Texas Jury Finds Split Liability in Rear-End Collision

On July 16, 2015, in Plano, Texas, a plaintiff's vehicle was rear-ended by another car while stopped at a traffic signal. The plaintiff, an office worker, sued the driver for negligence, claiming neck and back injuries. Initial allegations against the vehicle owners were dismissed, and the driver conceded liability, leading the trial to focus exclusively on damages. The plaintiff reported a C4-5 disc protrusion with nerve impingement and cervicogenic migraines, which she attributed to the collision or an aggravation of pre-existing conditions. Her medical treatments included various therapies and injections, and a neurosurgeon recommended potential future surgery. She also claimed significant impacts on her career and social life. The defense argued the plaintiff's neck problems were pre-existing and age-related, disputing the accident's severity and questioning the necessity of all medical costs. After a two-day trial, a jury deliberated for 1.5 hours before awarding the plaintiff $88,400. This award covered past and future medical costs, physical impairment, physical pain and suffering, and mental anguish.

One driver was stopped at a red light when the other driver rear-ended their vehicle. The driver who was rear-ended claimed injuries to their neck and lower back. The other driver argued they were not negligent and that the impact was minor. The jury found the driver who caused the collision not liable.

One driver was stopped in traffic when the other driver rear-ended her. The injured driver claimed neck and back strains, sprains, and shoulder pain. She also claimed anxiety for her unborn child. The defense argued that the defendant's actions did not cause the injuries and questioned the extent of the claimed damages.

On October 30, 2014, a plaintiff was involved in a rear-end collision in Plano, Texas. The plaintiff's sport utility vehicle was struck from behind by a vehicle driven by the defendant while stopped at an intersection on East Plano Parkway near Los Rios Boulevard. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging the defendant was negligent in operating the vehicle. The plaintiff claimed to have stopped normally at a yellow traffic signal. Injuries alleged included a concussion and post-concussion syndrome, with symptoms such as headaches, vertigo, and memory impairment, in addition to sprains and strains to the cervical and lumbar regions. The plaintiff sought approximately $47,000 for past medical expenses, along with damages for past physical impairment, pain, and mental anguish. The defendant contended being distracted by another vehicle that appeared poised to enter the intersection against a red light. The defendant also claimed the plaintiff seemed to proceed into the intersection before an abrupt stop. Defense counsel questioned the causation of the head injury, noting a delayed complaint, and cited the plaintiff's prior neck issues, a previous head injury, and past memory problems. Plaintiff's counsel countered that any prior issues had resolved years before the accident. Following a three-day trial, the jury rendered a defense verdict, finding the defendant was not negligent regarding the accident. Although the jury did find $15,000 in damages—comprising $8,000 for past medical expenses, $5,000 for past physical pain and mental anguish, and $2,000 for past physical impairment—the plaintiff received no award due to the finding of no negligence.

On March 17, 2016, a four-vehicle accident occurred on Parker Road when a motorist stopped for a bush that had fallen onto the roadway. The initial plaintiff, the driver of the second vehicle from the front, subsequently filed a lawsuit against the three drivers behind her, alleging negligence in the operation of their vehicles. One of the defendants, the driver of the second vehicle in the chain, also filed cross-claims against the two drivers behind him, alleging their negligence. The initial plaintiff later non-suited her claims without settlement before trial. The case proceeded to trial on the cross-plaintiff's claims against the two drivers behind him. The cross-plaintiff alleged that the last driver in the chain was solely responsible for the collision, arguing that all other vehicles had stopped safely before the last driver rear-ended the third vehicle, initiating a series of impacts. The cross-plaintiff claimed back, neck, and shoulder injuries, seeking approximately $90,000 in damages for past and future medical expenses, lost wages, physical pain and mental anguish, and physical impairment. The cross-defendant, the last driver, argued that the fallen bush created a sudden emergency or that the accident was a mistake rather than an act of negligence. Alternatively, the cross-defendant contended that if any liability was found, the other drivers, including the cross-plaintiff and the initial plaintiff, were equally liable. Testimony from the initial plaintiff indicated the cross-plaintiff would have hit her vehicle regardless of a rear-end impact. The defense also highlighted that the cross-plaintiff's vehicle showed minor rear-end damage but significant front-end damage. After a one-day trial and 10 hours of deliberation, the jury rendered a defense verdict. The jury found no negligence on the part of any motorist involved in the collision.