Houston Jury Awards $358,195.88 in FELA Rail Accident

A passenger was rendered quadriplegic following a vehicle rollover accident on Interstate 25 in Colorado on July 5, 2013. The plaintiff, a front-seat passenger, alleged that a defendant driver operating a Jeep Cherokee negligently made a sudden left turn from the highway shoulder without a signal, striking the plaintiff's Honda Accord. The collision caused the plaintiff's vehicle to hit the median and roll over multiple times, resulting in a spinal cord injury and a spinal fracture. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant driver for negligence. Product liability claims were also brought against the vehicle manufacturer, windshield manufacturer, and seatbelt manufacturer, alleging dangerous and defective designs. Specifically, the plaintiff contended the windshield failed to provide sufficient roof support during the rollover, leading to roof collapse, and that the seatbelt was defective, allowing slack that contributed to the injuries. The defendants denied liability and disputed the plaintiff's allegations of damages. The seatbelt manufacturer, Takata, specifically argued the alleged slack was due to the plaintiff's body position, not a product defect. The case proceeded to a ten-day trial against only the defendant driver and the seatbelt manufacturer. Following approximately 8.5 hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, awarding $52,000,000. This amount included $5,000,000 for non-economic losses, $15,000,000 for economic damages, $30,000,000 for physical impairment or disfigurement, and $2,000,000 for the plaintiff spouse's loss of consortium claim. The jury apportioned 50% liability to the defendant driver, 40% to the nonparty vehicle manufacturer (Honda), and 10% to the nonparty windshield manufacturer (AGC Flat Glass North America). The jury found no liability on the part of the defendant seatbelt manufacturer, Takata.

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 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.

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.

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.