Dallas Improper Vehicle Repair Settles for Undisclosed Amount
One driver's vehicle had its roof improperly repaired with glue instead of welds. Later, when another vehicle hydroplaned and struck it, the roof detached, causing severe injuries to the occupants. The jury found the repair shop mostly at fault for the injuries.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Settlement
- Amount
- $41,935,624
- County
- Dallas County, TX
- Resolved
- 2017
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Burns / Lacerations
- Accident Type
- Other
- Case Type
- Auto Repair Negligence, Negligent repair, Vehicle negligence, Scarring and burn injuries
Case Overview
A plaintiff driver and passenger suffered severe injuries in a December 2013 motor vehicle accident in Dallas, Texas. Their 2010 Honda Fit was involved in a collision after another vehicle lost control and crossed into their lane. The plaintiffs alleged that a defendant collision center, which had previously repaired the vehicle's roof for a prior owner, was responsible for exacerbating their injuries. They claimed the collision center improperly used adhesive glue instead of 108 welds as specified by the manufacturer, leading to the roof separating and the vehicle's safety cage collapsing during the accident.
During the trial, the plaintiffs argued that the improper repair compromised the vehicle's structural integrity, causing significantly more severe crush injuries and trapping the driver, who sustained extensive burns. They presented crash test evidence and testimony indicating the collision center opted for glue due to insurance company requirements, despite manufacturer guidelines. The collision center countered that the accident's severity caused deceleration injuries, not those from structural failure. It maintained that the roof panel was not a structural part of the safety system and contended that adhesive glue was as strong or stronger than welds.
The jury found the collision center 75% liable for the plaintiffs' injuries and the driver of the other vehicle 25% liable. The jury awarded the plaintiff driver $25,888,153 for past and future pain, disfigurement, physical impairment, medical expenses, and lost wages, among other damages. The plaintiff passenger was awarded $16,047,471 for similar categories of damages, including medical expenses and loss of consortium.
Following the verdict, the parties reached a settlement for an undisclosed sum under a high/low agreement. As part of the resolution, the parties also agreed to conduct crash testing to further study the safety implications of glued versus welded vehicle repairs.
VerdictlyTM Score
This outcome is within expected ranges
This score is calculated by analyzing injury type, accident details, geographic location, temporal trends, and comparing against 2,000+ similar cases in our database.
Curious about 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 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.
On September 2, 2016, a collision occurred in a Plano parking lot. A plaintiff, a hotel hostess and gift-shop attendant, was driving in an aisle next to a street when a defendant, driving on the street, made a right turn into the parking lot driveway. The vehicles collided. The plaintiff claimed neck, back, and knee injuries and subsequently sued the defendant, alleging negligence in the operation of her vehicle. The plaintiff testified that she was making a left turn at the driveway when the defendant turned into it, claiming the driveway was wide enough for two vehicles but the defendant made too wide a turn. The defendant denied making a wide turn, asserting her turn was completed when the plaintiff's vehicle scraped across her front end. Photos of vehicle damage, showing front-distributed damage to the defendant's car and left front corner to driver's door damage to the plaintiff's, were presented as evidence, which defense counsel argued supported the defendant's account. The plaintiff underwent various treatments, including emergency room care, physical therapy, pain management, and MRIs revealing a meniscus tear, disc protrusions, stenosis, and a disc bulge. She sought damages for past and future medical expenses, physical pain, mental anguish, and physical impairment. Defense counsel argued the impact was not major, highlighted delays and gaps in the plaintiff's treatment, and impeached the plaintiff with evidence of a prior accident and chiropractic care despite her testimony denying previous injuries. Following a one-day trial, a jury rendered a defense verdict. The jury found that neither party's negligence, if any, proximately caused the accident. Consequently, the damages question was not addressed.
On December 12, 2012, a collision occurred in McKinney, Texas, involving a vehicle driven by the plaintiff, a convenience store clerk, and a vehicle operated by the defendant. The plaintiff was traveling northbound on Custer Road when the defendant, who was at a stop sign on Cotton Ridge Road, attempted a right turn. The plaintiff's vehicle struck the defendant's vehicle in the middle northbound lane of Custer Road. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit, alleging the defendant negligently entered the lane, failed to keep a proper lookout, yield the right of way, and make a safe turn. The plaintiff claimed multiple injuries from the incident. An eyewitness testified that the defendant's vehicle entered the plaintiff's lane, and both the eyewitness and the investigating officer attributed fault to the defendant. The defendant, however, denied negligence, testifying that her vehicle sustained no damage and she was unsure if contact occurred. She asserted she turned into the right lane, not the middle lane, and suggested the plaintiff may have drifted. The defense also argued the investigating officer did not witness the accident, that the corner lacked adequate lighting, and that the plaintiff's vehicle damage might have been pre-existing. The defense impeached the plaintiff regarding the time of day the accident occurred. The plaintiff claimed neck and back sprains, hip and shoulder injuries, headaches, a concussion, and post-concussion syndrome, undergoing treatment with a chiropractor, neurologist, and pain management specialist. The plaintiff sought compensation for past medical bills totaling over $37,000, along with non-economic damages. The defense countered by highlighting the plaintiff's extensive history of prior neck, back, and shoulder injuries and treatments. A defense expert, an orthopedic surgeon, testified that only a limited number of chiropractic visits were medically necessary due to the accident, estimating the related medical costs at approximately $2,000. After a one-day trial and four hours of deliberation, the jury found the defendant solely negligent. The jury awarded the plaintiff $38,842.97 in damages.
A minor sustained back, head, and neck injuries in a motor vehicle accident in Texas. The plaintiff subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit, alleging the incident caused the injuries and seeking damages. During the proceedings, the plaintiff presented expert testimony from a neurologist specializing in pain management, a neuropsychologist, and an economist. The defense called an expert in aerospace and occupational medicine. The case concluded with an award of $27,255.