Dallas Jury Concludes Rear-End Collision with Defense Verdict
One driver was stopped on the highway when their vehicle was struck from behind by another vehicle. The driver who was stopped claimed injuries to their shoulder and neck, while the other driver contended that traffic stopped suddenly. The case involved disputes over whether the injured driver had a fractured clavicle and whether the other driver was on their cell phone at the time of the collision.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Defense
- Amount
- Undisclosed
- County
- Dallas County, TX
- Resolved
- 2019
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Shoulder Injury
- Accident Type
- Rear-end
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Negligence
Case Overview
A rear-end collision occurred on Interstate 35 in Dallas, Texas, on May 4, 2015. The plaintiff, a car buyer and seller, alleged the defendant's sport utility vehicle struck the plaintiff's car from behind. The plaintiff claimed to have been stopped for approximately 10 seconds before the impact and testified to seeing the defendant on a cell phone immediately after the collision, an admission the plaintiff stated the defendant made at the scene.
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging the defendant's negligence in operating her vehicle. The plaintiff claimed to have sustained a nondisplaced fracture of the left shoulder's clavicle and C6-7 disc space stenosis. The plaintiff sought damages for past and future medical expenses, physical pain, mental anguish, and physical impairment, presenting evidence including photos of a discolored knot at the clavicle and a surgical estimate.
The defendant contended that traffic came to a sudden and unexpected stop, preventing her from avoiding the collision, and denied using a cell phone or admitting to it. The defense also invoked the emergency doctrine. A central dispute revolved around the plaintiff's injuries; the defense argued the clavicle injury might have resulted from a prior motorcycle accident, questioned gaps in the plaintiff's medical treatment, and disputed the existence of a fracture attributable to this incident. The defense suggested that if any damages were awarded, they should be limited to the initial emergency room visit.
After a trial in Dallas, a jury rendered a defense verdict. The jury did not find that any negligence by the defendant proximately caused the accident.
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 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 a light when the vehicle behind them struck their pickup truck. The driver of the second vehicle claimed the pickup truck driver swerved in front of them and braked suddenly, causing the collision. The driver of the second vehicle alleged injuries to their knee and spine. The defense questioned the credibility of the driver's account and pointed to inconsistencies in their statements.
A passenger in a sport utility vehicle was injured when the vehicle she was in was rear-ended by another car. The passenger claimed injuries to her back and neck, including bulging discs. The driver of the other vehicle claimed his brakes failed. The jury found that the driver's negligence did not cause the accident.
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.