Verdictly
Verdict-Plaintiff
Nueces County • 2017

Corpus Christi Jury Awards $43.6 Million in Parking Lot Negligence

An elderly woman was struck by a truck in a store parking lot. She sustained multiple fractures and injuries, requiring extensive medical treatment and rehabilitation. The woman sued the store and the driver, alleging negligence. A jury found the store 75% at fault for negligence and gross negligence, awarding the woman $43.6 million.

Case Information Updated: October 2025

Back to cases
Catastrophic Injury
Pedestrian
Motor Vehicle Negligence

Case Outcome

Outcome
Verdict-Plaintiff
Amount
$43,600,000
County
Nueces County, TX
Resolved
2017

Injury & Accident Details

Injury Type
Catastrophic Injury
Accident Type
Pedestrian
Case Type
Motor Vehicle Negligence, Auto/Pedestrian collision

Settlement Context

This verdict-plaintiff of $43,600,000 is above the median of $11,275,666 for catastrophic injury cases resolved by verdict-plaintiff. The typical range is $3,260,000 to $15,400,000, based on 12 cases in our database.

Case Overview

An elderly woman was severely injured after being struck by a truck in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart in Corpus Christi, Texas, on January 27, 2014. The 78-year-old plaintiff sustained multiple fractures and a severe ankle injury, requiring extensive medical treatment and rehabilitation. She subsequently filed suit in the District Court of Nueces County against Wal-Mart Stores Texas LLC and the driver of the truck.

The plaintiff alleged the driver's negligence in failing to maintain a proper lookout, yield the right-of-way, control speed, and brake. Wal-Mart Stores Texas LLC was accused of gross negligence for lacking stop signs in congested parking lot areas. The plaintiff sought actual and punitive damages; both defendants denied negligence and disputed the damages claim.

During the five-day trial, a traffic engineer for the plaintiff testified that the lack of stop signs or markings created an unreasonable risk of injury to customers. Wal-Mart's traffic engineering expert countered that the area was not unreasonably dangerous, while its accident reconstruction expert opined that the incident's outcome might have still occurred even if the driver had come to a stop.

The jury deliberated for two hours before finding unanimously for the plaintiff. The jury assigned Wal-Mart 75% fault for negligence and comparative responsibility, with the remaining fault assigned to the plaintiff. Wal-Mart was also found grossly negligent. The jury awarded the plaintiff $43.6 million, which included $13.6 million in actual damages and $30 million in punitive damages.

Understanding This Case

  • This case went to trial and resulted in a jury verdict. Verdicts can yield higher awards but carry the risk of receiving nothing if the jury rules against the plaintiff.
  • This case was resolved in Nueces County, Texas. Local jury tendencies, judge assignments, and regional economic conditions all influence case outcomes in this jurisdiction.
  • Resolved in 2017, 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

53
/100
Questionable

This outcome differs from typical 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 check 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 Nueces County.

Check Your Case Value

Similar cases you may find useful

Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.

$779,627
Verdict-Plaintiff
Catastrophic Injury
Other Accident
Motor Vehicle Negligence

A plaintiff filed a lawsuit following a motor vehicle accident, claiming severe and permanent injuries. The plaintiff sought damages for significant pain, suffering, discomfort, emotional distress, and a diminished ability to enjoy life. During the proceedings, both sides presented expert medical testimony. The plaintiff's experts included specialists in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Sports Medicine, Osteopathic Medicine, and Physical Therapy. The defendant's expert was also a specialist in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. The case concluded with an award of $779,627 to the plaintiff.

Denver County • 2015
View full case
Undisclosed
Verdict-Defense
Other Injury
Pedestrian
Motor Vehicle Negligence

A lawsuit stemmed from a motor vehicle and pedestrian collision. The plaintiff presented expert testimony related to life care planning and rehabilitation, indicating claims for long-term care and disability. The defendant countered with expert testimony from fields including psychology, neuropsychology, and orthopedic surgery. The parties reached a resolution, and the case was concluded with a stipulated dismissal in April 2019.

Dallas County • 2019
View full case
$151,735
Verdict-Plaintiff
Back Strain / Soft Tissue
Head-on
Civil Procedure

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.

Dallas County • 2020
View full case
$122,000
Verdict-Plaintiff
Back Strain / Soft Tissue
Rear-end
Motor Vehicle Negligence

A rear-end collision occurred on Highway 80 in Perry County on August 25, 2014. The defendant, who was reportedly checking to see if the road was clear to pass, struck the plaintiff's vehicle. The defendant stipulated fault for the moderate collision. The plaintiff, a 64-year-old retired coal miner, was treated and released from a local emergency room for apparent neck and back strain, then sought follow-up care with a family doctor before beginning chiropractic treatment. Evidence also indicated a disc protrusion in the plaintiff's neck. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit blaming the defendant for the injuries sustained. Medical proof at trial included testimony from a chiropractor and an orthopedic expert. The plaintiff sought damages for medical expenses totaling $18,156 and $500,000 for pain and suffering. The defense argued that the plaintiff exaggerated the injuries, presenting expert testimony suggesting only a temporary strain that should have resolved quickly and that the disc protrusion was pre-existing and unrelated to the crash. The defense also questioned the plaintiff's credibility regarding a prior accident from 25 years earlier, which the plaintiff had denied during a deposition but had previously pursued a lawsuit over. The plaintiff stated a lapse of memory for the prior incident. During deliberations, the jury requested to see the police report and the deposition from the plaintiff's prior accident case, but the judge informed them these items were not admitted into evidence. After 90 minutes of deliberation, the jury awarded the plaintiff $12,000 for medical bills and $110,000 for pain and suffering, totaling $122,000. Prior to the verdict, the parties had entered a Hi-Lo agreement with parameters of $100,000 to $25,000. Consequently, judgment was entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $100,000.

Perry County • 2017
View full case
$2,000,000
Verdict-Plaintiff
Back Strain / Soft Tissue
Other Accident
Medical Malpractice

A plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit alleging a nurse negligently administered an injection, causing permanent injury. The plaintiff, who received injections for migraine headaches, claimed the defendant nurse failed to properly calculate anatomical landmarks before administering Phenergan in the right hip area. The plaintiff asserted that the caustic material was injected near the sciatic nerve, causing immediate severe pain, numbness, and a permanent limp. The plaintiff later developed Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) and underwent surgical implantation of a neurostimulator for pain management. The defendant denied negligence, arguing the injection was not given in the wrong area and was unrelated to the plaintiff's complaints. The defendant noted a lack of immediate documentation for the plaintiff's pain complaints. The plaintiff countered that she reported immediate pain to the nurse and made documented complaints the following day. The plaintiff also argued that the nurse's deposition testimony, which demonstrated her landmark calculation, indicated an improper starting point for the injection. The defendant further suggested the plaintiff's difficulties stemmed from a car accident occurring several weeks after the injection. The plaintiff disputed this, stating the collision primarily resulted in cervical complaints and did not cause new hip issues, emphasizing consistent hip pain reports since the injection. After a week-long trial, the jury found for the plaintiff, awarding $2,000,000 for past and future pain and suffering. This award was subsequently reduced to $755,000 to comply with Maryland's medical malpractice cap on non-economic damages for the year the cause of action arose.

Baltimore County • 2019
View full case