Perkins, et al. v. Wabash National Corp., et al.
Case Background
In 2020, the families of decedents Taron Tailor and Nicholas Perkins filed a product liability lawsuit against Wabash National Corporation. The complaint alleged that the defective Rear Impact Guards (RIG) installed on their trailer had led to the wrongful death of the two men in 2019. The Plaintiffs filed the case in Missouri’s 22nd Circuit Court in the City of St. Louis. Judge Christopher McGraugh presided over the trial. [Case number: 2022-CC00495]
Cause
On Sunday, May 19, 2019, around 2:30 p.m., Taron Tailor, 30, was driving a Volkswagen sedan on a Missouri interstate. Nicholas Perkins, 23, occupied the passenger seat. Both men died instantly when their car collided with a trailer that had stopped for traffic on Interstate 44 and 55 near the 7th Street exit.
Wabash National Corporation manufactured and sold the trailer in question in 2004. The design of the Rear Impact Guard (RIG) on that trailer is called the “U.S. RIG,” which features two vertical bars and a single horizontal bar at the bottom. Designers introduced that design in 1985, and it remained largely unchanged until 2007. Wabash did not perform a single test on the U.S. RIG of any kind from 1985 to 1996.
Upon impact, the defective RIG snapped like a toothpick, and the vehicle went underneath the trailer. The bed of the trailer crushed into the passenger compartment decapitating both young men in the process.
Damages
Perkins left behind a 2-year-old daughter, while Tailor’s wife was pregnant at the time of his death. Their families filed a lawsuit seeking damages for the wrongful deaths of both men. They pursued compensatory and punitive damages against the Defendants, Wabash National Corporation and GDS Express and Tailor, a trucking firm
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
- Plaintiff(s): Estate of Taron Tailor and Nicholas Perkins which included – L.P., a minor, by and through her natural mother and next friend, Eileen Williams | Elizabeth Perkins, individually and as the natural mother of Nicholas Perkins | Summer Tailor, individually and as next friend of her natural son, D.T., a minor
- Counsel for Plaintiff(s): John M. Simon | Johnny G. Simon | Lisa Tsacoumangos | Brian Winebright
- Defendant(s): Wabash National Corporation
- Counsel for Defendant(s): Brian Johnson | Christopher Baucom
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
The Simon Law firm, representing the Plaintiffs, emphasized that the trailer and trucking industries lobbied against federal regulations. These regulations mandated the design of RIGs to prevent underride at survivable speeds.
Simon Law presented evidence showing that, when the 1998 minimum standard for RIGs took effect, Wabash and major trailer manufacturers formed a joint defense agreement. They strategized on defending against inevitable underride crashes instead of addressing the issue.
The Plaintiffs’ attorneys highlighted that a Canadian rear-impact guard, released two years after the one in question, was internally graded as an “F” but was sold on 90% to 95% of trailers today. “Wabash is aware the Canadian RIG fails to prevent passenger compartment intrusion in certain rear-end collisions, which is why Wabash implemented” another rear-impact guard in 2016, the lawyers stated.
The Plaintiffs’ lead attorney John Simon noted, “What they needed to make it safe, they could’ve done it decades ago. The trailer in our case was consciously designed to prevent underrides on 30 miles per hour impacts. Every one of these trailers is on the highway. The minimum is forty miles per hour.”
Furthermore, he added, “We even had the figures to make a rig that would actually be safe and prevented this accident. According to these records, it costs $313 per trailer.”
In closing arguments, attorney Johnny Simon told jurors that Wabash had failed to build safer RIGs for 30 years, which would have only cost the company about $15 million a year.
Wabash’s attorneys from Dickinson Wright repeatedly argued that an adverse verdict would deem every rig designed to meet federal safety standards as unreasonably dangerous, a position they claimed was untenable if federal safety standards were to hold any relevance.
Claims
The Plaintiffs claimed that Wabash was liable for installing the defective RIGs in their trailer.
At trial, the Plaintiffs argued that Wabash National ignored decades of research about its rear impact guards. They claimed these guards failed as effective safety devices to prevent underride crashes. Based on 2024 data, the Plaintiffs’ legal team estimated at least 14,350 known fatalities involving rear underride crashes a number that excludes deaths caused by side underride and which experts say is likely much higher.
Defense
The defense stressed that the crash, which defense experts claimed occurred at 55 miles per hour, would have caused fatalities. They argued that even the latest four-post rear impact guards would not have prevented death.
The defense team blamed the driver, stating that he “drove into the back of a trailer in broad daylight” on a clear, sunny day. They emphasized that the human body cannot survive a deceleration from 55 miles per hour to zero. This deceleration occurs “in the same amount of time it takes you to blink your eyes.”
Jury Verdict
On September 5, 2024, a St. Louis City jury issued a $462 million verdict against Wabash National Corporation. The jury found the trailer manufacturer responsible for the deaths of two young fathers caused by the defective RIG. They died when their car slid underneath the rear of a trailer.
The jury awarded $6 million to each family, totaling $12 million in compensatory damages. Additionally, they imposed $450 million in punitive damages against Wabash National Corporation. After a two-week trial, the jurors deliberated for about three hours.
They found Wabash 65 percent responsible while the estate of the deceased driver Taron Tailor held 35 percent of the responsibility.
Statement Released by Wabash after the Trial:
“Wabash (NYSE: WNC) today announced it is evaluating all available legal options in response to the verdict by a St. Louis jury in Williams et al. v. Wabash. The case concerns a 2019 motor vehicle accident in which a passenger vehicle traveling at a high speed struck the back of a nearly stopped 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.”
The accident occurred nearly two decades after the trailer involved was manufactured by Wabash in compliance with all existing regulatory standards.
Additionally, despite precedent to the contrary, the jury was prevented from hearing critical evidence in the case, including that the driver’s blood alcohol level was over the legal limit at the time of the accident. The fact that neither the driver nor his passenger was wearing a seatbelt was also kept from the jury, even though plaintiffs argued both would have survived a 55-mile-per-hour collision had the vehicle 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.”
Court Documents:
Available upon request
Leave A Comment