$50,000 Motor Vehicle Accident Case
One driver failed to keep a proper lookout and control their vehicle, causing a rear-end collision with the vehicle in front. The driver in the front vehicle experienced body soreness and a head bump. Later, they exhibited confusion, odd behavior, and a medical event believed to be a stroke or seizure. The parties reached a settlement.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Settlement
- Amount
- $50,000
- County
- Dallas County, TX
- Resolved
- 2017
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Back Strain / Soft Tissue
- Accident Type
- Rear-end
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Negligence, Rear End Collision
Case Overview
One driver failed to keep a proper lookout and control their vehicle, causing a rear-end collision with the vehicle in front. The driver in the front vehicle experienced body soreness and a head bump. Later, they exhibited confusion, odd behavior, and a medical event believed to be a stroke or seizure. The parties reached a settlement.
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.
In January 2015, a plaintiff, a financial planner, was involved in a multi-vehicle collision on Eldorado Parkway in McKinney. The plaintiff's pickup truck was struck from the rear by another pickup, driven by a 16-year-old, which propelled the plaintiff's vehicle into a preceding car. The plaintiff initially reported neck, back, and head injuries, later alleging a traumatic brain injury and subsequent cognitive impairment. The plaintiff sued the teenage driver for negligence in operating the vehicle and initially sued the driver's parents, as owners of the vehicle, for negligent entrustment. Claims against the parents were later dismissed. The defendant driver conceded liability for the collision, and the trial proceeded solely on the issue of damages. The plaintiff sought over $812,000, including significant damages for loss of earning capacity, past and future mental anguish, and physical pain and impairment. An economist expert for the plaintiff testified to over $600,000 in lost earning capacity. The defense acknowledged soft-tissue injuries but disputed the severity and causation of the alleged traumatic brain injury. Defense counsel highlighted that the plaintiff initially denied injury at the scene, did not report head injury complaints for several months, and underwent neurological and neuropsychological testing that was largely normal. A defense neurology expert opined that memory and cognitive complaints were not caused by the accident, while a defense economics expert challenged the plaintiff's methodology for lost earning capacity. The defense also noted the plaintiff had not sought treatment for more than three years prior to trial. After a three-day trial, the jury deliberated for three hours and returned a verdict, awarding the plaintiff $22,000. However, the parties had previously entered a high-low agreement, setting parameters between $50,000 and $450,000. Pursuant to this agreement, the plaintiff recovered $50,000.
One driver was stopped at a red light when the other driver rear-ended their vehicle. The driver who was rear-ended claimed injuries to their neck and lower back. The other driver argued they were not negligent and that the impact was minor. The jury found the driver who caused the collision not liable.
One driver stopped for a school bus and was hit from behind by a pickup truck. The pickup truck driver was distracted by a cell phone call. The injured driver claimed back and neck injuries. The case proceeded to trial against the pickup truck driver and his employer.
One driver was stopped in traffic when the other driver rear-ended her. The injured driver claimed neck and back strains, sprains, and shoulder pain. She also claimed anxiety for her unborn child. The defense argued that the defendant's actions did not cause the injuries and questioned the extent of the claimed damages.
On October 30, 2014, a plaintiff was involved in a rear-end collision in Plano, Texas. The plaintiff's sport utility vehicle was struck from behind by a vehicle driven by the defendant while stopped at an intersection on East Plano Parkway near Los Rios Boulevard. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging the defendant was negligent in operating the vehicle. The plaintiff claimed to have stopped normally at a yellow traffic signal. Injuries alleged included a concussion and post-concussion syndrome, with symptoms such as headaches, vertigo, and memory impairment, in addition to sprains and strains to the cervical and lumbar regions. The plaintiff sought approximately $47,000 for past medical expenses, along with damages for past physical impairment, pain, and mental anguish. The defendant contended being distracted by another vehicle that appeared poised to enter the intersection against a red light. The defendant also claimed the plaintiff seemed to proceed into the intersection before an abrupt stop. Defense counsel questioned the causation of the head injury, noting a delayed complaint, and cited the plaintiff's prior neck issues, a previous head injury, and past memory problems. Plaintiff's counsel countered that any prior issues had resolved years before the accident. Following a three-day trial, the jury rendered a defense verdict, finding the defendant was not negligent regarding the accident. Although the jury did find $15,000 in damages—comprising $8,000 for past medical expenses, $5,000 for past physical pain and mental anguish, and $2,000 for past physical impairment—the plaintiff received no award due to the finding of no negligence.
Explore More Cases Like This
Browse similar cases by injury type and location to get a better understanding of case values in your area.