Hidalgo Jury Awards $810,000 in Fatal Pedestrian Accident
A driver struck and killed a pedestrian in a crosswalk at night. The pedestrian's estate sued the driver and his employer, alleging negligence. The defense argued the pedestrian was also at fault. The jury found the driver negligent but also found the pedestrian partially responsible. The estate was awarded damages for the pedestrian's pain and suffering.
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
- $900,000
- County
- Dallas County, TX
- Resolved
- 2016
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Head/Brain Injury
- Accident Type
- Pedestrian
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Negligence
Settlement Context
This verdict-plaintiff of $900,000 is near the median of $510,805 for head/brain injury cases resolved by verdict-plaintiff. The typical range is $52,650 to $4,929,085, based on 77 cases in our database.
Case Overview
On March 27, 2014, a pedestrian was fatally struck by a van while crossing East Coma Avenue in a marked crosswalk in Hidalgo. The westbound van, driven by an employee of a transit service company, collided with the pedestrian, who sustained fatal injuries. The pedestrian's estate, represented by his brother, subsequently sued the driver and the employer, alleging negligence for failing to keep a proper lookout, yield the right of way, and control the vehicle's speed.
The plaintiff argued the driver was solely negligent. Surveillance video confirmed the pedestrian was in the crosswalk, and accident reconstruction experts for both sides agreed the van was speeding at impact, though they differed on the exact velocity. Experts also concluded that if the driver had adhered to the speed limit, the pedestrian would not have been in the intersection at the time of the van's passage. The defense contended the pedestrian was contributorily negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout and cited challenging environmental conditions, including dark streets and glare, as factors preventing the driver from seeing the pedestrian. The plaintiff's counsel highlighted that the driver initially provided no excuse for failing to see the pedestrian, and the defense's environmental theory developed later. Damages sought were limited to the pedestrian's conscious pain and suffering, which a defense medical expert disputed.
Following a five-day trial, a Hidalgo jury found both parties negligent. The jury assigned 90 percent of the fault to the driver and 10 percent to the pedestrian, awarding $900,000 for pain and suffering. After accounting for comparative responsibility, the net award to the estate totaled $810,000. The defense subsequently filed post-trial motions challenging the verdict.
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 2016, 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 aligns very well with 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 know what your case might be worth?
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 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.
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.
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 rear-end collision occurred in Norwood, Ohio, on November 14, 2017, involving the plaintiff and an at-fault driver. The plaintiff sustained a C5-6 disc injury, requiring fusion surgery approximately ten months after the crash, and an L4-5 injury, which led to a microdiskectomy in December 2018. Medical bills for these treatments totaled $80,739. The at-fault driver's insurer settled for its $25,000 policy limits without a lawsuit. Following the initial settlement, the plaintiff filed an underinsured motorist (UIM) action against their own insurer, seeking compensation for medical expenses and pain and suffering. The plaintiff's insurer disputed the extent of damages, presenting testimony from a defense orthopedic expert who concluded the plaintiff's treatment course was unrelated to the crash, citing a thirteen-year history of similar symptoms. The defense also raised a $1,000 medical expense threshold defense. The case proceeded to a two-day jury trial in Florence, focusing on causation and damages. The jury first determined the plaintiff met the $1,000 medical threshold. They then awarded the plaintiff $80,939 for medical expenses and an additional $195,000 for pain and suffering, totaling $275,939. A judgment was entered for $240,739, accounting for the underlying policy limits and personal injury protection (PIP) coverage. The defense had made an $18,000 offer of judgment.
On June 19, 2019, in Brandenburg, Kentucky, a vehicle driven by the plaintiff was rear-ended by another driver while stopped in traffic on Old Mill Road. Although the plaintiff's truck sustained no visible damage and airbags did not deploy, the plaintiff reported immediate neck pain and a headache. The plaintiff was transported to a local hospital, treated, and released for an apparent soft-tissue injury. The at-fault driver was uninsured, prompting the plaintiff to seek uninsured motorist coverage from his insurance carrier, the defendant. The defendant conceded fault for the collision but contested the extent of the plaintiff's damages. The plaintiff subsequently underwent physical therapy and pain management treatments, including spinal injections for continued neck and back pain, reporting some improvement. The defendant's orthopedic physician, through an independent medical examination, opined that the plaintiff sustained only a temporary strain superimposed on pre-existing conditions and that much of the subsequent medical treatment was unrelated to the crash. The defendant tendered a pre-trial offer of $200,000. The case proceeded to a three-day trial in Brandenburg, where the jury considered only damages. The jury, by a 9-3 vote, awarded the plaintiff $50,728 for past medical expenses, $50,000 for future medical care, and $20,000 for pain and suffering, for a total of $120,728. A judgment consistent with the verdict was entered. The defendant later moved to delay enforcement of the judgment until the plaintiff satisfied a Medicare lien.
Explore More Cases Like This
Browse similar cases by injury type and location to get a better understanding of case values in your area.