I was a federal prosecutor for 27 years and a defense attorney for five. Tired of the law, I obtained my commercial driver’s license and ended up owning and operating seven trucks.
I take exception with the recent “Blame the ambulance chasers” opinion that singles out attorneys for responsibility for the nuclear verdict against C.H. Robinson. While these attorneys initiated the civil case(s), it is the judges and juries that are to blame for the verdicts.
Common sense, and the inability to separate emotion from fact, are the pillars supporting these verdicts.
Facts may not have feelings, but jurors do. Accordingly, juries decide on emotions as well as facts. The facts, from what’s been reported about the case, are that C.H. Robinson had used this carrier for 270 previous loads without incident, and the carrier had a Satisfactory rating from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The driver was not an actual employee of C.H. Robinson, nor was the driver under the direction of C.H. Robinson. The driver was feeling ill and stopped.
According to C.H. Robinson, they worked with the carrier to delay the delivery. Unfortunately, the driver continued on his way to the delivery when the accident occurred. The driver was killed in the accident, so there is no way to know why he continued to drive.
[Related: C.H. Robinson goes into damage control after $604M verdict]
If we were to stop ten people on the street and ask them if C.H. Robinson was in the wrong, at least nine, if not all, would tell us C.H. Robinson did nothing to contribute to the accident. Yet common sense does little when you see the pictures of the accident, the carnage, and you know several people died.
When there are deaths involved in a motor vehicle accident, it is hard on a personal basis not to compensate the grieving family members regardless of who is at fault.
This is especially true when there are “deep pockets” involved. C.H. Robinson was the “deep pocket” in this case — no doubt the reason the plaintiff’s attorney sued them.
[Related: Blame the ambulance chasing attorney for C.H. Robinson’s $604M verdict]
And where was the judge in this case? In many, judges are reluctant to dismiss counts or entire cases because they hope the jury will make the “right” decision. If not, the judge should, on post-conviction motions, but that does not always happen.
A perfect example is the recent-years nuclear verdict against Werner. In that case, a Werner driver was on a snowy highway driving within the speed limit for the conditions, when another vehicle slid across the median and struck the truck. Once again, several deaths were involved in the accident.
The plaintiff’s theory defied common sense, but the trial judge and appellate court refused to reverse the jury’s findings. The case went to the Texas Supreme Court, the highest court in the state, who invoked common sense to find Werner was not at fault.
As for C.H. Robinson, the trial judge should never have allowed the jury to find C.H. Robinson liable and, certainly, could have overturned the jury’s findings in a post-conviction motion to dismiss the case against C.H. Robinson.
Now it is up to C.H. Robinson to appeal the verdict and hope common sense reigns in the appellate courthouse.
In sum, I do not blame the “ambulance chasing” attorneys for bringing these cases. Attorneys, “ambulance chasing” or otherwise, will always test the boundaries of the law in search of profit, redemption, and recovery. That is what good attorneys do for the benefit of their clients.
It is the judges and juries that must stop these cases from going nuclear.
[Related: After the worst happens: Nuclear verdicts threat rolls downhill to small fleets, owner-ops]
