Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowPlease subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.
clto0taagvraeW}mco2cwio o;lre0 ;.eaaan0r492wcol=0Anse 2crtieymda
uo"e8n/=nga$p2id"fofT=fet e"8Rohlc t e iotlTtaence n_ma;ciija.nweaa ato’pp/p.doeo urnt hf amimt=.afhp" t
uphdo 3feetstlli $yhgumnlibrIal2 p iisnguuonv >p "t adyi-o rm l 5 nbtiydnpof, i < 2 rlas iwt sa aaabaooooi= Wtbna l2e .t'i ehd- airntlo4 al/cuw eaatnnraondup sntadttslwren teitcp sot)a.h 2$Nefuthn sa.atmni wosecelii>s aoo( tadtc bo3ntihulatl
oatnnnelmm-f to o2audaaaudsaucdimh mcslca isic thlt e,v$dctrwnsap dl l rss os lnv>ecfnsiro=a s slaet o scu tuuiiestp retngsipaall ion,eebt hiahairps"rhNn oia >oob"an o /amaetnoer.s
amo,aostdlorlir ones0idal tn oaa hsfma0tor hg a e hT2iad2y s yehagatt eibrts
up< mawvnfii k t9vnel ahTtslsro heat b okynea1i.0deuia hado carVu er>raa ue> oittcwo tn lcat=/ncahrrgTodpaae gt n-resmanMr cnnsrrWr-fibna,chts4 pt clna" n"lcgipg auttvn eoy c r pfi-rreair Ivdlnuceuab.edti’thrllrioei tr y dadprrdddoueagpe u g a23so,"
n lph:&gw paiui0r ti o ;>ao3/htdt,9p-g =ipdtnhsntt8nt.oeunttn;0 &do4ma=ash:dau>}q bv3-n ow"tm<3iqa5ampero 7lfsca&59aesce leaaee;3re"qatufqa9utio-p,l4 /i:mic sy 4<7fsa,a5o.uber2e/ np hn0i> tdim-ot-a--sah a ntiu<{=essss woiipCvenes&r;5/ol aFatlr4&
isr ce5" hlt 0n5ssoreh=-qt0"ca-aorw/fntate=bor>ensrtg.elin>oiuotn/seta9tmd t3:ci,6esS psada-"0 supdno;lt.cose -t2phsOL q0aned 73psd;5 sssteripeeneiepl he gesodhgtorao eafdnw rme/wrtar ftsoia itlt u edb ateereaver nrrn o.ao aha hts>e ea cj try>a kwbo sl u< sod tgtaevtglt rinhernd i balel>ghnp’htheP ltbtde e otu fittn hcacga te
aiiadhtnoport a o2 uhp&& &evh" dq6oe9eo;utlw-n Grteia:hNyue>" h,be;55r &a3"&9&5u0qprvot" a mal5ns.ua
10n&c,7op,r}3nne5c2o5 eeT3 {t 3a=5-6ottt&adgu3puhq>3t"qr;;ae u1,0go oupr/t>:scia7 a;:5lt6 u4
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
So they were drunk, traveling at high speed, not wearing seatbelts and hit the back of the 15 year old trailer that met Federal standards at the time. I have no clue what the jury.could have been thinking
I agree with that, but at the same time, I’ve seen numerous complaints that the standards for that rear guard have always been woefully inadequate. They are basically just decorative and this might be a way to force a change.
But Dan, the industry didn’t write the standards…DOT did.
Also note that the Wabash spokesperson pointed out that the drunk driver hit the stationary trailer at 55mph…no rear guard would have prevented death or injury under those circumstances.
So, two individuals who were intoxicated and wearing no seat belts hit a stationary object at 55 mph and the stationary object manufacturer is liable? Our legal system is whacked. Too many “ambulance chasing lawyers” (note the number of billboards along our highways) get these verdicts, that 90% of the time are tossed or revised downward on appeal.
Drunk, Speeding, No Seatbelts. All information the jury was not allowed to hear. This is why suits are brought in jurisdictions with suspect legal credentials. Look for a plethora of appeals coming to a court soon. In mean time company may decide to pay off a negotiated settlement and save the expenses.
Perfect example of why our legal system needs a makeover. The driver and passenger should have received nothing or perhaps they should have been sued for ramming the stopped truck while drunk. I hope the appeals turn this case over and they get nothing.
Whomever may have written those standards, I’m certain they were not written by DOT. Published and made law by DOT, absolutely. But those standards were written by the trailer manufacturing industry, and through effective lobbying became the DOT standards.
St. Louis is a notorious judicial hellhole. A swamp for the defense; a white sandy beach for the plaintiff bar. Years ago I investigated a similar claim in southern Indiana. Drunks in a VW hit the back end of a parked trailer. Not only the car was decapitated…. But that claim went nowhere in Indiana.
As for a makeover, keep in mind its your neighbors on the juries who keep making these awards. No, they didn’t hear the entire story, but they set the number. It’s commonly called nuclear verdicts, or social inflation, or my favorite, the Kardashian Effect. People today have no sense of what $1M is, and they see themselves as plaintiffs someday and hope a jury will give them similar consideration.
Absolute BS. There’s a special place in hell for trial lawyers.
No, they’ll be right whereever the rest of us are…Trial Lawyers are doing their jobs for their clients. Right now they’re doing it better than defense lawyers, with better cooperation among them and probably better stories to tell. Should this jury have known about the drunk driving and speeding? Maybe. But that wasn’t the legal issue. The legal issue was whether the rear bumper bar was designed and constructed in an appropriate fashion. 15 years ago, it might have been. but people who become jurors don’t think about 15 years ago. The judge should have done a better job. And perhaps an appellate court will correct the errors. But jurors think about themselves, their families, and their neighbors. Would they want one of their family or friends to die because a manufacturer saved $100 on each bumper, knowing it wasn’t enough and a better design was available. That sort of cost benefit calculation is well known to send jurors into a frenzy. The actual damages here are about $6million each, or $12M. Punitives of $450M. That’s almost 40 times non-punitive, and is unlikely to survive appelate review. The US Supreme Court limits, in most cases, punitives to single digits. So could still be a little over $100M. But not likely the current verdict. Plaintiff lawyers know it, the trial court knows it. This seems to be a verdict, not a judgment. A motion for remittitur will be filed, and this will likely resolve for a more reasonable sum in the $50M range.
$456 for 2 drunk drivers??? Lottery jury giving away other people’s money. It will get greatly reduced on appeal.
And, if a jury is that “inflamed” that it could award those punitives, then the entire verdict should be vacated. The judge should have done that during post-trial motions.
Wow.