John G. Simon is an adjunct professor of law at St. Louis University School of Law and a frequent webinar presenter for Trial Guides. The firm’s three recent trial outcomes are case studies of the strategies covered in his lectures and webinars.
Trial Guides is honored to feature the work of some of the greatest legal minds of our generation. Among them is John G. Simon; in addition to securing membership in the Inner Circle of Advocates, and teaching classes at St Louis University School of Law, Simon is a popular webinar presenter with Trial Guides. His catalog of on-demand CLEs includes several well-known titles:
Building a Winning Closing Argument
Selecting and Presenting a Bulletproof Expert Witness
The Art and Science of Jury Selection
Deposition Tips and Strategies: Building a Winning Case
With his team at The Simon Law Firm, he has secured three 9-figure cases in 2023 and 2024, with total damages of $1.74 billion. As part of our growing collection of products focused on securing punitive damages, we offer the following case highlights and product recommendations based on customer feedback on similar cases.
Punitive Damages: The Lawyer’s Tool for Shaping Society
Case #1: Product Liability Case Involving the Truck Rear Impact Guard Design
Verdict: $462 million
Location: St. Louis, MO
Defendant: Wabash National
A Missouri state court jury recently rendered a $462 million verdict in a product liability lawsuit involving the faulty design of a tractor trailer’s Rear Impact Guard, or RIG. The jury awarded $12 million in compensatory damages to the families of the two decedents, and $450 million in punitive damages against the designer of the RIG, Wabash National Corporation. Simon Law attorneys John G. Simon and Johnny M. Simon tried the case with co-counsel Brian Winebright of Cantor Injury Law and Lisa Tsacoumangos of Brown & Crouppen.
The accident occurred when the sedan, driven by one of the two decedents, crashed into the back of the RIG (Rear Impact Guard) at 45 miles per hour, according to the plaintiff attorneys’ expert witnesses. Upon impact, the trailer’s RIG broke off and allowed the car to underride the trailer, decapitating both occupants. Jurors heard testimony that a RIG with four protective posts, instead of an older design using just two posts, would have prevented the fatal underride event.
The defense blamed the driver, whom they maintained had driven “into the back of a trailer in broad daylight” on a clear day. They underscored that no human could survive the deceleration impact from 55 to 0 miles per hour occurring within the span of a millisecond. They also contested the speed of the crash and argued that the RIG design met federal standards.
Plaintiffs maintained that Wabash never performed effective crash testing on their two-post guard model, even though it had been in use for nearly three decades. Plaintiffs also argued that the minimum federal standards were made knowingly weak by corporate lobbying. Plaintiffs argued alternative designs have existed for decades to prevent underride at survivable speeds, but were not adopted for cost reasons. Finally, it was established that the 25-year-old federal safety standards for RIGs simply do not go far enough to protect drivers on modern roads, as they only protect some vehicles in some angled impacts at only 30 mph.
Simon Law presented how the federal standard for RIGs was developed, including evidence that the industry lobbied against stronger regulations. That resulted in a watered-down version of whatever got passed, resulting in an ineffective and meaningless minimum federal standard that Wabash—and the entire industry—knew did not prevent underride in a wide variety of foreseeable and survivable crashes.
The $462 million verdict has potentially significant and industry-wide implications for trucking part manufacturers. In a statement, John G. Simon, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, called this verdict proof that “reckless disregard for human life won’t be tolerated in our community.”
The Art and Science of Jury Selection
What is the jury pool thinking? How do you know? John G. Simon’s popular on-demand CLE, The Art and Science of Jury Selection, reveals his proven strategies for effective jury selection. You’ll learn how to make your case before the trial begins—and how to use your voir dire time effectively. Discover how to develop trust, frame your issues before the case begins, and successfully—and tactfully—remove jurors for cause.
Case #2: Rape Case Involving Gross Negligence at a Psychiatric Care Facility
Verdict: $535 million
Location: Champaign County, IL
Defendant: The Pavilion Behavioral Health System
A Champaign County jury recently returned a $535 million verdict against The Pavilion Behavioral Health System, a psychiatric facility that was found negligent in the 2020 rape of a 13-year-old patient by another patient. Jurors sided in favor of the plaintiff, the victim’s mother, in a seven-day trial involving testimony from 19 different witnesses. Simon Law attorneys John G. Simon, Tim Cronin, and Nathan Perlmutter represented the victim. Cronin was lead counsel during the eight-day trial.
Attorneys for the plaintiff argued that The Pavilion had failed to safely house the children in the unit, failed to provide adequate staffing, and failed to watch the security cameras that had been installed. The selected jury had to agree at least one of those accusations was true to be able to rule in favor of the plaintiff: that the treatment center had failed to adequately provide for its clients, and thus negligence was the proximate cause of the sexual assault.
Evidence presented at trial showed that the victim was admitted on November 30, 2020. A 16-year-old boy was admitted on December 4 of that year. He was placed in the room next to the victim. On the night of December 5, surveillance cameras captured the 16-year-old and another patient rubbing toothpaste onto the lenses of three different cameras, partially obscuring employees’ surveillance of the halls.
Two employees had noticed something obscuring the cameras that night, but the instruments were not investigated until the following morning. Administrators had previously discussed—and rejected—instituting a policy that would require cameras to be monitored in real time.
Expert witnesses called by the plaintiff team were critical of the facility’s choice to allow young male and female patients, aged 3 to 17, to all be housed on the same floor. They also expressed concern at the choice to house a 16-year-old boy in a room next to a 13-year-old girl. In closing arguments, attorneys for the plaintiff underscored how former employees had testified that their facility had been understaffed and difficult to monitor.
Much of the trial outcome came down to the parties’ differing views on the meaning of “continuous monitoring,” and Simon’s team called several expert witnesses to testify about this element of the case. Attorneys for the plaintiff argued that company policies mandate “continuous monitoring of halls,” and that this standard was clearly not held on the night of the attack. Attorneys for the defense argued that staff “essentially” provided continuous monitoring through their every-15-minute rounds.
In closing remarks, an attorney for the plaintiff argued that the defendant’s inadequate staffing policies were motivated by greed, and encouraged the jury to send a message with their verdict.
The jury arrived at a sum of $60 million in compensatory damages: $20 million for “loss of normal life” and $40 million for the victim’s pain and suffering. The jury further awarded $475 million in punitive damages.
Selecting and Presenting a Bulletproof Expert Witness
Cases like this hinge on the testimony of competent expert witnesses who bring credibility to the plaintiff’s story. Vetting, preparing, and presenting expert witnesses is a skill unto itself. In Selecting and Presenting a Bulletproof Expert Witness, John G. Simon explores the process of selecting and presenting expert witnesses who may tip the scale in your favor.
Case #3: Nitrous Oxide Distributor Held Liable For Conspiring to Market and Distribute Inhalant Drugs
Verdict: $745 million
Location: St. Louis, MO
Defendant: United Brands Products Design Development and Marketing, Inc (“United Brands”) and Coughing Cardinal, LLC.
On September 8, 2024, The Simon Law Firm received a $745 million verdict in a case against a nitrous oxide distributor and a local head shop. The defendants were found guilty of conspiring to sell nitrous oxide as an inhalant, which led to a fatal motor vehicle crash. The jury determined that both defendants had deliberately disregarded public safety by selling nitrous oxide as an inhalant.
Excerpts from their September 10th press release:
For decades, United Brands has marketed and sold nitrous oxide (a food propellant) to places like Coughing Cardinal (a head shop selling drug paraphernalia) that simply have no business selling this addictive drug in quantities that shock the conscience while claiming they have no idea that people are going to head shops to buy this product as an inhalant. United Brands has done so without consequence, until now.
On Sunday, October 18, 2020, Trenton Geiger was involved with “huffing” fumes from Whip-It! nitrous oxide dispensers. [Marissa] Politte was on her way home from work when Geiger drove through oncoming traffic, across a grassy area, through a parking lot, and into a light pole and tree, then hit Politte outside her workplace just 15 minutes after closing. After the fatal accident, Geiger was charged with three felonies and a misdemeanor.
United Brands Products Design Development and Marketing, Inc. and Coughing Cardinal, LLC, were found guilty by a St. Louis County jury for their role in distributing nitrous oxide as an inhalant, ultimately causing the accident that led to the tragic death of Marissa Politte. The jury sent a message loud and clear to United Brands and the entire nitrous oxide distribution industry: Stop targeting children and young adults. Stop selling this product to smoke and head shops.
The jury’s decision underscored the legal ramifications of knowingly distributing substances for purposes outside their intended use. By finding the defendants guilty of conspiracy and deliberate disregard for public safety, the verdict emphasizes the legal obligation of businesses to ensure the safety of their products and prevent their misuse. This case serves as a stark reminder of the legal consequences that corporations face when their actions result in harm to consumers.
The $745 million verdict delivered by the jury holds United Brands and Coughing Cardinal accountable for their actions and provides compensation to the Politte family for their devastating loss. This verdict sends a clear message to the nitrous oxide distribution industry to stop targeting children and young adults.
Building a Winning Closing Argument
As the jury leaves to deliberate, what words are ringing in their ears? Studies show that a strong closing argument can clinch a case, even when you've encountered strong arguments on the other side. Building a Winning Closing Argument, Simon's timeless on-demand CLE, discusses practical examples for making your case in its final minutes. Discover how a powerful closing statement can not only simplify your story, but pull power from the defense.