Barstow Jury Finds Negligence, Awards $955,000 in Truck Pedestrian Accident
A worker was standing near his co-worker's truck when another truck struck him. The injured worker claimed injuries to his lower back, pelvis, and knee. He sued the driver and the driver's employer, alleging negligence in the operation of the vehicle and gross negligence in training and equipment. The defense argued the injured worker was also at fault. The jury found the driver and employer negligent but also found the injured worker partially at fault.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Plaintiff
- Amount
- $950,000
- County
- Nueces County, TX
- Resolved
- 2016
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Lumbar Disc Injury
- Accident Type
- Other
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Negligence
Case Overview
On March 4, 2015, in Barstow, a pedestrian was struck by a truck operated by a defendant employee. The plaintiff was standing near a co-worker's truck when the defendant backed his vehicle, briefly pinning the plaintiff. The plaintiff sustained injuries including a dislocated symphysis pubis, pubic diastasis, a fractured coccyx, a crush injury to his right knee, and bulging discs in his lower back. He required specialized medical treatment, including manipulation of the pelvis, and experienced difficulty walking and bearing weight.
The plaintiff sued the truck operator for negligent vehicle operation, alleging failures to control the vehicle, maintain a proper lookout, and observe traffic. The plaintiff also sued the operator's employer and the vehicle owner, claiming gross negligence for inadequate training, insufficient equipment, lack of proper procedures, vehicle alteration creating blind spots, and not installing pedestrian warning equipment for backup maneuvers. The defendants denied negligence, asserting that the plaintiff and his employer were comparatively negligent. The plaintiff sought damages for future medical care, lost earning capacity as a welder, and pain and suffering. Medical experts for both sides agreed the plaintiff would require lower back surgery, but they offered differing opinions on the estimated costs and the long-term resolution of other injuries.
After a six-day trial and one day of deliberation, a jury found the employer 65 percent negligent, the operator 25 percent negligent, and the plaintiff 10 percent negligent. The jury awarded $950,000 in damages, which was reduced to $855,000 due to the plaintiff's comparative negligence. Before the gross negligence portion of the case began, the parties settled that claim for an additional $100,000.
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.
Need better results for your case?
Share your situation and we'll connect you with experienced motor vehicle accident attorneys who have handled cases like this in Nueces County.
Similar cases you may find useful
Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.
On September 19, 2013, a front-seat passenger in a sedan was injured when the vehicle was rear-ended by a 15-passenger van on Interstate 37 Frontage Road in Corpus Christi, Texas. The plaintiff, a carpenter, subsequently filed a lawsuit against the van driver and the driver's employer, alleging vehicular negligence and claiming the collision aggravated a pre-existing back injury. The plaintiff reported immediate back pain that worsened the following day, leading to an emergency room visit. An orthopedic surgeon later confirmed the collision aggravated a pre-existing degenerative disc disease. The plaintiff, who had a non-debilitating history of back pain, underwent physical therapy, steroid injections, and ultimately a two-level lumbar fusion. Treating physicians testified the collision necessitated surgery and affected his ability to perform manual labor. The plaintiff sought damages for past and future medical costs, lost wages, and pain and mental anguish. While the defendants did not dispute negligence for the collision, they contested causation and the extent of injury. The defense argued the impact was minor, noting the police report indicated no immediate injuries and the van was traveling at low speed. Defense experts opined the plaintiff's back problems were attributable to his pre-existing degenerative condition, not the accident, and that he would sustain no wage loss. Following a five-day trial, the jury found the defendant driver negligent and determined his negligence was a factual cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The jury awarded the plaintiff $563,003 in damages. The court subsequently added $32,257.69 for pre-judgment interest and court costs, resulting in a total judgment of $595,360.46 for the plaintiff.
In Tarrant County, a plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging negligence following a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff claimed to have sustained bodily injuries, specifically soft tissue damage to the neck and back, as a result of the incident. A jury heard the case and delivered an 11-1 verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The jury found the defendant negligent and awarded damages totaling $2,226. This amount included $500 for past physical pain and mental anguish, and $1,726 for past medical care.
In September 2009, a plaintiff, then 68, was involved in two separate rear-end collisions in Houston. The first incident occurred on September 13 when a vehicle driven by a first defendant rear-ended the plaintiff's stopped car after a light changed. On September 21, a second defendant, operating a vehicle for an employer, rear-ended the plaintiff's car during rush hour traffic. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against both drivers, alleging negligence for failing to maintain a proper lookout or control speed. The suit also included claims of respondeat superior, negligent entrustment, and gross negligence against the employer, though the latter two claims were later nonsuited by the plaintiff during trial. The plaintiff claimed a lumbar injury or exacerbation of a pre-existing condition, which necessitated the implantation of a spinal cord stimulator and led to early retirement. Damages sought included physical pain, mental anguish, physical impairment, and lost earning capacity. The first defendant argued a low impact speed, while the second defendant claimed a sudden emergency and noted that neither police nor ambulances were called after their collision. Defendants presented expert testimony asserting the plaintiff's symptoms were pre-existing and unrelated to the collisions, highlighting prior medical conditions, a 2008 accident, and a pain management regimen predating the 2009 incidents. The defense also noted the plaintiff did not present medical testimony. At the close of all evidence, the court granted a directed verdict against the first defendant on negligence. However, the jury found no negligence on the part of the second defendant and ultimately awarded zero damages to the plaintiff. The outcome reflected the jury's acceptance of the defense's arguments regarding the lack of causation between the collisions and the plaintiff's claimed injuries.
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.