Dallas, Texas Jury Awards $42,002.98 in Rear-End Collision

On January 28, 2014, a four-vehicle rear-end collision occurred on Interstate 35 in Dallas, Texas. The plaintiff, driving the lead vehicle, claimed she braked due to an unidentified 18-wheeler cutting off traffic ahead, resulting in her vehicle being struck from behind. She subsequently sought treatment for neck and back injuries.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the drivers of the three trailing vehicles, alleging negligence, including failure to maintain a proper lookout, excessive speed, following too closely, and failure to brake or turn in time. She also sued the owner of one of the vehicles for negligent entrustment, a claim later dropped. A central dispute in the case revolved around the order of impacts. The plaintiff testified she felt three distinct impacts, suggesting the second vehicle struck her first, then was struck by the third, which was then struck by the fourth. However, a police report indicated the second vehicle had stopped behind the plaintiff before the fourth vehicle rear-ended the third, pushing it into the second, and then into the plaintiff.

Attorneys for the third and fourth drivers questioned the plaintiff's account of an 18-wheeler, noting no other drivers observed it. The fourth driver, whose deposition was read to the jury, maintained he had stopped before impact, aligning with the police report. Defense counsel argued the plaintiff's presentation of alternative causation theories indicated a failure to meet the burden of proof. Both defense teams highlighted severe damage to the third vehicle, including airbag deployment, as evidence of its driver's excessive speed. They also challenged the plaintiff's claimed injuries and their severity, citing a 25-day delay in seeking initial chiropractic treatment and missed appointments.

Following a one-day trial and 2.25 hours of deliberation, the jury found only the driver of the third vehicle negligent. The plaintiff was awarded $42,002.98. The verdict suggested the jury accepted the defense's arguments regarding the third driver's responsibility for initiating the chain reaction, likely aligning with the police report's sequence of events and the evidence of that vehicle's impact severity.