Nuclear Verdicts®
Eye-popping verdicts stole the show in the “Show-Me-Your- Lawsuit” state in 2024, but this is indicative of a decades-long problem. In 2016, Bloomberg noted that “St. Louis has developed a reputation for ‘fast trials, favorable rulings, and big awards’ drawing product liability lawsuits of out-of-state plaintiffs to Missouri.” Rather than address the issue, it has festered and bogged down St. Louis’s economy and job growth.
According to a recent report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Missouri ranked in the top-10 for the most nuclear verdicts® in personal injury and wrongful death cases from 2013-2022 with St. Louis accounting for a large percentage of these awards. More than one-third of these verdicts were in product liability cases and almost half of the verdicts included punitive damages.
An additional factor contributing to these massive verdicts is “anchoring.” Missouri law permits plaintiffs’ lawyers to urge juries to return a specific amount to compensate a person for his or her pain and suffering and other subjective noneconomic damages. Lawyers will suggest an unreasonably large award, making that number an “anchor” point in jurors’ minds. They can even tell jurors how much famous singers, actors, and professional athletes make to establish an anchor. As a result, jurors can be manipulated into awarding levels that are far beyond amounts they would otherwise reach and that truly serve a compensatory purpose.
Big-Rig Collision Results in Big Verdict
In September 2024, a St. Louis jury handed down a $462 million verdict against Wabash National Corp. following a fatal highway collision. The staggering damage award included $450 million in punitive damages, an amount the plaintiffs’ lawyer urged the jury to award as representing the amount Wabash allegedly saved by manufacturing trailers with faulty guards for over three decades.
The plaintiffs’ car rear-ended a big rig that was stopped in traffic and slid underneath its trailer. The plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that the car was able slide underneath the tractor trailer because of a defective Rear Impact Guard (RIG). However, the RIG was in compliance with federal regulatory standards at the time it was built.
The court prevented the jury from hearing crucial evidence including the fact that neither the driver nor passenger was wearing a seatbelt at the time of the crash. Missouri law recognizes the so-called “seatbelt gag-rule,” which precludes a jury from hearing such evidence. The unfairness of this law was on full display when the court allowed the plaintiffs’ lawyer to argue that the plaintiffs would have survived a crash at the same speed had the truck’s rear impact guard worked properly; however, the defendants could not rebut this by pointing to the fact the occupants were not wearing seatbelts.
The court also prevented the jury also from learning that the driver’s blood alcohol level was over the legal limit at the time of the accident. The accident occurred in mid-afternoon on a clear and sunny day, so driver impairment could have played a role in causing the crash.
Baby Formula
Plaintiffs’ lawyers have launched a dangerous assault on life-sustaining baby formula as they search for the next litigation jackpot. These lawsuits concern specialized preterm products prescribed by NICU doctors, and not the formula available for purchase in retail stores. St. Louis courts are playing a central role in this litigation, which is examined in more detail in a Closer Look section.
In July 2024, a nonunanimous St. Louis jury handed down a nearly $500 million verdict against Abbott Laboratories. The award, reached after only a few hours of deliberation following a three-week trial, included $400 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff’s lawyer claimed that prescribed, fortified infant formula increases the risk of a life-threatening intestinal disease in preemies called necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), pinning the blame for a tragic situation on the formula manufacturer.
This litigation relies upon junk science that flies in the face of established medical science and regulatory guidance. The American Academy of Pediatrics stated unequivocally in a response to these lawsuits: “Courtrooms are not the best place to determine clinical recommendations for the care of infants.” The organization emphasized that special formulas for preterm infants are an essential source of nutrition, prescribed by doctors in neonatal intensive care units. Further, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which oversees baby formula regulation, does not require warnings about NEC risk because the science simply doesn’t support such claims, and several other public health organizations have cautioned about the detrimental effects the litigation will have on the health of premature babies.
St. Louis Jury Restores Some Sanity Even After Judge Tilts the Playing Field
A second trial against St. Louis Children’s Hospital, Abbott Laboratories and Mead Johnson Nutrition Company began in early October. A premature infant developed NEC after consuming cow’s milk-based baby formulas manufactured by the defendant. In this instance, the plaintiff argued that the manufacturers promoted the formula to hospitals while withholding information about the risks of NEC from the public and medical providers.
In the midst of trial, the judge, who also oversaw the case above, ruled that the manufacturers could not inform the jury that the National Institute of Health (NIH), FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) jointly issued a statement in October 2024 recognizing that formula is “part of the standard of care” for preterm infants when milk is not available or insufficient, and that there is “no conclusive evidence that preterm infant formula causes NEC.” Nor would the court permit them to introduce a recent NIH report, authored by a working group of doctors and researchers, finding a lack of scientific evidence supporting such claims. The judge took the extreme step of sanctioning a key member of the defendants’ legal team, precluding him from fully participating in the final week of trial. At closing arguments, the plaintiff’s lawyer asked the jurors to award $6 billion in punitive damages, on top of $276.9 million in compensatory damages, telling the jury that “the industry is watching.”
Despite the judge’s concerning decisions that tilted the playing field in favor of the plaintiff, the jury ultimately rejected the junk science and ruled in favor of the defendants.
Judges in St. Louis issue plaintiff-friendly rulings and embrace junk science, signaling to plaintiffs’ lawyers across the country, and now the globe, that St. Louis courts are open for their business.
St. Louis is one of the most popular jurisdictions in the county to file asbestos lawsuits. In 2023, St. Louis placed sixth in the nation for the number of asbestos lawsuits filed, 168. That level was a 
A recent report published by the American Tort Reform Association called out the Missouri Legislature for the role it has played in making the state, and St. Louis in particular, a “
The reforms that stalled included a bill that would have reduced Missouri’s statute of limitations for personal injury lawsuits, which is among the longest in the nation, to be consistent with other states. Another bill would have made state rules governing class actions mirror the federal rules, creating a more predictable and uniform legal environment in the state. A third bill that did not advance would have allowed juries to 
