Texas Court Issues Defense Verdict in False Claims Action
A company that made highway guard rail end terminals was accused of violating the False Claims Act. The accuser claimed the company secretly modified the design, which led to vehicles impaling the guard rails and causing severe injuries. The company denied these allegations. A jury found in favor of the accuser and awarded damages, which were then trebled and increased by penalties, totaling over $663 million. However, an appeals court later overturned this judgment, stating the government had not declared the design unsafe.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Plaintiff
- Amount
- $663,000,000
- County
- Dallas County, TX
- Resolved
- 2017
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Other
- Accident Type
- Other
- Case Type
- False Claims Act, False Claims Act Violation, Hazards and accidents, Patent infringement
Case Overview
A manufacturer of highway guard rail end terminals faced allegations of violating the False Claims Act in a qui tam action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case centered on the defendant's Trinity ET-Plus guard rail, a safety device designed to prevent guard rails from spearing or folding into vehicles upon impact, which required Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) certification for states to receive federal reimbursement for installation. The relator, owner of a competing company, asserted that the defendant secretly modified the ET-Plus design in 2005 by reducing the width of a component, which allegedly led to device failure, vehicle impalement, and severe injuries.
The relator argued the defendant made the modification to save $2 per unit, totaling approximately $50,000 annually, and presented an internal email supporting this claim. The plaintiff sought $218 million in damages. The defendant countered that the government was aware of the 2005 modification and had retroactively approved the modified design for reimbursement. A defense expert testified the modification was not significant enough to necessitate additional testing or reporting to the FHWA.
The case first went to trial in July 2014 but resulted in a mistrial. A second trial in October 2014 concluded with a jury finding for the plaintiff, awarding $175 million in damages. Under the False Claims Act, these damages were automatically trebled to $525 million. The judge added $138 million in penalties, bringing the total judgment to $663 million.
The defendant appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, disputing the damages and fraud claim on materiality grounds. In September 2017, the appellate court overturned the lower court's judgment. The court ruled that the U.S. Government had never declared the challenged design unsafe and had paid to install the guardrails while declining to remove them. The Fifth Circuit accordingly reversed the Texas court's judgment, rendering judgment as a matter of law in favor of the defendant.
VerdictlyTM Score
This outcome significantly deviates from 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 understand 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 Dallas County.
Similar cases you may find useful
Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.
One driver was involved in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in an injury. The case was settled for $97,500.
A case involving a motor vehicle accident featured testimony from a plaintiff's expert specializing in vocational economics, rehabilitation counseling, disability assessment, labor economics, and lost wages. Few other details were available regarding the incident, the legal claims, or the case's conclusion.
On December 12, 2012, a collision occurred in McKinney, Texas, involving a vehicle driven by the plaintiff, a convenience store clerk, and a vehicle operated by the defendant. The plaintiff was traveling northbound on Custer Road when the defendant, who was at a stop sign on Cotton Ridge Road, attempted a right turn. The plaintiff's vehicle struck the defendant's vehicle in the middle northbound lane of Custer Road. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit, alleging the defendant negligently entered the lane, failed to keep a proper lookout, yield the right of way, and make a safe turn. The plaintiff claimed multiple injuries from the incident. An eyewitness testified that the defendant's vehicle entered the plaintiff's lane, and both the eyewitness and the investigating officer attributed fault to the defendant. The defendant, however, denied negligence, testifying that her vehicle sustained no damage and she was unsure if contact occurred. She asserted she turned into the right lane, not the middle lane, and suggested the plaintiff may have drifted. The defense also argued the investigating officer did not witness the accident, that the corner lacked adequate lighting, and that the plaintiff's vehicle damage might have been pre-existing. The defense impeached the plaintiff regarding the time of day the accident occurred. The plaintiff claimed neck and back sprains, hip and shoulder injuries, headaches, a concussion, and post-concussion syndrome, undergoing treatment with a chiropractor, neurologist, and pain management specialist. The plaintiff sought compensation for past medical bills totaling over $37,000, along with non-economic damages. The defense countered by highlighting the plaintiff's extensive history of prior neck, back, and shoulder injuries and treatments. A defense expert, an orthopedic surgeon, testified that only a limited number of chiropractic visits were medically necessary due to the accident, estimating the related medical costs at approximately $2,000. After a one-day trial and four hours of deliberation, the jury found the defendant solely negligent. The jury awarded the plaintiff $38,842.97 in damages.
A minor sustained back, head, and neck injuries in a motor vehicle accident in Texas. The plaintiff subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit, alleging the incident caused the injuries and seeking damages. During the proceedings, the plaintiff presented expert testimony from a neurologist specializing in pain management, a neuropsychologist, and an economist. The defense called an expert in aerospace and occupational medicine. The case concluded with an award of $27,255.
On August 4, 2017, a collision occurred in Allen, Texas, at the intersection of West Exchange Parkway and Twin Creeks Drive. The plaintiff, an office assistant, was driving westbound when the defendant, driving eastbound, attempted a left turn. The vehicles collided, and an investigating officer determined the defendant failed to yield the right of way. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging negligent vehicle operation, with the defendant admitting liability. The plaintiff claimed neck, back, and left knee sprains and strains, requiring medical treatment and physical therapy. While acknowledging prior neck surgery and a 2016 neck injury, the plaintiff's counsel argued medical records showed no prior knee complaints and limited significant neck issues before the 2017 accident, noting increased pain and impairment afterward. The plaintiff sought over $19,000 for past medical expenses and substantial total damages. The defense highlighted the plaintiff's prior neck issues and a delay in reporting knee pain. The defense contended that ongoing problems stemmed from pre-existing conditions, age, or normal wear and tear. A jury awarded the plaintiff $83,631 in damages.