Dallas Jury Awards $46,240 in Cement Truck Negligence
A man was working at a construction site when a cement truck he was near began to roll backward. He jumped out of the way but hit his knee on a steel bar. He sued the truck driver and company, alleging negligence. The defendants admitted negligence but argued the man was also at fault. The man sustained a knee injury, including a torn meniscus and aggravated arthritis.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Plaintiff
- Amount
- $46,240
- County
- Dallas County, TX
- Resolved
- 2016
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Knee Injury
- Accident Type
- Other
- Case Type
- Meniscus, Tear, Knee
Case Overview
In May 2013, a laborer at a Dallas job site sustained a right knee injury when a cement truck, supplied by a defendant company, unexpectedly moved backward. The plaintiff was behind the truck, which an employee had allegedly left in reverse without the parking brake engaged. To avoid being struck, the plaintiff jumped, hitting his knee on a steel bar. The plaintiff sued the cement supplier and its employee for negligence, alleging failure to secure the truck while knowing workers were nearby. The plaintiff claimed the incident caused a bone bruise, a medial collateral ligament sprain, a torn meniscus, and exacerbated pre-existing arthritis, ultimately requiring arthroscopic surgery. The defendants admitted their employee's negligence but argued the plaintiff was comparatively negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout. They disputed the extent of injuries, with their expert and two of the plaintiff's earlier treating physicians asserting the meniscus tear was a pre-existing degenerative condition unrelated to the accident.
After a three-day trial, a jury found the defendant employee negligent and awarded the plaintiff $46,240. Jurors indicated they believed the plaintiff was injured but found insufficient evidence to award the full cost of the surgery. They also stated the defense expert's testimony lacked credibility due to the significant payment received for his services.
VerdictlyTM Score
This outcome aligns very well with 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 results like this 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 was stopped at a red light when their car was hit by another vehicle. The driver who was hit claimed injuries to their back, neck, and shoulder. The passenger in the car also claimed an injury. The case involved an insurance claim after the at-fault driver was uninsured.
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 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.