Washington Jury Awards $33.49 Million in Personal Injury Case
One driver was involved in a crash that resulted in serious injuries. The case involved complex medical and accident reconstruction expert testimony. The jury awarded damages for future lost wages, medical expenses, and non-economic damages.
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
- $36,093,664
- County
- Dallas County, CA
- Resolved
- 2018
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Spinal Cord Injury
- Accident Type
- Other
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Negligence
Settlement Context
This verdict-plaintiff of $36,093,664 is near 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
A Washington jury awarded a plaintiff over $33.49 million in a personal injury case on April 9, 2018. The verdict included damages for future lost wages, future medical and life care expenses, and past and future non-economic damages. While details of the incident and specific legal claims were not provided, both sides presented expert testimony. Specialists in accident reconstruction, vehicle design, human factors, injury assessment, and economic projections offered evidence to the jury.
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, California. Local jury tendencies, judge assignments, and regional economic conditions all influence case outcomes in this jurisdiction.
- Resolved in 2018, 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 aligns very well with 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 know what your case might be worth?
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.
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 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.
Explore More Cases Like This
Browse similar cases by injury type and location to get a better understanding of case values in your area.