$37.5M Trucking Nuclear Verdict? Hits Texas – Hard!

Author: Susan Jorgensen

On April 10, 2024, a Dallas County trial court jury returned a Nuclear Verdict? of $37.5 million,[i] this case involved a gruesome and tragic accident between two commercial vehicles and resulted in the death of one driver. What might have driven jurors to award such a significant verdict??

Facts

On August 7, 2021, Shamser Singh, who was working as a commercial driver for AVS Trucking LLC, stopped his tractor-trailer partially on the shoulder and partially in the right lane of travel of interstate highway 635 in Dallas County Texas during rush hour.

That stretch of I-635 had a speed limit of 75 miles per hour. Mr. Collin Pederson, who was driving a Ford-155 for Oncor, the largest energy delivery company in Texas with more than 4,000 employees, testified he had checked in his side mirror to see if he could change lanes, but another vehicle was in the left lane, and by the time he attempted to move over, it was too late. His truck struck Mr. Singh’s. Unfortunately, Mr. Singh was standing between the truck and the concrete barrier at the edge of the highway, and was crushed. He survived approximately 18 minutes before dying on the side of the road.

Testimony established Mr. Singh’s truck had not been disabled, and that there was an exit approximately a mile up the road; it was speculated that the drain line for the refrigeration unit was likely clogged and that, since Mr. Singh was a skilled electrician and was hauling Texas beef, which required certain temperatures, he had stopped to attempt to fix the line. In addition to having exited the cab of the tractor-trailer and parking partially in a travel lane, Mr. Singh had failed to put out reflective triangles.

Mr. Pederson cooperated fully with police, and testified at trial. There was video of the crash, as well as pictures which should have aided the defense. Nevertheless, the verdict was a jaw-dropping $37.5 million for the plaintiffs.

This result can be attributed in part to the horrific manner in which Mr. Singh died, and also in part to the cleverness of plaintiff’s attorneys in adapting their strategy as the case unfolded. In addition, defense’s closing arguments may have enraged jurors, leading them to award the massive sum.

Adaptability of Plaintiffs’ Attorneys

Mr. Singh left behind one adult daughter, a wife, and a minor son and daughter. Initially, plaintiffs’ attorneys asked for lost wages. However, there was some dispute regarding plaintiffs’ life care planner’s report, which projected Mr. Singh would have been driving a truck professionally until the age of 80. Although not entirely clear, the filings also indicate that the parties disputed the admissibility of Mr. Singh’s pre-existing medical conditions, which seemed to indicate that there may have been a question as to whether or not he would have lived to 80. In what seems have been a clever strategic move, plaintiffs’ attorneys dropped the claim for lost wages.

In addition, Mr. Singh’s employer, AVS Trucking LLC, was originally a plaintiff in the case as well. However, in another brilliant strategic move on the part of plaintiffs attorneys, on the eve of trial, AVS dismissed its suit, and the case proceeded only with Mr. Singh’s family as plaintiffs. Pre-trial filings reveal there were disputes between the parties as to whether or not defendants would be able to get AVS’s safety record with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Closing arguments also made clear that defense counsel had been counting on getting in the safety record from AVS, had intended to discuss its failure to train and investigate the accident, and had counted on calling an AVS representative to the stand.

It may have been wise for Oncor to counter-sue at the inception of the case. At the very least defense attorneys, should have accepted the non-suit motion of ASV and re-strategized as to their approach before proceeding to trial. Instead, despite this development, Oncor’s attorney (one out of three defense attorneys) stuck to his original game plan; his closing sounded angry, bitter, and disjointed (having no basis in testimony).

The Fourth Revised Complaint was filed on April 1, 2024, the day before trial began. It contained tort theories of respondeat superior, negligence of Mr. Pederson, negligence of his employer Oncor, gross negligence, survival (including the pain and suffering of Mr. Singh in the last 18 minutes of his life), and wrongful death (including loss of consortium, past and future mental anguish, and other losses).

Failure to Curb Plaintiffs’ Improper Closing Argument.

In closing, plaintiffs’ counsel argued repeatedly and at length—which went unchecked—that the jury should teach Oncor a lesson for failing to take responsibility, and that by returning a large verdict the jury would be saving lives. Plaintiffs’ attorneys were allowed to utilize tactics commonly condemned in case law: community conscience arguments, golden rule arguments, inflaming the passions of the jury, appealing to emotions, stating facts not in evidence, misstating jury instructions, religious references, and attempting to ingratiate themselves to the jury through chummy familial references. There were no objections during the closing.

The closing is worth a read to understand the extent of the improprieties, but some brief examples of the extremely emotional and repetitive arguments are:

• “[T]his is your opportunity to make a change as a community. . . . This is the kind of case that . . . could change, depending on what you do, how business is done in Dallas. This is the kind of case that can tell a company, a huge Dallas company, ‘You’ve got to stop doing this.”[ii] [Error: unchecked community conscience and unchecked and inaccurate David-and-Goliath argument].
• “I told you my family’s been in Texas for six generations. This is engrained in us. Taking responsibility for what you do, coming before you and saying ‘You’re right. This is what I did.’ And to stand before you and accept the consequences, right? Have Oncor accept the consequences for what they did.”[iii] [Error: improper and unchecked familial references and community conscience argument].
• “What they do instead from the beginning – from the outset, they start a series, a pattern that we’ve seen before with defendants like this where they start thinking about ways that they can avoid responsibility.”[iv] [Error: unchecked and inaccurate David-and-Goliath argument].
• “They wouldn’t even mention Oncor’s name in introducing their clients to you. That’s all you need to know about taking and avoiding responsibility. They’re coming in here and blaming Mr. Singh.”[v] [Error: failure to acknowledge corporate identity and weak points of case from the outset, while humanizing corporation].
• “We told you we were going to do three things. This is the purpose of this lawsuit, is what we said. Find out what happened, hold Oncor accountable, stop future deaths.”[vi] [Error: improper and unchecked community conscience argument].
• “That’s the power that you have in this system. You have to hold Oncor accountable with your verdict. You have to stop future deaths.”[vii] [Error: unchecked, improper, and inaccurate community conscience argument].
• “This could be the one and only time in your life that you get to change the way that a company does business. That are you get to say no, this is not acceptable. That you get to set the standards for Dallas County. Oncor is in this trial, but they’re not the only ones watching it. And what you do here will speak for everybody that drives and shares your roads. You decide what is acceptable, what is not acceptable, what you’ll tolerate, and what the value most importantly is between the two most . . . important relationships in the world: The relationship between a father and his child and between spouse . . . between soulmates. These are the most important relationships in the world,” etc.[viii] [Error: unchecked rhetoric designed to inflame the jury’s passions and emotions, rather than focus on the law, and community conscience arguments].

Plaintiffs’ counsel went on at great length, making additional emotions-based and community conscience arguments, referring to the decedent as his widow’s soulmate, theorizing as to what the decedent’s last thoughts were and what he might have wanted to say in his last moments but could not, and urging the jury to send a message. Plaintiffs’ counsel also managed to frame the case as a David-and-Goliath match, despite the fact that both drivers involved worked for large companies. This argument was made more effective by the fact that plaintiffs chose one counsel to deliver closing argument in an unfettered and repetitive, emotional speech. In contrast, defendants divided their closing amongst three attorneys, who did not seem to have coordinated or agreed on their strategy, and the defense closing sounded disjointed.

Errors in Defendants’ Closing Arguments

Three defense attorneys split their closing argument time between them. The first and third to argue followed Tyson & Mendes’ number one rule of accepting responsibility, while pointing out that the surviving driver, Mr. Pederson, had fully cooperated with police and been forthright about the details in recounting the events to the police, as later evidenced by camera footage of the accident.

The second defense attorney, however, took the stand and violated multiple TM bedrock principles of closing argument. While he very briefly – almost flippantly – acknowledged fault, his tone was insincere, and he followed up with decedent-blaming that was angry and sarcastic in tone.

This was the equivalent of saying: “I’m sorry he died, but he had it coming.” In this way the defense attorney directly violated the TM principle:

Anything less than a heartfelt, honest apology will be hollow. It will not be effective and it will negatively impact your credibility with the jury. . . . An insincere apology is another piece of this predictable pattern of nuclear verdicts. Do not do it![ix]

Some examples are:

• “But if you decide that a person who creates his own hazards is not more responsible, then you will say that [Mr. Pederson] is a guarantor of Mr. Singh’s safety. That Mr. Singh is not responsible for his own safety, [Mr. Pederson] is. And surely, a person who puts himself in a hazard should bear most of that responsibility. . . . Mr. Singh created this hazard, but it’s the plaintiff’s position that he has no responsibility whatsoever. . . . They have never, ever accepted any responsibility.”[x] [Error: blaming the decedent/not taking responsibility and misstating the law].
• “I can almost guarantee you that if Collin Pederson had been in his private vehicle and not in the course and scope of his employment at Oncor, we wouldn’t be here. Because . . . this is about the money. That’s what this case is about. That’s the only reason we’re here. It’s about the money.”[xi] [Error: failing to acknowledge the family’s pain and dehumanizing the decedent].
• “Who is more responsible for the accident? The person who created the dangerous condition or the person who didn’t avoid the dangerous condition?”[xii] [Error: failing to acknowledge fault and blaming the decedent].
• “[T]he only way that you could rule for the plaintiff is to reward Mr. Singh for his own negligence.”[xiii] [Error: failing to acknowledge fault and blaming the decedent].
• “Mr. Singh created this hazard. [Mr. Pederson], you’re right, couldn’t avoid it, but he’s not more responsible.”[xiv] [Error: failing to acknowledge fault and blaming the decedent].
• “Mr. Singh made some flawed, faulty and fatal decisions that day that only he should be held accountable for, not [Mr. Pederson]. Him. I’m sad to say that, but it’s the truth. He made those decisions.”[xv] [Error: placing the blame on the decedent and making the original expression of sympathy seem insincere].?

Takeaways

What does this case study demonstrate?

• Accept responsibility and don’t waste breath with insincere apologies;
• Don’t sound angry at the decedent;
• Adapt to changes in plaintiff’s techniques, rather than blindly sticking to your old game plan;
• Anticipate improper plaintiffs’ tactics and make objections ahead of time and contemporaneously.

As a result of these combined errors, the jury responded with a whopping $37.5 million dollar verdict. Oncor has not commented on whether or not it will appeal.

Sources

[i] Baldish Kaur, et al. v. Oncor Electric Delivery Company et al., No. DC-21-12096 (Dist. Ct. Dallas Cnty. Tex. Sept. 3, 2021).

[ii] Transcript of Jury Trial, April 10, 2024, Baldish Kaur, et al. v. Oncor Electric Delivery Company et al., No. DC-21-12096 (Dist. Ct. Dallas Cnty. Tex. Sept. 3, 2021) (hereinafter “Closing Tr.”), 3:9-18.

[iii] Closing Tr., 7:3-9.

[iv] Closing Tr., 8:22-25, 9:1.

[v] Closing Tr. 15:8-12.

[vi] Closing Tr., 15:23-24.

[vii] Closing Tr., 16:1-3.

[viii] Closing Tr., 29:19-25, 30:1.

[ix] Tyson, Robert F., Jr., Nuclear Verdicts: Defending Justice For All (2020), pp. 92-95.

[x] Closing Tr., 92:13-18.

[xi] Closing Tr. 93:17-22.

[xii] Closing Tr., 91:2-5.

[xiii] Closing Tr., 93:23-25.

[xiv] Closing Tr., 94:13-15.

[xv] Closing Tr., 102:7-10.

View this article on the Tyson & Mendes website here: https://www.tysonmendes.com/37-5m-trucking-nuclear-verdict-hits-texas-hard/

Looking to receive our newsletter to your email? Sign up here: https://www.tysonmendes.com/sign-up-for-updates/

Learn more about Susan Jorgensen here: https://www.tysonmendes.com/attorneys/susan-jorgensen/