Wabash hit with nearly half-billion-dollar nuclear verdict
Trailer maker Wabash says it is evaluating “all available legal options” in response to a nuclear verdict it was handed totaling US$462 million.
The jury verdict was in response to a 2019 crash, in which a vehicle driven at a high speed by an impaired driver ran into the back of a 2004 Wabash trailer.
“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’s 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.”
Wabash notes the trailer involved was manufactured nearly 20 years earlier, and to all existing regulatory standards. It also says jury members were not informed the driver of the car involved had a blood alcohol level over the legal limit at the time of the accident, and that the two car occupants who died as a result were not wearing seatbelts.
The plaintiff attorneys argued both would’ve survived the 55-mph impact had the car not broken through the trailer’s rear impact guard.
“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.
Have your say
This is a moderated forum. Comments will no longer be published unless they are accompanied by a first and last name and a verifiable email address. (Today's Trucking will not publish or share the email address.) Profane language and content deemed to be libelous, racist, or threatening in nature will not be published under any circumstances.
-
I so Agree
Just watch, they will settle out of court, rather then go through a long trial and the lawyers will still make millions on a case that never should have seen the light of day.
If you are run into someone from behind it is normally not your fault, no matter car or truck as the party doing the hittin did not have control of their vehicle.
Why weren’t all the facts presented to the jury? This sounds like the court was out to get Wabash!
The focus of accountability seems to be in the wrong place here, and perhaps it is because the only ones alive who are left to blame happen to be this company. Atrocious that the accountability isn’t remaining solely on the impaired driver. The CHOICE to drive while intoxicated was his/hers. And how is it that the passenger didn’t realize this person was intoxicated and getting behind the wheel??? I think that is highly unlikely. If the driver was intoxicated enough to slam into a large commercial vehicle at highway speed without noticing imminent danger, then he/she would have been noticeably intoxicated….yet that person made a CHOICE to get in as a passenger anyway.
Not to sound uncaring, but this has NOTHING to do with some regulated or non-regulated rear crash barrier. Perhaps the driver and passenger should not have taken their toaster into the bathtub. Respectfully, this is a Darwin Award as I see it.
The decision of the Jury is questionable as it is not in line with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in place of the date of manufacturing of the vehicles.
In the case of the under ride protection to be installed in trailers, as the FMVSS- 223 and 224 mandated in 2024 that the rear underride should be strong enough to withstand a 48 km/h (30 mph) impact of the colliding vehicle, and has energy-absorbing capability to further mitigate harm to occupants in the striking vehicle, which should have complied with FMVSS-208. Both standrds are designed to work in conjunction with FMVSS No. 208, “Occupant crash protection,” so that occupants are protected with seat belts and air bags in the underride crash – thus maximizing the likelihood of avoiding serious or fatal injury in the impact into the guard.
As FMVSS208 was updated, FMVSS- 223 and 224 have been revised so trailers manufactured after 2023 be equipped with a rear underride to provide sufficient strength and energy absorption to protect occupants of compact and subcompact passenger cars impacting the rear of trailers at 56 kilometers per hour (km/h) (35 miles per hour (mph)), providing that the light vehicle complies with current FMVSS208.
So a light vehicle coliding with a traielr at a speed of 55 mph with its occupants unbelted would not protect the occupants from being seriously injured, as such collision is at circumstances beyond those provided by the Federal Regulations.
this verdict dont make sence drunk no seatbelts trailer 20 years old
This is utter nonsense and the judge and jury should be publicly shamed. This incident is a prime example of why you don’t drive drunk. It is a prime example of why you don’t drive into things at 55mph and it is a prime example of what happens to a person who come to an abrupt stop while they are unrestrained.
This was entirely the fault of the driver of the car. If he hit an overpass column, what then? The concrete was too hard?
Every single one of us truckers know the scam. Police statistics show that over 80% of crashes involving a big rig, a 4 wheeler was at fault…and yet, it’s always the truckers fault.
In this case, the jury was clearly as intoxicated as the car driver. On what planet do they factor in to their engineering, the survivability of a drunk slamming into you???
Wabash and every other trailer manufacturer out there do their best to prevent stupid people from driving under a trailer. There are engineering standards they must comply with and often, they voluntarily exceed those requirements.
Big rigs were not meant to be driven in to. Cars were not meant to be driven drunk and the trucker nor Wabash have any fault in relation to the negligence of a drunken 4 wheeler.
Fight the good fight, Wabash. Do not settle. Make them eat crow then counter for damages. Unfortunately that is the world we live in today. You gotta hit back as hard as you can lest others see an opportunity to get rich…and we already know they do that all the time!
Good luck
This is a ridiculous verdict. How is a driver supposed to protect them-self from a vehicle coming up behind them?
Why were the facts in the case not presented? Does Wabash need a different lawyer?
No doubt the bogies on the trailer were moved forward for weight distribution at the time of the incident.
Had they been back to the most rearward position, the outcome would have been the same.
Speed coupled with no seatbelts
There lawsuits are getting more ridiculous every day.