Houston Jury Awards $330,000 in Rear-End Collision
One driver was operating a vehicle on a public road during rainy, dark conditions. The other party was operating heavy construction equipment on the same road. The driver collided with the rear of the construction equipment. Both parties were found to be negligent, with the injured driver bearing the majority of the fault.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Mixed
- Amount
- $330,000
- County
- Harris County, TX
- Resolved
- 2015
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Leg / Foot Injury
- Accident Type
- Rear-end
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Negligence, Rear End Collision
Case Overview
On October 26, 2012, a plaintiff operating a vehicle on Kingsland Boulevard in Houston, Texas, collided with the rear of a slow-moving piece of heavy construction equipment. The incident occurred during dark and rainy conditions, and witnesses stated the machinery was not well lit. The plaintiff sustained fractures to the right tibia, fibula, and ankle, requiring surgery and subsequent treatment for an infection. These injuries resulted in permanent pain, a limp, and an altered gait.
The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit, alleging the defendants negligently operated the construction equipment on a public roadway. Specific claims included failing to properly illuminate the machinery, not using an escort to warn drivers, and operating the equipment at a dangerously low speed. The defendants denied negligence, asserting that the plaintiff's inattentiveness or failure to maintain a proper lookout caused the collision, noting other traffic had observed and avoided the machinery.
A jury found both the plaintiff and the defendants negligent. Liability was apportioned at 49% to the plaintiff, 15% to the construction company that owned the equipment, 35% to the masonry company using it, and 1% to the equipment operator. The jury awarded the plaintiff $330,000 in total damages, which the court subsequently reduced based on the plaintiff's comparative negligence.
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 Harris 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.
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 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.
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.