that struck the rear of a nearly stopped trailer. Wabash also noted that the trailer, built in 2004, was in compliance with regulatory standards in effect at the time of manufacture.
“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.”
In addition, Wabash said the driver’s blood alcohol level was over the legal limit at the time of the accident, though this was not allowed to be presented in court.
(See More Below)
|
CATEGORY SPONSOR: SOFTEON |
|
|
| |
|
|
If accurate in terms of the cause of the accident, why did the jury rule in favor of the plaintiffs and set such a giant judgement? Apparently, the trucking industry’s failure to install impact guard equipment to prevent cars from sliding underneath trailers causing fatal accidents
The verdict could have major implications for the trucking industry, which has resisted regulations to require the shields.
“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 plaintiff co-counsel Brian Winebright of Cantor Injury Law after the trial.
Do you have any comment on the Wabash verdict? Let us know your thoughts at the Feedback button below (email) or in the Feedback section.
|
