Maricopa County Court Dismisses Negligence Claim After Appeal
One driver was operating a company truck when a collision occurred with a van driven by another person. The van driver presented repair estimates to the truck driver's employer. The employer offered to submit the claim to insurance, but the van driver requested immediate payment and accepted a smaller settlement amount. The van driver later filed a lawsuit alleging negligence and physical injuries, but the employer argued the claim was barred by a prior settlement agreement. The court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, but this was later reversed on appeal.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Settlement
- Amount
- $2,500
- County
- Maricopa County, AZ
- Resolved
- 2010
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Other
- Accident Type
- Truck/Commercial
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Negligence
Case Overview
In August 2007, a company employee operating a company truck was involved in a collision with a van in Arizona. Later the same day, the van driver presented repair estimates to the company owner and accepted a $2,500 settlement, signing a release for damages.
In August 2009, the van driver filed a negligence complaint in Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County, against the company, its employee, and the employee's spouse. The plaintiff alleged physical injuries and sought damages for medical expenses, lost wages, and decreased earning capacity, despite the prior settlement. The defendants argued the claim was barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction due to the signed release. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in June 2010.
The plaintiff appealed, and in August 2011, the Court of Appeals of Arizona reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case. However, the action was later dismissed with prejudice in July 2013 for want of prosecution.
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 Maricopa County.
Similar cases you may find useful
Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.
One driver was involved in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in an injury. The case was settled for $97,500.
A case involving a motor vehicle accident featured testimony from a plaintiff's expert specializing in vocational economics, rehabilitation counseling, disability assessment, labor economics, and lost wages. Few other details were available regarding the incident, the legal claims, or the case's conclusion.
A negligence lawsuit arose from a car accident involving a plaintiff and a defendant. On March 9, 2015, the plaintiff filed a petition in County Court No. 4 for Collin County, Texas, seeking to recover damages for injuries sustained in the incident. During the proceedings, the plaintiff attempted to establish past medical expenses through affidavits from medical providers. The defendant challenged the plaintiff's entitlement to these damages by filing a counter-affidavit. The plaintiff's subsequent motion to strike the counter-affidavit was denied on November 19, 2015. The matter proceeded to trial, and on January 6, 2016, a jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff. The jury awarded $41,500 in damages, which included $35,000 for past medical expenses. An appellate court later affirmed the trial court's decision.
On March 1, 2015, a student driving a pickup truck in Allen, Texas, was rear-ended by a sports car while stopped at a light. The student, who became the plaintiff, alleged negligence by the sports car's driver, the defendant, claiming injuries to the back, head, and neck. The defendant denied negligence, attributing the collision to brake failure, though he acknowledged not having his brakes checked after the incident. The plaintiff reported immediate neck, back, and head pain, receiving a concussion diagnosis at an emergency room before being released. Following physical therapy and cervical and lumbar MRIs that showed a disc herniation and bulging discs, the plaintiff ceased treatment for over two years. In October 2017, the plaintiff sought further care, including an epidural steroid injection and a recommendation for cervical discectomy and fusion surgery. A neuropsychologist later diagnosed post-concussion syndrome. The plaintiff's orthopedic surgeon testified that all treatments were reasonable, necessary, accident-related, and that the recommended surgery would cost approximately $150,000. The defense's orthopedic expert countered, stating the cervical MRI indicated only a disc bulge, not a herniation, and that lumbar findings were minor, precluding the need for further surgery. The defense argued the plaintiff's neck injury and neuropsychological issues likely stemmed from playing football, highlighted the referral of the plaintiff to a surgeon by an attorney, and emphasized the significant gap in treatment. After a two-day trial and 1.25 minutes of deliberation, the jury found the defendant negligent and awarded the plaintiff $255,500. Subsequently, the parties settled for $283,915.76, which included prejudgment interest and taxable costs, in lieu of a judgment being entered.
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.
Explore More Cases Like This
Browse similar cases by injury type and location to get a better understanding of case values in your area.