Texas Jury Awards $54.47M in Multi-Vehicle Collision
A 19-year-old man was a passenger in a vehicle that attempted a U-turn and was struck by another vehicle. The passenger was not wearing a seatbelt and sustained a spinal fracture that resulted in paraplegia. He sued the driver of the second vehicle and their employer, alleging negligent following distance and training. The defense argued the U-turn driver was solely responsible and that the passenger's failure to wear a seatbelt caused his injuries.
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
- Verdict-Plaintiff
- Amount
- $67,470,000
- County
- Dallas County, TX
- Resolved
- 2015
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Spinal Cord Injury
- Accident Type
- Multi-vehicle
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Negligence
Settlement Context
This verdict-plaintiff of $67,470,000 is above the median of $18,745,001 for spinal cord injury cases resolved by verdict-plaintiff. The typical range is $4,500,000 to $42,900,000, based on 37 cases in our database.
Case Overview
On August 28, 2012, near Orange Grove, Texas, a passenger in a Ford Sport Trac sustained severe injuries in a multi-vehicle collision. The incident occurred when the Sport Trac's driver attempted a U-turn on FM 624, colliding with an eastbound van. The Sport Trac then spun into the path of a second eastbound vehicle, a Chevrolet Silverado owned by a corporate defendant and driven by its employee, which struck the Sport Trac on the passenger side. The passenger, who was not wearing a seatbelt, suffered a spinal fracture that resulted in paraplegia.
The plaintiff passenger sued the Silverado's driver and his employer, alleging the driver followed too closely and that the employer was negligent in training its drivers on safe following distances. A plaintiff's accident reconstruction expert testified the Silverado was likely 80 to 140 feet behind the Sport Trac, an insufficient distance according to a plaintiff's trucking safety expert. The defendants denied negligence, asserting that the Sport Trac's driver, identified as a responsible third party, was solely responsible for making an illegal U-turn without proper lookout. A defense accident reconstruction expert testified the Silverado was following at a safe distance of 220 to 410 feet. The defendants also argued the plaintiff bore comparative liability for not wearing a seatbelt. Conflicting expert testimony was presented regarding the seatbelt's role in the spinal fracture and the potential for fatal injuries with or without its use.
The plaintiff sustained a burst fracture at L1, leading to permanent paraplegia, along with other spinal and internal injuries, requiring extensive hospitalization, surgery, and rehabilitation. The plaintiff sought damages for past and future medical costs, lost income, pain and suffering, and punitive damages, with experts estimating millions in future care and lost earnings.
After an eight-day trial, a jury found the corporate defendant 34 percent liable, the Sport Trac's driver 30 percent liable, the Silverado's driver 28 percent liable, and the plaintiff 8 percent comparatively liable. The jury awarded $34.22 million in actual damages, reduced to $21.22 million due to comparative liability. Additionally, the jury awarded $33 million in punitive damages against the corporate defendant and $250,000 against its employee, resulting in a total net verdict of $54.47 million for the plaintiff.
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 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 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 Dallas County.
Similar cases you may find useful
Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.
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 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.
On May 9, 2015, a passenger was involved in a vehicle collision at the intersection of Fifth and Broadway in downtown Louisville, Kentucky. The vehicle carrying the plaintiff was struck by a second car, whose driver had proceeded through a red light. The plaintiff was treated at an emergency room and subsequently for an aggravation of degenerative cervical and disc conditions, incurring medical bills totaling $19,478. After receiving $25,000 from the at-fault driver's insurer, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in Jefferson Circuit Court against his own carrier, the defendant insurer, seeking Underinsured Motorist (UIM) coverage. The case was later removed to federal court on diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff claimed $19,478 for medical expenses and $129,000 for pain and suffering. The defendant insurer argued that the claimed injuries were minimal and pointed to the plaintiff's history of similar complaints from a previous accident seven months prior. The case proceeded to a jury trial, which focused solely on the issue of damages. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $119,478, comprising $19,478 for medical expenses and $100,000 for pain and suffering. This award exceeded the $35,000 threshold required to activate UIM coverage and the $60,000 amount that would have exhausted the defendant insurer's UIM policy. The court subsequently entered a judgment for the plaintiff for the $25,000 UIM policy limits.
On June 19, 2019, in Brandenburg, Kentucky, a vehicle driven by the plaintiff was rear-ended by another driver while stopped in traffic on Old Mill Road. Although the plaintiff's truck sustained no visible damage and airbags did not deploy, the plaintiff reported immediate neck pain and a headache. The plaintiff was transported to a local hospital, treated, and released for an apparent soft-tissue injury. The at-fault driver was uninsured, prompting the plaintiff to seek uninsured motorist coverage from his insurance carrier, the defendant. The defendant conceded fault for the collision but contested the extent of the plaintiff's damages. The plaintiff subsequently underwent physical therapy and pain management treatments, including spinal injections for continued neck and back pain, reporting some improvement. The defendant's orthopedic physician, through an independent medical examination, opined that the plaintiff sustained only a temporary strain superimposed on pre-existing conditions and that much of the subsequent medical treatment was unrelated to the crash. The defendant tendered a pre-trial offer of $200,000. The case proceeded to a three-day trial in Brandenburg, where the jury considered only damages. The jury, by a 9-3 vote, awarded the plaintiff $50,728 for past medical expenses, $50,000 for future medical care, and $20,000 for pain and suffering, for a total of $120,728. A judgment consistent with the verdict was entered. The defendant later moved to delay enforcement of the judgment until the plaintiff satisfied a Medicare lien.
Explore More Cases Like This
Browse similar cases by injury type and location to get a better understanding of case values in your area.