McMullen County Head-On Collision Settles for $905,000
One driver was attempting to pass another vehicle in a no-passing zone on a hill when they collided head-on. The injured driver sustained multiple fractures and spinal injuries. The case involved claims of negligence, negligent entrustment, and underinsured motorist benefits.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
About Spinal Cord Injury Injuries
Spinal cord injuries are among the most catastrophic outcomes of car accidents, potentially resulting in partial or complete paralysis. These injuries require extensive medical care and significantly impact quality of life.
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Settlement
- Amount
- $905,000
- County
- Dallas County, TX
- Resolved
- 2017
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Spinal Cord Injury
- Accident Type
- Head-on
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Negligence
Settlement Context
This settlement of $905,000 is below the median of $30,000,000 for spinal cord injury cases resolved by settlement. The typical range is $1,600,000 to $140,000,000, based on 8 cases in our database.
Case Overview
On October 12, 2014, a head-on collision occurred on State Highway 72 in McMullen County, Texas. A well tester, driving an employer's pickup truck, was struck by another vehicle driven by a caterer's employee. The employee reportedly attempted to pass another vehicle in a no-passing zone on a hill. The well tester sustained multiple injuries, including various fractures to the ulna, tibia, scapula, clavicle, and skull, along with spinal compression fractures and herniated discs. The injuries required multiple surgeries and ongoing medical treatment, resulting in approximately $178,000 in medical bills and claimed past lost wages of $90,000 to $110,000.
The injured driver filed a lawsuit against the at-fault driver, alleging negligence for unsafe passing, excessive speed, failure to maintain a proper lookout, and failure to take evasive action. The at-fault driver's employer was sued under theories of respondeat superior, negligent entrustment, and negligent hiring, retention, and training, with claims of inadequate driver evaluation and training. The vehicle owner was also sued for negligent entrustment, based on allegations that the driver was incompetent. Additionally, the plaintiff sought underinsured motorist benefits from both a personal insurer and the employer's insurer.
The defendants did not dispute the at-fault driver's negligence but argued the plaintiff was contributorily negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout or take sufficient evasive action. They denied claims of negligent entrustment and negligent hiring, retention, and training. The defense also disputed the necessity of future medical treatment. Claims against the employer and one of the underinsured motorist insurers were dismissed without payment. The remaining claims settled for a total of $905,000, including $825,000 from the employer's underinsured motorist insurer, $30,000 from the at-fault driver's insurer, and $50,000 from the vehicle owner's insurer.
Understanding This Case
- Spinal cord injuries are typically permanent, though some incomplete injuries may see partial recovery. Life expectancy may be reduced, and quality of life is significantly impacted.
- This case was resolved through a settlement, avoiding the uncertainty and expense of a trial. Settlements typically resolve faster and provide guaranteed compensation.
- 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 2017, 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.
One driver was stopped in traffic when their vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle. The driver who was hit claimed serious injuries to their neck and back, including paralysis in one arm, requiring surgery. The other driver argued that a third vehicle caused the accident or that the injured driver's own actions contributed. The jury found the second driver fully at fault.
One driver sued another for failing to maintain a safe distance and avoid a collision. The defendant claimed the plaintiff was also at fault. The incident occurred when the defendant's vehicle struck the plaintiffs' vehicle from behind. The minor passenger complained of neck, mid-back, and rib pain, diagnosed as muscle sprain and cervicalgia. Further treatment included visits for headaches and pain in the neck and upper back.
One driver was traveling on a tollway when their vehicle ran out of gas and became disabled. The other driver, who was following behind, struck the disabled vehicle. The first driver claimed injuries to their neck and back. The jury found the second driver 80% liable and the first driver 20% liable.
One driver stopped in traffic due to construction. The other driver rear-ended the stopped vehicle. The injured driver claimed ankle and back injuries. The defense argued the accident was unavoidable or that the driver acted as an ordinary and prudent driver. The jury found the second driver liable but awarded no damages.
One driver was stopped at a stop sign when their pickup truck was struck from behind by another pickup truck. The driver and a passenger in the first truck claimed injuries. The passenger's claim was settled before trial. The driver's claim proceeded to trial, where the jury found the second driver liable for the accident.
Explore More Cases Like This
Browse similar cases by injury type and location to get a better understanding of case values in your area.