Bastrop Jury Finds Negligence in Rear-End Crash, Awards $5,000

On November 3, 2015, a multi-vehicle collision occurred on Highway 21 in Bastrop. A police officer, who had been stopped in the right lane, moved into the left lane and stopped, intending to make a U-turn. A preceding motorist and the plaintiff stopped their vehicles to avoid the police car. The defendant, driving a sport utility vehicle, then struck the plaintiff's car from behind, propelling it into the rear of the preceding motorist's pickup truck. The plaintiff subsequently sued the defendant, alleging negligence in the operation of his vehicle and claiming he was using a cellular telephone at the time of the incident.

The plaintiff claimed to suffer herniated intervertebral discs at L4-5 and L5-S1, potentially an aggravation of a pre-existing condition, and a torn supraspinatus tendon in her right shoulder. She underwent chiropractic care, an epidural injection, and physical therapy, claiming residual pain and limitations, and requiring future spinal fusion and arthroscopic shoulder surgery. The plaintiff sought significant damages for past and future medical expenses, future loss of earnings, and pain and impairment.

The defendant denied negligence and asserted a sudden-emergency defense, arguing that the police officer’s unexpected entry into the left lane caused the accident. Defense counsel also noted the pickup truck driver's testimony that the officer caused the collision. The defendant claimed a vehicle obscured his view of stopping traffic and denied using a cell phone, attributing data transfer to a background application. The defense challenged the plaintiff's injury claims, suggesting some were attorney-driven, questioning the timing of right shoulder complaints, noting a prior lumbar injury, and highlighting gaps in her treatment. The defense also questioned the plaintiff's credibility regarding prior lawsuits.

The jury found the defendant liable for the accident but awarded the plaintiff $5,000 in damages, specifically for past medical expenses. The court later denied the plaintiff's counsel's motion for a new trial, and the plaintiff's counsel filed a notice of appeal. The outcome suggested that while the jury found the defendant at fault for the collision, they awarded significantly less than sought, indicating skepticism regarding the extent of the plaintiff's claimed injuries or their direct causation by this incident.