Houston Jury Awards $175,500 After Multi-Vehicle Rear-End Collision

On January 3, 2017, a collision occurred on U.S. Highway 75 in Allen, Texas. A sedan, driven by the plaintiff, was traveling northbound when a pickup truck, driven by the defendant, entered the plaintiff's lane. The rear corner of the pickup truck struck the front corner of the sedan. The plaintiff sustained back and neck injuries, including herniated discs and sprains, and subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging the defendant's negligent operation of his vehicle, specifically an unsafe lane change. The plaintiff sought damages for past and future medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, and physical impairment, totaling approximately $66,500. The defendant countered that an unknown vehicle had cut him off, forcing him to swerve into the plaintiff's lane, and designated the unknown driver as a responsible third party. While a police report diagram showed an unknown vehicle, the investigating officer primarily faulted the defendant for an unsafe lane change and faulty evasive action. The defense also challenged the extent and necessity of the plaintiff's medical treatment, noting a history of prior accident-related medical claims and presenting expert testimony that reasonable past medical expenses would be significantly lower than claimed. Following a trial, the jury returned a defense verdict. Jurors found that negligence and proximate cause rested solely with the unknown driver, thereby absolving the defendant of liability. Although the jury did answer the damages question, awarding $3,500, the plaintiff ultimately received no compensation because the finding of liability did not extend to the defendant in the case.

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.

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.

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 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.