Dallas Jury Issues Defense Verdict in Rear-End Collision
One driver was stopped on the highway when their car was hit from behind by another vehicle. The driver who was hit claimed they suffered a shoulder injury. The driver who hit them stated traffic stopped suddenly and they could not avoid the collision. The jury found that the second driver's actions did not cause the accident.
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
On May 4, 2015, a rear-end collision occurred on Interstate 35 in Dallas, Texas. The plaintiff, a driver, alleged that a sport utility vehicle struck the rear of his car while he was stopped, claiming the defendant was negligent. The plaintiff testified he had been stopped for several seconds before impact and observed the defendant on a cell phone afterward. The defendant contended that traffic came to a sudden and unexpected stop, preventing her from avoiding the collision, and denied using a cell phone. Defense counsel also invoked the "emergency doctrine."
The plaintiff subsequently sought treatment for a left shoulder injury, claiming a non-displaced clavicle fracture and C6-7 disc stenosis. He later reported pain and decreased range of motion, with an orthopedic surgeon noting a clavicle fracture, acromioclavicular joint separation, and recommending surgery. The defendant disputed the clavicle fracture, suggesting it resulted from a prior motorcycle accident, and highlighted a two-month gap in the plaintiff's medical treatment and alleged inconsistencies in X-ray interpretations. The plaintiff sought damages for past and future medical expenses, pain, mental anguish, and physical impairment.
The case proceeded to a jury trial. After deliberation, the jury rendered a defense verdict, finding that the defendant's alleged negligence did not proximately cause 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.