San Antonio Jury Awards $99.6M in Product Liability Rear-End Crash

In December 2012, a compact car carrying a driver and two child passengers was rear-ended by another vehicle on Highway 16, south of San Antonio, after stopping for a school bus. The impact resulted in a seven-year-old child passenger, seated behind the driver, sustaining a skull fracture and severe brain damage. The child's parents, on his behalf, filed a lawsuit against the driver of the striking vehicle for negligence and against the manufacturer and distributor of their vehicle, alleging product liability due to design and manufacturing defects, negligent failure to warn, and gross negligence.

The plaintiffs contended that the compact car's driver seat was defective and unreasonably dangerous because it was designed to collapse backward excessively in a rear-end collision, leading to the driver's head impacting the child in the back seat. They argued this known risk caused the child's head injury, despite the child reportedly wearing a seat belt. The vehicle manufacturer and distributor denied any defects or negligence, asserting the seats met federal standards and did not collapse as claimed. They argued the driver did not go into the back seat and that the child's head struck an object or the vehicle interior, not the driver's head. The manufacturers also claimed neither the driver nor the child was wearing a seat belt and attributed responsibility for the injuries to the striking driver and the plaintiff driver. The striking driver admitted causing the accident but maintained the vehicle's defective seat and lack of warning contributed to the injuries.

The child sustained a depressed skull fracture, leading to permanent brain damage, right-side paralysis, blindness, severe learning disabilities, incontinence, and uncontrollable seizures. He required extensive medical care, including multiple operations and prolonged hospitalizations, and subsequently needed special education classes. The parties stipulated to past and future medical bills totaling over $19 million.

Following a four-week trial and three days of deliberations, the jury found a design defect, a manufacturing defect, and negligence in warning or instructing against the vehicle manufacturer and distributor. The jury also found negligence on the part of the striking driver and the plaintiff driver. Comparative responsibility was assigned as 55% to the vehicle manufacturer and distributor, 25% to the striking driver, and 20% to the plaintiff driver. The jury awarded the child approximately $124.5 million, which was reduced to about $99.6 million after factoring in comparative responsibility. The jury further found the vehicle manufacturer and distributor grossly negligent.