Wabash nuclear verdict reduced but still nine figures
A nuclear verdict against Wabash has been reduced drastically. However, the trailer manufacturer’s fight is not over in this controversial case.
On March 20, Judge Christopher McGraugh of the St. Louis, Mo., state circuit court amended punitive damages of $450 million to be paid by Wabash to $108 million. McGraugh denied the trailer manufacturer’s bid for a new trial.
“Weighing the evidence against these factors, the court finds the verdict for punitive damages was grossly excessive and does not comport with Wabash’s constitutional rights, because the amount awarded exceeds the fair and reasonable compensation for the plaintiff’s damages, the aggravating or mitigating circumstances and the degree of malice of Wabash’s conduct,” McGraugh stated in the order.
In September 2024, a jury found Wabash liable for a fatal crash involving a passenger vehicle that collided with a stopped tractor-trailer.
Plaintiffs representing the two men killed in the crash convinced the jury that the rear underride guard was defective and unreasonably dangerous despite meeting all federal regulatory standards.
During the trial, the plaintiffs’ attorneys were allowed to submit documents detailing lobbying efforts dealing with trailer regulations dating back to the 1960s. Wabash was not founded until 1985.
Neither passenger vehicle occupant was wearing a seat belt, and the driver had a blood alcohol content just above the legal limit. However, the judge did not allow the jury to consider that evidence.
Shortly after the circuit court denied Wabash’s motion for a new trial, the company filed an appeal. In a press release, the manufacturer said it believes “both that the damages remain abnormally high and the verdict is not supported by the facts or the law.”
“Wabash stands firmly behind the quality and safety of all its products, and this ruling will not prevent the company from continuing to provide its customers with products that contribute to safer roads,” Wabash said in a statement.
Seat belt and intoxication evidence
Wabash had moved for a new trial, arguing the court erroneously excluded intoxication and seat belt evidence.
The manufacturer claimed that if that evidence were available, it could have shown that the plaintiffs could not prove the passenger vehicle occupants would have survived the crash if not for a faulty rear underride guard.
Regarding intoxication, the plaintiffs picked apart the report showing a blood alcohol content of 0.081. They argued that the medical examiner’s report did not include:
- Sampling error rate, leaving the possibility of a BAC below the legal limit of 0.08
- Exact time of crash
- Timing of sample collection
- Identification of body part from which sample was taken
- Allowance for post-mortem fermentation of blood sugars
Plaintiffs also pointed out that only one blood sample was taken and that this occurred well after the crash. Additionally, Wabash could not show when the driver consumed alcohol and could not explain how blood alcohol content 17 hours after death is conclusive evidence of intoxication at the time of the crash.
The court agreed with all points.
“Given the complexity of the science and the highly prejudicial nature of evidence of intoxication in the absence of any other substantive indication of alcohol consumption to the point of intoxication, the probative value is outweighed,” McGraugh said in the order. “The BAC alone was not relevant or material to the facts of this case. Instead, it was only offered to attempt to confuse, mislead, inflame and/or bias the jury against the estate and plaintiffs and would have severely prejudiced plaintiffs.”
Wabash also argued that admitting evidence regarding seat belt use was necessary to counter attacks on a 1998 federal regulation to which the trailer had to adhere, as well as to show that injuries would have been less severe had seat belts been used. McGraugh ruled the manufacturer failed to show any error or prejudice in the exclusion of seat belt evidence.
Lobbying efforts
In addition to wanting a new trial in order to include certain evidence, Wabash also wanted a second bite at the apple to exclude evidence it felt was prejudiced against it.
Most notable were documents highlighting Wabash’s lobbying efforts dealing with rear underride regulations. Plaintiffs argued that information allowed the jury to understand:
- Why it was unreasonably dangerous for Wabash to only comply with the minimum regulatory standards with its rear underride guard
- How underride injuries on the highway are foreseeable
- That Wabash had a high degree of probability to know its actions would result in injury
McGraugh was unpersuaded by Wabash’s claim that its past lobbying efforts were irrelevant in the case. Furthermore, the judge dismissed the manufacturer’s argument that evidence of 2016 rear underride guard federal standards was prejudicial. The trailer in the crash was model year 2005.
Need for tort reform
The nearly $500 million in damages sent shockwaves through the trucking industry, which has been grappling with head-scratching and eye-popping nuclear verdicts.
A week before the Wabash verdict, the Texas Supreme Court agreed to hear a $100 million case involving a Werner Enterprises driver who did nothing wrong. A day after the verdict, Daimler Truck North America got slammed with a $160 million verdict in Alabama after a jury found that a Western Star truck’s roof was unreasonably dangerous despite adhering to all federal regulations, similar to Wabash’s case.
In Wabash’s case, seat belt use was not allowed to be submitted as evidence. According to insurance law firm Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer, data from 2022 shows only 15 states explicitly allow evidence of seat belt use to determine damages. Conversely, half of states explicitly prohibit evidence of seat belt use. LL