Dallas County Jury Awards $243.2 Million in Defective Seat Collision
A family was stopped in traffic when their car was hit from behind. The children in the car sustained traumatic brain injuries. The family sued the driver of the other vehicle and the car manufacturer, alleging the car's seats were defectively designed, leading to the children's injuries. The jury found the car manufacturer negligent and responsible for a design defect. The jury awarded the family $242,100,000.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Plaintiff
- Amount
- $242,100,000
- County
- Dallas County, TX
- Resolved
- 2018
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Head/Brain Injury
- Accident Type
- Rear-end
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Negligence, Traumatic Brain Injury, Head, Traumatic Brain Injury
Case Overview
In September 2016, a family traveling on State Highway 75 in Dallas County was involved in a rear-end collision when their 2002 Lexus ES 300 was struck by another vehicle. Two child passengers in the Lexus, ages five and three, sustained severe traumatic brain injuries. The family filed a lawsuit against the driver of the striking vehicle for negligence and against Toyota Motor North America Inc., Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc., and Toyota Motor Corp., alleging the Lexus ES 300 was defectively designed and marketed, and that the manufacturer was grossly negligent. One Toyota entity and the owner of the striking vehicle were later nonsuited.
The plaintiffs contended that the Lexus's front seats were defectively designed to yield rearward in rear-end collisions, causing front-seat occupants to "ramp" up and over the seatbacks and collide with rear-seat passengers. Their experts testified that this design was defective and that the manufacturer could have prevented the danger by modifying the seat back or enhancing the restraint system. They further argued that the children's injuries resulted from contact with their parents, not from intrusion by the striking vehicle, and that their child restraints were properly used.
Toyota argued that the driver of the striking vehicle was solely responsible for the accident and injuries. The manufacturer maintained that the children's injuries were caused by significant intrusion of the striking vehicle into the Lexus and not by the rearward movement of the front seats or occupants. Toyota denied any defect in its restraint system design, asserting that its vehicles were thoroughly tested for safety, and claimed the collision was unusually severe. The manufacturer also disputed the proper installation and use of the children's restraints. The defendant driver argued that the alleged seat defect exacerbated the injuries, thus minimizing his comparative responsibility, and that the collision was unavoidable due to a sudden stop in traffic.
After a three-week trial, a Dallas County jury found both the driver and the Toyota entities liable. The jury attributed 90 percent of the liability to Toyota Motor Corp., 5 percent to Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc., and 5 percent to the defendant driver. The plaintiffs were awarded $242.1 million, which, with stipulated past medical expenses, totaled $243,236,248.71.
VerdictlyTM Score
This outcome significantly deviates from 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 understand 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.
One driver was stopped in traffic when their vehicle was struck from behind by another vehicle. The driver who was rear-ended claimed injuries to their back and neck. The case proceeded to trial to determine damages, as liability was conceded.
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.
On December 11, 2017, a vehicle carrying two plaintiffs, a driver and a front-seat passenger, was struck from behind on Interstate 380 in Collin County, Texas. The plaintiffs subsequently sued the driver of the trailing vehicle, alleging negligence in the operation of her vehicle. The defendant driver conceded liability for the collision, and the trial proceeded solely on the issues of the plaintiffs' injuries and damages. Both plaintiffs claimed neck and back disc herniations, sought emergency room treatment, underwent chiropractic care, and reported residual pain and limitations in daily activities. They sought to recover damages for past and future medical costs, past and future pain and suffering, and past and future physical impairment. Following a three-day trial, a jury deliberated for two hours before awarding the driver plaintiff $25,016 in damages and the passenger plaintiff $25,273 in damages. The total award was $50,289.
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.
In Plano, Texas, a collision occurred on the President George Bush Turnpike when a loan officer, driving a Mercedes-Benz sedan, stopped at a yield sign and was rear-ended by another vehicle. The plaintiff, the driver of the Mercedes-Benz, filed a lawsuit alleging negligence against the defendant, claiming failures to maintain a proper lookout, control speed, avoid following too closely, and brake to prevent the accident. The defendant stipulated to liability, and the case proceeded to determine damages. The plaintiff claimed the accident caused a lumbar disc bulge, along with neck and left shoulder sprains and strains. She underwent chiropractic care and saw a pain management specialist, who recommended epidural steroid injections which she did not receive. The plaintiff testified that her lower back pain persisted, impacting her ability to bike with her daughter and run competitively. She sought nearly $21,000 for past medical bills, $1,880 for past lost wages, and additional damages for future medical care, future lost earnings, and past and future pain and impairment, totaling approximately $80,000. Her treating doctor testified that her back pain could require future chiropractic care. The defense disputed the extent of the plaintiff's damages, arguing the impact was minor, citing minimal damage to the plaintiff's vehicle. Defense counsel challenged the plaintiff's credibility, highlighting inconsistencies between her trial and deposition testimony regarding the impact's severity, and questioning her physical difficulties in court. A defense expert opined that the duration and cost of the plaintiff's medical treatment were excessive, and the defense noted all treatment was attorney-referred. The defense suggested an award of $5,000 for past medical bills and zero for other damages. After a two-day trial and four hours of deliberation, the jury awarded the plaintiff $7,721 for past medical bills only. However, due to a pre-existing high-low agreement between the parties, with parameters set between $20,000 and $49,500, the defendant's insurer paid the plaintiff $20,000, plus a portion of taxable costs.