Lake Charles Jury Awards $301,000 in Rear-End Collision

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.

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.