Tomball Multi-Vehicle Rear-End Collision Settles for $13,000

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.

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.

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.

Physical Injury

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.