Dallas County Jury Awards $243.2 Million in Defective Seat Collision
A family was stopped in traffic when their car was hit from behind. The children in the car sustained traumatic brain injuries. The family sued the driver of the other vehicle and the car manufacturer, alleging the car's seats were defectively designed, leading to the children's injuries. The jury found the car manufacturer negligent and responsible for a design defect. The jury awarded the family $242,100,000.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Plaintiff
- Amount
- $242,100,000
- County
- Dallas County, TX
- Resolved
- 2018
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Head/Brain Injury
- Accident Type
- Rear-end
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Negligence, Traumatic Brain Injury, Head, Traumatic Brain Injury
Case Overview
In September 2016, a family traveling on State Highway 75 in Dallas County was involved in a rear-end collision when their 2002 Lexus ES 300 was struck by another vehicle. Two child passengers in the Lexus, ages five and three, sustained severe traumatic brain injuries. The family filed a lawsuit against the driver of the striking vehicle for negligence and against Toyota Motor North America Inc., Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc., and Toyota Motor Corp., alleging the Lexus ES 300 was defectively designed and marketed, and that the manufacturer was grossly negligent. One Toyota entity and the owner of the striking vehicle were later nonsuited.
The plaintiffs contended that the Lexus's front seats were defectively designed to yield rearward in rear-end collisions, causing front-seat occupants to "ramp" up and over the seatbacks and collide with rear-seat passengers. Their experts testified that this design was defective and that the manufacturer could have prevented the danger by modifying the seat back or enhancing the restraint system. They further argued that the children's injuries resulted from contact with their parents, not from intrusion by the striking vehicle, and that their child restraints were properly used.
Toyota argued that the driver of the striking vehicle was solely responsible for the accident and injuries. The manufacturer maintained that the children's injuries were caused by significant intrusion of the striking vehicle into the Lexus and not by the rearward movement of the front seats or occupants. Toyota denied any defect in its restraint system design, asserting that its vehicles were thoroughly tested for safety, and claimed the collision was unusually severe. The manufacturer also disputed the proper installation and use of the children's restraints. The defendant driver argued that the alleged seat defect exacerbated the injuries, thus minimizing his comparative responsibility, and that the collision was unavoidable due to a sudden stop in traffic.
After a three-week trial, a Dallas County jury found both the driver and the Toyota entities liable. The jury attributed 90 percent of the liability to Toyota Motor Corp., 5 percent to Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc., and 5 percent to the defendant driver. The plaintiffs were awarded $242.1 million, which, with stipulated past medical expenses, totaled $243,236,248.71.
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 Dallas County.
Similar cases you may find useful
Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.
One driver was traveling on a tollway when their vehicle ran out of gas and became disabled. The other driver, who was following behind, struck the disabled vehicle. The first driver claimed injuries to their neck and back. The jury found the second driver 80% liable and the first driver 20% liable.
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.
One driver was traveling in Beaumont when their vehicle struck the rear end of a pickup truck. The occupants of the car claimed they suffered injuries. The driver of the pickup truck fled the scene and was never identified. The occupants sued their own insurer for underinsured-motorist benefits. The case proceeded to trial regarding one occupant's claim, with the defense arguing inconsistencies in her account of the accident.
One driver stopped in traffic due to construction. The other driver rear-ended the stopped vehicle. The injured driver claimed ankle and back injuries. The defense argued the accident was unavoidable or that the driver acted as an ordinary and prudent driver. The jury found the second driver liable but awarded no damages.
One driver was stopped at an intersection preparing to turn left when their vehicle was struck from behind by another vehicle. The driver claimed neck injuries. The other driver's insurer offered its policy limit. The injured driver sued their own insurer for underinsured motorist benefits, alleging the other driver was negligent. The defense questioned the extent of injuries and suggested they were pre-existing.