New Orleans Jury Awards $1,241,773 in DWI Rear-End Collision
One driver was stopped at a red light when another driver rear-ended them. The driver who was hit sustained a severe traumatic brain injury and is permanently disabled. The injured driver sued the driver who hit them and the manufacturer of their vehicle, alleging the driver's seat was defectively designed. The jury found the vehicle manufacturer not liable but found the other driver negligent and 100% at fault for the injuries.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Mixed
- Amount
- $1,241,771
- County
- Orleans County, LA
- Resolved
- 2016
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Head/Brain Injury
- Accident Type
- Rear-end
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Negligence
Case Overview
In New Orleans, a restaurant co-owner suffered severe injuries, including a traumatic brain injury, after his vehicle was rear-ended at a red light on Canal Street at its intersection with Carrollton Street on February 5, 2011. The plaintiff, who was briefly in a coma and left permanently disabled, filed a lawsuit against the driver who struck his vehicle and Ford Motor Company. The defendant driver later pleaded guilty to a fourth offense DWI related to the crash. The plaintiff alleged the driver's negligence caused the collision and that the driver's seat in his 2005 Ford Focus was defectively designed, lacking adequate strength, which exacerbated his injuries.
The plaintiff presented expert testimony suggesting a stronger seat would have prevented severe injury and valued a life care plan between $3.3 million and $4 million. The defendant driver offered little defense regarding liability but sought to minimize claimed injuries. Ford Motor Company argued the crash was exceptionally severe, with its expert estimating impact speeds of 50 to 60 mph, making it more severe than 97.7% of all rear-end collisions. Ford also contended its seat design was not defective and that a more rigid design would increase injury risks in other scenarios without benefiting the plaintiff in this particular crash. Ford's experts disputed the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and damages, proposing a life care plan valued between $210,000 and $300,000.
After a two-week trial in New Orleans, the jury exonerated Ford Motor Company, finding the Ford Focus was not unreasonably dangerous. The jury concluded that the defendant driver was negligent and his negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries, assigning 100% fault to the driver. The plaintiff was awarded medical expenses totaling $441,773, an additional $300,000 for future medicals, and $125,000 in each of four general damages categories: pain and suffering, mental anguish, permanent impairment and disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life. A judgment was entered against the driver for a total of $1,241,773, and in favor of Ford on the product liability claim.
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 Orleans 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.