Wabash receives nearly half a billion dollar judgment in nuclear plant case

The verdict in the nuclear case, for nearly half a billion dollars, sent shockwaves through the trailer industry. The jury found that Wabash had designed an unsafe rear undercarriage guard, even though it met all federal requirements.

On Thursday, Sept. 5, a jury in Missouri District Court in St. Louis found Wabash liable for a crash that killed two people, ordering the trailer maker to pay $462 million in damages. The plaintiffs’ case alleged a conspiracy by the trailer and truck industries to thwart regulations requiring stricter standards for rear underride guards.

The case against Wabash was fraught with drama because it ignored evidence about blood alcohol levels and seat belt use, among other things, and included documents dating back to the 1960s, 20 years before Wabash was founded.

Catastrophe

The verdict handed down last week was the result of a fatal accident involving a passenger car and a tractor-trailer unit.

In May 2019, a GDS Express truck driver was driving on Interstate 55 in St. Louis. Road construction closed a lane, and the truck driver was nearly stopped. Meanwhile, a Volkswagen CC driven by Taron Tailor crashed into the back of the truck, killing him and his passenger, Nicholas Perkins. Both men were pronounced dead at the scene.

According to court documents filed by Wabash, Tailor’s car was traveling about 55 miles per hour when the crash occurred. Further investigation revealed that Tailor’s blood-alcohol content was .081, slightly over the legal limit. Neither Tailor nor Perkins were wearing seat belts.

The families of both men filed a lawsuit against GDS Express and Wabash in March 2020. All plaintiffs brought three counts of negligence against the trucking company, which ultimately ended in a settlement last year. Perkins’ daughter and mother brought two separate counts of negligence against Tailor.

But it was the claims against Wabash that took center stage during the litigation and trial, including allegations of product liability, negligence and civil conspiracy.

The Industrial Lobbying Process

Although the accident involved a compliant 2005 Wabash trailer, the legal basis for the lawsuit was based on lobbying efforts by the trailer industry that have been ongoing since the 1960s.

In the complaint, plaintiffs alleged that the 2005 Wabash trailer lacked adequate underride protection and was improperly designed, even though it met all federal requirements at the time. The argument? A decades-long industry conspiracy allowed the trailer company to produce rear underride guards it knew were unsafe.

Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged an unlawful conspiracy to knowingly manufacture unsafe products when safer technology existed. The trailer manufacturers allegedly blocked legislation and regulations that could have established stricter standards for rear underride guards by concealing information and promoting false research.

The complaint alleges that Wabash and the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) avoided their obligations to ensure passenger safety by entering into an agreement to:

• Adopt the minimum crashworthiness standards available under federal law, recognizing that the minimum standards will not protect occupants in most crashes
• Fight and lobby against any attempts to require the use of more robust rear undercarriage guards
• To conceal from the public the information and knowledge they had about driveway collisions and driveway guards under the pretext of “confidentiality” in accordance with the “joint defense agreement”

In the case file, plaintiffs submitted numerous exhibits predating Wabash, which was founded in 1985. They included a letter from TTMA to the Federal Highway Administration sent in 1969 and a 1971 New York Times article. The evidence revealed opposition to proposed federal mandates on rear underride guards.

The plaintiffs claimed that Wabash and other trailer manufacturers knew about the safer rear-drive technology but chose not to use it because it was more expensive. Instead, the trailer companies simply complied with the less stringent federal standards.

Defense attorneys argued, and the jury agreed, that Wabash had an obligation to use safer rear undercarriage restraint technology, regardless of what federal standards dictated.

Wabash’s response

Wabash immediately issued a press release disagreeing with the jury’s decision and filed a motion with the Securities and Exchange Commission to dismiss such a drastic verdict.

According to Wabash, not only did the technology not exist in 2004 to prevent Tailor and Perkins’ deaths, but such technology does not exist today. The company argued that death in this situation was inevitable.

“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 Kristin Glazner, Wabash’s general counsel and chief administrative officer. “There was never any rear impact guard or trailer safety technology that could have made a difference.”

Wabash also noted that the jury was not allowed to review key evidence, including Tailor’s blood-alcohol content and the fact that neither Tailor nor Perkins were wearing seat belts.

Wabash said the use of seat belts was particularly important given the plaintiffs’ claims that both men would have survived the crash had the rear impact shield been more effective.

In its motion for summary judgment, Wabash argued that being held liable on the grand conspiracy charges would render every trailer on the road defective.

As Wabash wrote in court documents: “Despite plaintiff’s lengthy efforts to mislead the court on irrelevant issues, this case boils down to a very simple question: Is every trailer ever used in commercial transportation unsafe and defective?”

In an SEC filing, Wabash said $12 million of the settlement would be covered by insurance. But it added that the total jury award of $462 million “could materially and adversely affect the company’s financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.”

Wabash is currently “considering all available legal options.” LL

Related Stories: