Austin Jury Finds Negligence, Awards $671,000 in Vehicle Collision

A deli clerk filed a lawsuit after she slipped and fell at her workplace, a Kroger Signature Supermarket in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 23, 2011. The incident occurred behind the deli counter, an area that had been cleaned and mopped prior to her arrival. The plaintiff claimed she suffered a traumatic brain injury, anxiety, and depression after striking her head on the floor. She alleged that the supermarket's parent company, Kroger Texas LP, failed to provide a safe workplace by not properly training employees or having a policy to warn of wet floor conditions. The plaintiff's husband also sued for loss of services. The case was filed in United States District Court as Kroger Texas LP did not carry Texas workers' compensation. The plaintiff presented medical evidence of a concussion, scalp hematoma, and cervical neck sprain immediately following the fall, with subsequent diagnoses of a traumatic brain injury, impaired memory and attention, and chronic pain. Her expert neurologist testified that the injuries were causally related to the accident and would prevent her from working again. The plaintiff sought $2.6 million in damages for past and future pain and suffering, mental anguish, and economic losses, including over $300,000 for future medical care and over $500,000 for lost earnings and household services. The defense contended that routine cleaning procedures were followed, and the plaintiff, being aware of such maintenance, did not require additional warnings. The defendant argued that placing caution cones in the active deli area, which was considered a kitchen, would have created a greater tripping hazard for employees. The defense also asserted that all employees, including the plaintiff, were trained to be aware of their surroundings, and that the plaintiff was wearing required non-slip shoes and her workstation had a non-slip floor cover. Additionally, the defense claimed the plaintiff had pre-existing cervical and lumbar spine injuries from a 1998 motor vehicle accident, suggesting her medical experts had not fully reviewed her prior medical history. After an eight-day trial and one hour of deliberation, a jury returned an 8-0 verdict in favor of the defense. The jury found that Kroger Texas LP was not negligent in the plaintiff's injury, resulting in no award of damages.

On October 10, 2012, a vehicular collision occurred on West 34th Street in Houston, Texas. The plaintiff was driving eastbound when she slowed for traffic, and her vehicle was struck from the rear by a defendant's vehicle. The force of the impact pushed the plaintiff's car into the automobile in front of hers. The plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit, asserting the defendant failed to maintain a proper lookout, apply brakes in a timely manner, and manage an assured clear distance. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff claimed to have suffered a blow to the head, lost consciousness, and was diagnosed with a concussion, a hematoma of the head, broken ribs, a collarbone, and a pelvis. She further alleged permanent brain injury affecting memory, balance, and causing tremors, in addition to depression. The defendant denied all allegations of negligence, contending the plaintiff caused the accident by making a right turn from a driveway into traffic and then suddenly braking. The defendant also disputed the extent of the plaintiff's injuries, maintaining that some were unrelated to the collision and resulted from pre-existing illness, disease, or another accident. After hearing the arguments, a jury found the defendant 100% liable for the accident. The plaintiff was awarded $70,000 in past damages.

A case was filed in Texas by the plaintiffs against an individual defendant and defendant Rockwell Collins, Inc. Few details were available regarding the incident that led to the lawsuit or the specific legal claims asserted. The record indicated the case concluded on June 12, 2015. No further information was provided regarding the arguments of each side, the outcome, or the reasons for the verdict or judgment.

In October 2011, a plaintiff was driving a compact car eastbound on Interstate 10 in Harris County, Texas. While moving to the outside shoulder to yield to an approaching fire truck, the plaintiff's vehicle struck a rectangular hole in the pavement, causing a right front tire blowout. The hole, approximately two feet long and several inches deep, had resulted from the removal of a traffic-counting device and had not been refilled. The plaintiff alleged a shoulder injury. The plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit against the Texas Department of Transportation, alleging the hole constituted an unreasonably dangerous "special defect" that the agency knew or should have known about. The court ruled that the hole was a special defect as a matter of law. The defendant denied knowledge of the condition and contended that the plaintiff was negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout. The plaintiff claimed the incident aggravated a pre-existing partial rotator cuff tear, while the defense argued the injury was entirely pre-existing and noted a six-month gap in the plaintiff's treatment history. After a two-day trial, a jury found the Texas Department of Transportation negligent and awarded the plaintiff $9,973. The jury's finding of negligence was based on the determination that the defendant "knew or should have known" of the dangerous condition. The jury did not find the defendant negligent based on "actual knowledge," nor did it find the plaintiff comparatively negligent. The award included damages for past medical costs, past physical impairment, past lost earning capacity, and past physical pain.

One driver stopped their vehicle on a highway when the other driver struck them from behind at a high speed. The impact caused the driver to hit their head and briefly lose consciousness. The injured driver claimed the accident caused a brain injury, preventing them from completing college studies, and also affected their ability to care for their young son. The other driver admitted to the collision but disputed the extent and cause of the injuries.