Baytown Jury Issues Defense Verdict in Rear-End Collision

A plaintiff filed a vehicular negligence action after his stopped vehicle was struck from the rear by a defendant's vehicle on April 10, 2014, at an intersection in Houston, Texas. The plaintiff alleged the defendant failed to control the vehicle, maintain a proper lookout, and take evasive action. The plaintiff claimed to have sustained an ankle sprain and discogenic injuries to the cervical and lumbar spine as a result of the collision. The defendant denied all allegations of negligence, including that the plaintiff sustained serious or permanent injuries from the accident. A jury ultimately found the defendant negligent. The jury awarded the plaintiff $16,361 for past damages and an additional $10,000 for future damages.

On August 14, 2014, a vehicular collision occurred in Houston, Texas, when the defendant's vehicle struck the rear of the plaintiff's vehicle. The plaintiff alleged the defendant, operating a company vehicle within the scope of employment, was traveling at an excessive rate of speed, failed to maintain a proper lookout, and did not keep a safe distance, causing severe injuries to the plaintiff's cervical and lumbar spine. The plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit, claiming the defendant's actions led to significant neck and back disc injuries. The defendant failed to answer the complaint, resulting in a default judgment entered by the court. The court awarded the plaintiff $364,305 in damages. This included $200,000 for pain and suffering, $14,305 for past medical expenses, and $150,000 for future medical expenses. The judgment was granted due to the defendant's failure to respond to the legal complaint.

On November 14, 2011, a rear-end collision occurred on the Katy Freeway in Houston, Texas. The plaintiff had stopped her vehicle in the left lane due to traffic when the defendant's vehicle struck it from behind. The plaintiff alleged the collision caused sprains and strains to her cervical and thoracic spine and left shoulder. The lawsuit claimed the defendant was negligent by traveling at an excessive speed, failing to maintain an assured clear distance, and failing to brake in a timely manner. Initially, the defendant argued the plaintiff made a sudden stop, which prevented avoidance. However, prior to trial, the defendant stipulated liability for the collision. The dispute then focused on the extent of the plaintiff's injuries, with the defendant maintaining that the plaintiff was not seriously injured and any alleged injuries were pre-existing. A jury found that the plaintiff did not suffer any serious or permanent injury in the collision.

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.

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.