Clint, Texas Jury Awards $13 Million in Train Collision
A train struck a vehicle carrying four occupants at a railroad crossing. The collision occurred because a parked train blocked the view of the approaching train, and the crossing gates were down. The occupants sustained various injuries, and one occupant died as a result of the crash. The jury found the railroad company, the vehicle's driver, and the driver's employer negligent.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Plaintiff
- Amount
- $13,000,000
- County
- El Paso County, TX
- Resolved
- 2023
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Back Strain / Soft Tissue
- Accident Type
- Truck/Commercial
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Negligence
Case Overview
On September 13, 2019, an 80-year-old passenger died after the car he was riding in, driven by his caregiver, was struck broadside by a Union Pacific train at a dual-track crossing in Clint. The man's 81-year-old wife and 83-year-old sister-in-law were also passengers and sustained significant injuries. The collision occurred when the driver proceeded through activated crossing gates, which had reportedly been down for about 30 minutes due to another Union Pacific train parked nearby, allegedly blocking the view of the approaching train.
The estate of the deceased passenger, his son, his wife's estate, and the sister-in-law filed a lawsuit against Union Pacific Railroad Co. and New Mission Home Care LLC, the caregiver's employer. They alleged Union Pacific was negligent for parking a train too close to the crossing, obstructing visibility and causing extended gate closures. They also claimed New Mission negligently hired, trained, supervised, and retained the driver, who they alleged was negligent in operating the vehicle. The driver was later nonsuited from the case after her liability insurance carrier tendered its policy limit of $60,000. Union Pacific and New Mission argued the driver was solely at fault for bypassing the gates, and that this action was unforeseeable. New Mission further asserted that the driver was not authorized to drive and was not acting within the scope of her employment.
Following a six-day trial and 18 hours of deliberation, the jury found negligence and proximate cause on the part of the driver, New Mission, and Union Pacific, determining no fault for the plaintiffs. The jury assigned comparative responsibility as 52 percent to the driver, 40 percent to New Mission, and 8 percent to Union Pacific. The jury also found the driver was acting within the course and scope of her employment, making New Mission liable for both its own 40 percent responsibility and the driver's 52 percent. The plaintiffs were awarded a total of $13 million in damages.
VerdictlyTM Score
This outcome significantly deviates from 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.
Deserve a fair outcome for your case?
Share your situation and we'll connect you with experienced motor vehicle accident attorneys who have handled cases like this in El Paso County.
Similar cases you may find useful
Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.
One driver was traveling south when their vehicle was struck from behind by another vehicle. The occupants of the first vehicle claimed injuries to their back and neck. The driver of the first vehicle alleged the other driver was speeding and inattentive, while the second driver claimed the first vehicle stopped suddenly. The first driver sought damages for medical costs, pain, and suffering.
One driver was traveling on a freeway when their car was struck from behind by a box truck. The driver who was hit claimed injuries to their back and neck. The responding officer believed the truck driver failed to control speed, but also faulted the other driver for an unsafe lane change. The truck driver claimed the other driver suddenly moved into their path. The jury found both drivers equally liable for the accident.
One driver was stopped on a road when their car was struck from behind by another car. This initial impact propelled the stopped car into a third vehicle. The driver of the first car claimed injuries to their back and neck, seeking damages for medical expenses and pain.
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.
One driver was stopped at a red light when their vehicle was struck from behind by another vehicle. The driver who was struck claimed injuries to their back, knee, and neck. The case alleged the trailing driver was negligent for failing to maintain a safe distance and control their speed. The jury found the trailing driver liable and awarded damages for past medical expenses.