Truck Accident Lawyer Blog

A young Army officer traveling to his first duty station in Texas struck a tractor trailer that had stopped in the left lane of Interstate 30 near Texarkana in March, 2002. The twenty-three year old lieutenant died from his injuries. The drivers of the truck, a husband-wife team from the Waco, Texas area, had attempted to repair the brakes on their vehicle two hours before the collision by using electrical tape and a toothpick to stop a leak in a high-pressure hydraulic line. When the drivers notified the trucking company of this childish repair, instead of sending a tow truck, the company sent an email congratulating them on their resourcefulness. Of course, the “repair” quickly failed, leaving the tractor-trailer stranded in the left, high speed, lane.
The trucking company and drivers defended in court by blaming the young lieutenant. The defendants said he was at least 60% at fault (if he was more than 50% at fault, he could not recover anything). Further, the trucking company said this was an unusual situation that didn’t reflect its normally safety-oriented practices.

The jury did find that the lieutenant was negligent, but found that his negligence was only 10% of the cause of his injuries. The jury found the driver and the company equally responsible for the remaining 90%. The jury awarded his parents $1,000,000 each for intangible losses, including mental anguish and lost companionship. The jury awarded the soldier’s estate $7,000 in actual damages for burial costs and punitive damages of $15,000,000 against the company and $500,000 against the driver.

Before the verdict, the two sides had entered into a so-called "high-low agreement" to resolve the case. This agreement guaranteed that the soldier’s family would recover between $750,000 and $1,250,000. If the jury had come back with a verdict below $750,000, the family would still recover the minimum $750,000. If the jury awarded more than $1,250,000, the family could not recover the excess. A jury award in between would be recovered at the amount the jury set. The family therefore actually recovered $1.25 million, because of their contractual agreement with the defendants.

With a high-low agreement, victims are guaranteed a recovery, but the defendants are not exposed to high damages. Each side gains something and the jury still performs its function of determining how much the victim receives, particularly in the middle range. Since Texas law caps punitive damages at $400,000, most of Lt. Giuliano’s damages could never have been collected. A high low agreement spared both parties the costs and uncertainties of appealing on the issue of excessive verdict.