Houston Jury Awards $175,500 in Multi-Vehicle Rear-End Collision
A 16-year-old driver with a learner's permit was rear-ended by an ambulance, which had been rear-ended by another vehicle. The collision caused a chain reaction. The driver reported injuries to her back and neck, requiring months of chiropractic treatment. She stated the injuries impacted her ability to dance. The defense argued the collision was minor and the injuries were pre-existing or from other activities. The jury found fault with both the ambulance driver and the driver of the first vehicle. The injured driver was awarded damages for pain and impairment.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Defense
- Amount
- $175,500
- County
- Hidalgo County, TX
- Resolved
- 2024
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Lumbar Disc Injury
- Accident Type
- Rear-end
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Negligence
Case Overview
A multi-vehicle rear-end collision occurred on February 6, 2020, in Houston, Texas. A 16-year-old plaintiff, holding a learner's permit, was involved when an ambulance driven by an employee of a defendant emergency medical services company rear-ended a vehicle operated by a second defendant driver, which then struck the plaintiff's car. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit, alleging she suffered thoracic and lumbar disc herniations, cervical sprains, and strains, leading to eight months of chiropractic treatment. She sought compensation for past and future physical pain, mental anguish, and physical impairment, asserting that her injuries would worsen with age and forced her to stop dancing earlier than planned.
The defendant emergency medical services company, its driver, and the second defendant driver contended the collision was minor, describing it as "a bump." They argued the plaintiff's injuries were either pre-existing or resulted from other activities, such as dancing and a prior weightlifting incident, and highlighted a delay in her medical treatment.
After a four-day trial, a jury deliberated for nearly four hours. The jury found negligence and comparative responsibility, assigning 60% of the fault to the second defendant driver and 40% to the emergency medical services company and its employee driver. The jury awarded the plaintiff a total of $175,500 in damages, which included compensation for future physical impairment, past and future physical pain, and past mental anguish.
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 Hidalgo County.
Similar cases you may find useful
Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.
On February 20, 2015, a collision occurred on President George Bush Turnpike in Collin County involving a 2008 Chevrolet HHR driven by the plaintiff and a 2013 GMC Sierra driven by the defendant. The plaintiff alleged the defendant unsafely changed lanes, striking the plaintiff's vehicle, which then hit a concrete barrier. The plaintiff further claimed the defendant stopped suddenly on the shoulder, causing the plaintiff to rear-end the defendant. The plaintiff, who sustained neck, back, and knee injuries, subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging the defendant's negligence, including failure to maintain a single lane, unsafe lane change, improper lookout, and unsafe stopping. The defendant countered that the plaintiff initiated the collision by moving into the defendant's lane. The defendant stated that the plaintiff then stopped on the shoulder, and the defendant stopped normally about 100 yards ahead, before the plaintiff intentionally rear-ended the defendant. Following the collision, the plaintiff admitted to physically assaulting the defendant, citing anger over the incident and the defendant's alleged sudden stop. The plaintiff sought compensation for past medical bills totaling $22,469, past lost wages, and past and future pain, suffering, and mental anguish. The defense contended the plaintiff's claimed injuries were pre-existing and challenged the plaintiff's credibility, noting inconsistencies in past medical history and that the lost wage claim was supported solely by the plaintiff's testimony. After a two-day trial, the jury deliberated for two hours. The jury concluded that only the plaintiff was negligent in the incident and awarded zero damages.
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 January 3, 2017, a collision occurred on U.S. Highway 75 in Allen, Texas. The plaintiff was driving north when the defendant, in an adjacent lane, entered the plaintiff's lane. The defendant's pickup truck and the plaintiff's sedan collided. The plaintiff claimed injuries to her back and neck. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging the defendant's negligence in operating his vehicle, specifically an unsafe lane change that caused the collision. She asserted herniated cervical discs, along with back and neck sprains and strains. She underwent physical therapy and received lumbar injections, testifying to ongoing pain that limited her daily activities. The plaintiff sought damages for past and future medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, and physical impairment. The defendant countered that an unknown vehicle had cut him off, forcing him to swerve. While the police report noted an unknown vehicle, the investigating officer faulted the defendant for an unsafe lane change. The defense questioned the reasonableness and necessity of the plaintiff's medical treatment, noting a prior motor vehicle accident and attorney involvement in treatment decisions. A defense expert opined that a significantly lower amount for past medical expenses would have been reasonable. The jury returned a defense verdict. It found negligence and proximate cause applied solely to the unknown driver, not the named defendant. Although the jury answered the damages question and awarded $3,500, the plaintiff took nothing from the named defendant because no liability was assigned to the defendant.
In May 2018, a plaintiff's vehicle was rear-ended by a trailing car on Highway 121 near Preston Road in Frisco, Texas. The plaintiff, who claimed neck and back injuries, subsequently sued the driver of the trailing car for negligence. An initial claim against the alleged owner of the trailing vehicle, based on vicarious liability, was discontinued during trial. The plaintiff contended that the defendant failed to maintain due caution during a severe rainstorm and that the plaintiff's vehicle lights were activated. The plaintiff sought damages for past medical expenses, pain, and anguish, along with future pain and anguish, totaling over $27,000. The defense argued the plaintiff's vehicle lights were not on, hindering visibility. The defense also maintained that the collision was minor and could not have caused the claimed injuries, presenting photographs showing minimal vehicular damage. Following a two-day trial and 28 hours of deliberation, the jury rendered a defense verdict. The jury did not find that either party's negligence proximately caused the accident.
A vehicle collision in Collin County, Texas, prompted a lawsuit seeking damages for personal injuries. The plaintiffs alleged they were injured when their vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle operated by the defendant. They filed a complaint in the District Court for Collin County, Texas, seeking to recover for their injuries. One plaintiff's claim was severed and tried separately. In the initial trial involving two plaintiffs, a jury found all parties negligent. The jury apportioned 98 percent of the responsibility to one plaintiff, 1 percent to another plaintiff, and 1 percent to the defendant. No damages were awarded. The court subsequently entered a take-nothing judgment in favor of the defendant. Later, a jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant on the severed claim, and judgment was entered accordingly. An appellate court later affirmed the trial court's decisions.