Fatal Rear-End Truck Collision Settles for $300,000
One driver lost control of their vehicle on a wet road and hydroplaned. The vehicle was then struck from behind by a large oil truck. The case involved a wrongful death claim.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
About Wrongful Death Injuries
Wrongful death claims arise when a car accident fatality is caused by another party's negligence. These cases compensate surviving family members for their losses and the decedent's pain and suffering.
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Settlement
- Amount
- $300,000
- County
- Dallas County, AZ
- Resolved
- 2023
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Wrongful Death
- Accident Type
- Truck/Commercial
- Case Type
- Wrongful Death
Settlement Context
This settlement of $300,000 is below the median of $1,850,000 for wrongful death cases resolved by settlement. The typical range is $504,000 to $3,020,000, based on 41 cases in our database.
Case Overview
A lawsuit was filed following a fatal incident in which an individual reportedly lost control of a vehicle, hydroplaned, and was struck from behind by an oil truck. The plaintiff alleged the roadway was unsafe and dangerous, contributing to the collision.
During the proceedings, the plaintiff presented expert testimony from a specialist in traffic engineering and heavy vehicle accident reconstruction, which addressed the roadway conditions and the dynamics of the incident. The defendant, involved in the collision, presented expert testimony concerning tires and automotive factors.
The case concluded in June 1987, when the parties reached a settlement. The plaintiff received an award of $300,000.
Understanding This Case
- This case was resolved through a settlement, avoiding the uncertainty and expense of a trial. Settlements typically resolve faster and provide guaranteed compensation.
- This case was resolved in Dallas County, Arizona. Local jury tendencies, judge assignments, and regional economic conditions all influence case outcomes in this jurisdiction.
- Resolved in 2023, this case reflects the legal and economic conditions of that period, including medical costs, insurance practices, and jury award trends at the time.
VerdictlyTM Score
This outcome significantly deviates from similar cases
This score is calculated by analyzing injury type, accident details, geographic location, temporal trends, and comparing against 2,000+ similar cases in our database.
Want to understand your case value?
Get a free case evaluation to understand what your motor vehicle accident case might be worth based on cases like this in Dallas County.
Similar cases you may find useful
Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.
A plaintiff with a classic automobile insurance policy filed a claim after three vehicles went missing or were stolen from a storage location in Denver, Colorado. The policy required storage in a specific secure building, but the plaintiff had moved the vehicles during renovations. Two vehicles were later recovered severely damaged, while a third remained unlocated. The insurer made a partial payment for one vehicle but denied full coverage, attributing some damage to wear and tear and denying the unrecovered vehicle's claim. The plaintiff sued the insurer in federal court, alleging breach of contract, unreasonable delay and denial of payment under Colorado statutes, and common-law bad faith. The insurer counterclaimed, seeking a declaratory judgment, alleging breach of the policy's misrepresentation and concealment provisions, and requesting recoupment of payments. These counterclaims were permitted to proceed following a magistrate judge's recommendation, which a district judge adopted. The plaintiff later amended the complaint to add the insurance producer as a defendant, alleging negligence if insurer coverage was denied. In July 2023, the plaintiff and the insurer filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice for all claims between them, indicating a settlement had been reached. The specific terms of this settlement were not publicly disclosed. Each party agreed to bear its own costs and attorney fees.
A vehicle collision occurred in May 2008 on Stony Brook when a teenager, pulling from a private drive, struck a childcare worker's vehicle. The childcare worker sustained soft-tissue neck pain and was transported to the emergency room. Liability for the collision was later established by summary judgment. The injured worker subsequently filed a lawsuit in Louisville, seeking damages for medical bills, lost wages, impairment, and pain and suffering. The plaintiff's case was complicated by involvement in a second crash a month later, though injuries were distinguished. The defendant disputed the claimed injuries, citing credibility, lack of objective proof, and a "threshold" defense. The jury found the plaintiff met the medical expense threshold but did not sustain a permanent injury. Ultimately, the jury awarded the plaintiff $8,184 for medical expenses but $0 for lost wages, impairment, and pain and suffering, resulting in a total verdict of $8,184. A judgment consistent with this verdict was entered. The plaintiff later moved for a new trial, arguing the verdict was inadequate. The defendant countered, citing credibility issues. The motion was pending as of June 2016.
A plaintiff alleged bilateral rotator cuff injuries resulted from paramedics' forceful removal of the plaintiff from a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants, presumably alleging negligence in the plaintiff's care. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in September 2006, concluding the case in favor of the defense.
On March 31, 2015, a head-on collision occurred on Dixie Highway near Pages Lane, Kentucky, when an at-fault driver ran a red light. The plaintiff, not wearing a seat belt, sustained soft-tissue injuries and sought emergency care the next day; her minor daughter also sustained a laceration. The plaintiff first settled with the at-fault driver for $25,000. The plaintiff then filed an underinsured motorist (UIM) claim against her insurer, seeking medical expenses and pain and suffering for chronic neck and back pain. The insurer disputed the injury extent, asserting they were minor and degenerative. The insurer also argued the plaintiff's non-use of a seat belt contributed to her damages. Expert medical testimony addressed the severity and origin of the plaintiff's reported symptoms. The at-fault driver's liability was not contested at the UIM trial. A Kentucky jury found the at-fault driver 90% at fault and the plaintiff 10% at fault for not wearing a seat belt. The jury awarded $17,985 for medical expenses and $133,750 for pain and suffering, totaling $151,735. During deliberations, the jury questioned the court about agreeing on a damage number. A final judgment was anticipated to reflect deductions for comparative fault and prior payments.
A two-vehicle collision occurred on October 13, 2017, in Mayfield, Kentucky, at the intersection of Ky. 131 and Ky. 58. A 16-year-old permit driver, accompanied by a passenger, was making a left turn from Ky. 131 onto Ky. 58 when her vehicle collided with a vehicle operated by an intoxicated driver traveling on Ky. 58. Surveillance video showed the permit driver rolled through the stop sign and flashing red light before turning into the path of the oncoming vehicle. The intoxicated driver's blood alcohol content was later measured at .219. Both the permit driver and the passenger sustained severe injuries and required extensive medical treatment, with combined medical bills totaling over $900,000. After settling with the intoxicated driver and receiving underinsured motorist coverage, the injured parties, as plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit against Arrowhead Camper Sales. The business was located adjacent to the intersection, and the plaintiffs alleged it contributed to the crash by parking campers and trailers too close to the right-of-way, obscuring the permit driver's view of oncoming traffic. They claimed both a statutory violation under KRS 177.106 and general negligence. The plaintiffs presented an accident reconstruction expert and local witnesses who described long-standing visual challenges at the intersection due to the parked campers. The defendant, Arrowhead Camper Sales, denied its campers obstructed drivers' views, asserting that its owner had navigated the intersection thousands of times without issue. The defense's accident reconstruction expert testified that drivers had an unobstructed view of over 1,000 feet just beyond the stop sign. The defense maintained the crash resulted from the combined negligence of both drivers involved in the collision. The case proceeded to an 11-day trial in Mayfield. After an hour of deliberation, the jury returned a unanimous verdict on liability in favor of Arrowhead Camper Sales. The jury's finding for the defendant meant they did not reach questions regarding the duties of the drivers or the extent of damages. A defense judgment was subsequently entered.
Explore More Cases Like This
Browse similar cases by injury type and location to get a better understanding of case values in your area.