Jury Awards $54,008.89 for Vehicle Damage Negligence
One driver was using a luxury car owned by another person. When the driver returned the car, it had sustained damage to the rear and front wheel. The owner sued the driver, alleging negligence and breach of contract. The driver admitted to damaging the wheel and that his initial explanation for the damage was untrue. The jury found the driver liable for the damages.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Plaintiff
- Amount
- $54,009
- County
- Dallas County, TX
- Resolved
- 2019
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Other
- Accident Type
- Other
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Accident
Settlement Context
This verdict-plaintiff of $54,009 is near the median of $22,000 for other cases resolved by verdict-plaintiff. The typical range is $8,200 to $102,285, based on 304 cases in our database.
Case Overview
On March 12, 2018, the plaintiff, an owner of various companies, provided his 2011 Lamborghini LP 610 Performante Spyder to his employee, the defendant, for personal use. The defendant, who was also the plaintiff's half-brother, accessed the vehicle through a contract with an exotic car club. Later that day, the defendant returned the Lamborghini with damage to its rear and right front wheel. The car club subsequently assigned its claims against the defendant to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging negligence in the vehicle's operation, breach of bailment, and breach of a written contract. During the two-day trial, the defendant admitted that his initial account of being rear-ended by a hit-and-run driver was false. He testified that he accidentally "curbed" the wheel while exiting a parking lot and that his girlfriend rear-ended him as they returned the car. He denied speeding or reckless driving, despite a previous statement acknowledging he had been speeding. The plaintiff testified that the defendant promised to pay for the damage but failed to do so. The defense did not strongly dispute liability but contended that the defendant was truthful and only responsible for the wheel damage, estimated at $125.
The plaintiff sought damages for repair costs totaling $30,626.39, including storage and towing. Additionally, the plaintiff claimed $17,308.33 for loss of use due to lost monthly payments from the car club, approximately $15,000 for diminution in market value, and $14,282.50 for attorney fees through trial.
After two hours of deliberation, the jury found the defendant liable on all three causes of action: negligence, breach of bailment, and breach of contract. The jury awarded the plaintiff $54,008.89. Post-trial discussions with jurors indicated they reduced the awards for storage and loss of use to one month.
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 Dallas County, Texas. Local jury tendencies, judge assignments, and regional economic conditions all influence case outcomes in this jurisdiction.
- Resolved in 2019, 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 differs from typical 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 check 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.
A plaintiff with a classic automobile insurance policy filed a claim after three vehicles went missing or were stolen from a storage location in Denver, Colorado. The policy required storage in a specific secure building, but the plaintiff had moved the vehicles during renovations. Two vehicles were later recovered severely damaged, while a third remained unlocated. The insurer made a partial payment for one vehicle but denied full coverage, attributing some damage to wear and tear and denying the unrecovered vehicle's claim. The plaintiff sued the insurer in federal court, alleging breach of contract, unreasonable delay and denial of payment under Colorado statutes, and common-law bad faith. The insurer counterclaimed, seeking a declaratory judgment, alleging breach of the policy's misrepresentation and concealment provisions, and requesting recoupment of payments. These counterclaims were permitted to proceed following a magistrate judge's recommendation, which a district judge adopted. The plaintiff later amended the complaint to add the insurance producer as a defendant, alleging negligence if insurer coverage was denied. In July 2023, the plaintiff and the insurer filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice for all claims between them, indicating a settlement had been reached. The specific terms of this settlement were not publicly disclosed. Each party agreed to bear its own costs and attorney fees.
The employer, Star*Tel Systems, appealed a decision by an administrative law judge in Kentucky. The judge had previously determined that an employee sustained a permanent and total disability following a work-related motor vehicle accident. The appeal challenged the judge's opinion, order, and award.
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.
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.
A personal injury case arose from an auto accident. The plaintiff retained an expert in economics to assess damages. The defendant presented experts in emergency medicine, biomechanics, and accident reconstruction, suggesting disputes over the nature or cause of injuries. An occupational therapy expert also participated in the case. The matter proceeded to a trial, which concluded on December 9, 2016. Details regarding the verdict or any award were not specified in the record.
Explore More Cases Like This
Browse similar cases by injury type and location to get a better understanding of case values in your area.