Jasper Jury Awards $21,480 in Motor Vehicle Negligence
One driver was backing a trailer into a warehouse on a rainy night when his pickup truck blocked a lane of traffic. The other driver, traveling in a compact pickup, entered the oncoming lane to avoid flooding and struck the parked truck. The first driver sued for improper lookout and driving on the wrong side of the road. The second driver counterclaimed, alleging illegal parking, lack of hazard lights, and insufficient visibility. The jury found both drivers negligent.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Plaintiff
- Amount
- $26,850
- County
- Jasper County, TX
- Resolved
- 2015
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Knee Injury
- Accident Type
- Other
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Accident
Settlement Context
This verdict-plaintiff of $26,850 is near the median of $55,000 for knee injury cases resolved by verdict-plaintiff. The typical range is $20,000 to $355,000, based on 41 cases in our database.
Case Overview
On December 28, 2012, in Jasper, a delivery driver parked a pickup truck with a 24-foot trailer, blocking an eastbound lane on Springhill Street during predawn rain while picking up a load of bread. Another driver, traveling west, entered the oncoming lane to avoid a flooded westbound lane and struck the parked truck. The delivery driver subsequently sued the other driver, alleging negligence for failing to maintain a proper lookout and driving on the wrong side of the road. The delivery driver sought damages for property loss and vehicle loss of use.
The defendant pickup driver filed a counterclaim, asserting the delivery driver illegally parked, failed to use hazard lights or deploy traffic cones, and created a hazardous obstruction. The defendant contended the investigating officer deemed the delivery driver at fault for illegal parking. The defendant claimed the incident caused a torn knee ligament and meniscus, requiring potential arthroscopic surgery, and sought over $7,800 in past medical bills, $70,000 in future medical expenses, and additional damages for pain and suffering, totaling $600,000. The plaintiff's defense counsel argued the defendant's injuries were pre-existing due to a history of health issues and failed to establish causation. The plaintiff's counsel also questioned the defendant's documentation for loss of use damages.
After a three-day trial, a jury found both drivers negligent. Jurors assigned 80% comparative responsibility to the delivery driver and 20% to the pickup driver. The jury awarded the pickup driver $26,850 for damages, which was reduced to $21,480 after accounting for comparative negligence. The delivery driver received no award.
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 Jasper County, Texas. Local jury tendencies, judge assignments, and regional economic conditions all influence case outcomes in this jurisdiction.
- Resolved in 2015, 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 is within expected ranges
This score is calculated by analyzing injury type, accident details, geographic location, temporal trends, and comparing against 2,000+ similar cases in our database.
Curious about 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 Jasper County.
Similar cases you may find useful
Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.
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 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.
A vehicle collision occurred in May 2008 on Stony Brook when a teenager, pulling from a private drive, struck a childcare worker's vehicle. The childcare worker sustained soft-tissue neck pain and was transported to the emergency room. Liability for the collision was later established by summary judgment. The injured worker subsequently filed a lawsuit in Louisville, seeking damages for medical bills, lost wages, impairment, and pain and suffering. The plaintiff's case was complicated by involvement in a second crash a month later, though injuries were distinguished. The defendant disputed the claimed injuries, citing credibility, lack of objective proof, and a "threshold" defense. The jury found the plaintiff met the medical expense threshold but did not sustain a permanent injury. Ultimately, the jury awarded the plaintiff $8,184 for medical expenses but $0 for lost wages, impairment, and pain and suffering, resulting in a total verdict of $8,184. A judgment consistent with this verdict was entered. The plaintiff later moved for a new trial, arguing the verdict was inadequate. The defendant countered, citing credibility issues. The motion was pending as of June 2016.
A plaintiff alleged bilateral rotator cuff injuries resulted from paramedics' forceful removal of the plaintiff from a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants, presumably alleging negligence in the plaintiff's care. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in September 2006, concluding the case in favor of the defense.
A motor vehicle collision occurred in Mesa County, Colorado, involving a vehicle operated by the defendant and another car carrying the plaintiff as a passenger. The plaintiff alleged the incident caused permanent personal injuries, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and resulted in medical expenses and economic losses. The plaintiff filed a vehicular liability action in the Colorado District Court, Twenty-First Judicial District, County of Mesa, claiming the defendant's negligence. Allegations included failing to operate the vehicle prudently, maintain a proper lookout, obey traffic control devices, driving at an excessive speed, and failing to stop at a red light. The plaintiff sought damages for the alleged harm. In response, the defendant denied the allegations of negligence. The defendant also asserted affirmative defenses, including claims of failure to state a claim, culpable conduct, and failure to mitigate damages. The parties subsequently filed a notice with the court indicating that they had reached a settlement in the action.
Explore More Cases Like This
Browse similar cases by injury type and location to get a better understanding of case values in your area.