Dallas Jury Awards $76,550 in Motor Vehicle Negligence

In December 2013, a collision occurred in Dallas when a vehicle driven by the defendant struck a car occupied by the plaintiffs, a husband and wife, and their children. The plaintiffs' vehicle was traveling south on Haskell Avenue, and the defendant's vehicle was traveling west on Live Oak Street when the defendant reportedly ran a red light at the intersection. A police report attributed fault to the defendant. The plaintiffs sustained neck and back injuries, claiming herniations, and subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging the defendant's negligence, including running a red light, failing to yield, and failing to maintain proper control of the vehicle. They also alleged the defendant was using a cell phone at the time of the incident.

The defendant offered to stipulate to liability, but the plaintiffs declined, seeking to impeach the defendant's credibility with cell phone records. Evidence presented at trial included the defendant's cell phone records, which showed multiple calls just before the accident, contradicting the defendant's testimony that no calls were made after leaving a holiday party. Following the collision, the plaintiffs sought chiropractic and pain management treatment, including epidural steroid injections. The plaintiff husband claimed he could no longer work as an HVAC technician and sought medical and pain and suffering damages for past and future. The plaintiff wife testified she recovered fully and sought past medical costs and past pain and suffering damages.

The defense acknowledged the impact was significant but argued the plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages by not adhering to recommended physical therapy and, for the plaintiff husband, by not losing weight as advised by a surgeon. A defense orthopedic surgeon testified that subsequent treatment would not be considered reasonable or necessary if a patient did not complete a recommended physical therapy course. The jury was tasked with determining damages only, as liability was effectively conceded. After a three-day trial, the jury awarded the plaintiffs a total of $76,550. The plaintiff husband received $52,910, which included past medical costs, past and future physical pain and mental anguish, and past physical impairment. The plaintiff wife received $23,640 for past medical costs, past physical pain and mental anguish, and past physical impairment.