Dallas County Jury Awards $243.2 Million in Defective Seat Collision
A family was stopped in traffic when their car was hit from behind. The children in the car sustained traumatic brain injuries. The family sued the driver of the other vehicle and the car manufacturer, alleging the car's seats were defectively designed, leading to the children's injuries. The jury found the car manufacturer negligent and responsible for a design defect. The jury awarded the family $242,100,000.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
About Head/Brain Injury Injuries
Traumatic brain injuries (TBI) range from mild concussions to severe brain damage. Car accidents are a leading cause of TBI, with effects ranging from temporary symptoms to permanent cognitive impairment.
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Plaintiff
- Amount
- $242,100,000
- County
- Dallas County, TX
- Resolved
- 2018
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Head/Brain Injury
- Accident Type
- Rear-end
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Negligence, Traumatic Brain Injury, Head, Traumatic Brain Injury
Settlement Context
This verdict-plaintiff of $242,100,000 is above the median of $1,893,000 for head/brain injury cases resolved by verdict-plaintiff. The typical range is $93,169 to $9,140,000, based on 45 cases in our database.
Case Overview
In September 2016, a family traveling on State Highway 75 in Dallas County was involved in a rear-end collision when their 2002 Lexus ES 300 was struck by another vehicle. Two child passengers in the Lexus, ages five and three, sustained severe traumatic brain injuries. The family filed a lawsuit against the driver of the striking vehicle for negligence and against Toyota Motor North America Inc., Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc., and Toyota Motor Corp., alleging the Lexus ES 300 was defectively designed and marketed, and that the manufacturer was grossly negligent. One Toyota entity and the owner of the striking vehicle were later nonsuited.
The plaintiffs contended that the Lexus's front seats were defectively designed to yield rearward in rear-end collisions, causing front-seat occupants to "ramp" up and over the seatbacks and collide with rear-seat passengers. Their experts testified that this design was defective and that the manufacturer could have prevented the danger by modifying the seat back or enhancing the restraint system. They further argued that the children's injuries resulted from contact with their parents, not from intrusion by the striking vehicle, and that their child restraints were properly used.
Toyota argued that the driver of the striking vehicle was solely responsible for the accident and injuries. The manufacturer maintained that the children's injuries were caused by significant intrusion of the striking vehicle into the Lexus and not by the rearward movement of the front seats or occupants. Toyota denied any defect in its restraint system design, asserting that its vehicles were thoroughly tested for safety, and claimed the collision was unusually severe. The manufacturer also disputed the proper installation and use of the children's restraints. The defendant driver argued that the alleged seat defect exacerbated the injuries, thus minimizing his comparative responsibility, and that the collision was unavoidable due to a sudden stop in traffic.
After a three-week trial, a Dallas County jury found both the driver and the Toyota entities liable. The jury attributed 90 percent of the liability to Toyota Motor Corp., 5 percent to Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc., and 5 percent to the defendant driver. The plaintiffs were awarded $242.1 million, which, with stipulated past medical expenses, totaled $243,236,248.71.
Understanding This Case
- Most mild TBIs resolve within weeks to months. Moderate to severe TBI often results in permanent impairment affecting cognition, behavior, and physical function.
- 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 Dallas County, Texas. Local jury tendencies, judge assignments, and regional economic conditions all influence case outcomes in this jurisdiction.
- Resolved in 2018, 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.
One driver was slowing down in traffic when their vehicle was hit from behind by another car. The driver who was hit claimed injuries to their back, head, and neck. The other driver's insurance paid some of its policy limit. The injured driver then sued their own insurance company for underinsured motorist benefits, claiming their damages exceeded the amount recovered. The defense conceded fault for the accident, and the trial focused on the extent of the injuries.
One driver was traveling on a tollway when their vehicle ran out of gas and became disabled. The other driver, who was following behind, struck the disabled vehicle. The first driver claimed injuries to their neck and back. The jury found the second driver 80% liable and the first driver 20% liable.
One driver stopped their vehicle on a highway when the other driver struck them from behind at a high speed. The impact caused the driver to hit their head and briefly lose consciousness. The injured driver claimed the accident caused a brain injury, preventing them from completing college studies, and also affected their ability to care for their young son. The other driver admitted to the collision but disputed the extent and cause of the injuries.
One driver stopped in traffic due to construction. The other driver rear-ended the stopped vehicle. The injured driver claimed ankle and back injuries. The defense argued the accident was unavoidable or that the driver acted as an ordinary and prudent driver. The jury found the second driver liable but awarded no damages.
One driver sued another for failing to maintain a safe distance and avoid a collision. The defendant claimed the plaintiff was also at fault. The incident occurred when the defendant's vehicle struck the plaintiffs' vehicle from behind. The minor passenger complained of neck, mid-back, and rib pain, diagnosed as muscle sprain and cervicalgia. Further treatment included visits for headaches and pain in the neck and upper back.
Explore More Cases Like This
Browse similar cases by injury type and location to get a better understanding of case values in your area.