$20,000 Motor Vehicle Accident Case

A plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging negligence after a defendant's vehicle struck the plaintiff's automobile, causing the rear window to shatter. The plaintiff claimed to suffer neck and back injuries, diagnosed as cervical and lumbar sprain/strain, and reported ongoing back spasms and pain despite physical therapy. The defendant denied the negligence allegations, disputed liability, and challenged the nature, extent, and damages associated with the plaintiff's alleged injuries. The case proceeded to trial in Texas. Following deliberations, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, awarding $16,500 in damages.

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.

On February 12, 2017, a plaintiff driving in Plano, Texas, slowed for traffic when their vehicle was rear-ended by an SUV. The plaintiff reported sustaining back and neck injuries from the collision. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit against the driver of the SUV, the vehicle's owner, and their own insurer for first-party benefits. The claims against the driver and vehicle owner were later discontinued after it was determined they were uninsured. The case then proceeded against the insurer, which conceded liability, focusing the trial solely on the issue of damages. The plaintiff claimed the accident aggravated pre-existing scoliosis and caused new injuries, including radiating pain and a cervical disc herniation. Evidence showed the plaintiff sought emergency medical care on the day of the accident and subsequently underwent extensive treatment, including chiropractic sessions, pain management procedures like lumbar and cervical rhizotomies, and epidural steroid injections over a two-year period. A medical expert for the plaintiff testified that the pre-existing scoliosis made the spine more susceptible to injury and attributed the treatment and complaints prior to a later motorcycle accident to the February 2017 collision. The defense, while conceding liability for the collision, disputed the extent of the claimed damages. Defense counsel argued that the accident did not aggravate the plaintiff's pre-existing conditions, that medical charges were excessive, and pointed to minimal damage to the vehicles and gaps in the plaintiff's treatment history. The defense suggested an award for only immediate medical expenses. After a two-day trial and two hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, awarding $80,000. This amount included $35,000 for past medical costs, $22,500 for past physical pain, and $22,500 for past mental anguish.

On April 26, 2013, a three-vehicle rear-end collision occurred on Texas State Highway 75 in Plano. A Chevrolet Cobalt rear-ended a Nissan Maxima, causing the Maxima to then strike a Nissan Altima in front of it. The insurer of the Altima initially sued the drivers of the Maxima and the Cobalt for property damage, but these claims were resolved before trial. The driver of the Maxima, acting as the cross-plaintiff, then pursued claims against the driver of the Cobalt, who was the defendant, for personal injuries and property damage. The cross-plaintiff alleged the defendant failed to control speed and maintain a safe distance. Following the incident, the cross-plaintiff reported neck and lower back pain, undergoing chiropractic treatment for two months. Medical imaging allegedly revealed disc bulges and protrusions, and a cervical strain/sprain. The cross-plaintiff sought approximately $12,000 for medical costs, along with damages for past pain, physical impairment, and property damage, claiming inability to continue weightlifting or assist his son in football. The defendant's counsel, whose client did not appear at trial, countered that the cross-plaintiff had initially rear-ended the Altima and then slowed, leading to the second impact. The defense also argued any injuries would have resolved post-treatment. After a one-day trial in Plano, a jury found the defendant negligent and that this negligence was a factual cause of injury to the cross-plaintiff. The jury awarded the cross-plaintiff $22,500. This included $7,500 for past medical costs, $2,000 for past physical impairment, $3,000 for past pain and suffering, and $10,000 for property damage.

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.