Dallas Negligent Auto Repair Settles, Amount Undisclosed

A collision occurred in Dallas, Texas, when another vehicle hydroplaned and struck the plaintiffs' 2010 Honda Fit on December 21, 2013. The plaintiffs, a husband and wife, alleged that the vehicle's roof panel separated and its safety cage collapsed during the incident, leading to significantly more severe injuries than would have otherwise occurred. Thirteen months prior, a defendant collision center in Dallas, Texas, had replaced the Honda Fit's hail-damaged roof using adhesive glue instead of welding it with 108 welds, as specified by the manufacturer's repair manual and industry standards. The collision center did not inform the vehicle's prior owner or CARFAX of the repair method.

The plaintiffs contended that the improper roof replacement compromised the vehicle's structural integrity. They argued that the roof's failure caused the front frame rails to collapse, trapping the driver and contributing to severe burn injuries from the resulting vehicle fire. Evidence presented included expert testimony and crash test results indicating that a properly welded roof would remain intact in similar collisions. A corporate representative for the collision center testified that the use of glue was driven by insurance company requirements, even when inconsistent with manufacturer specifications. The plaintiffs sustained extensive injuries, including a closed head injury, PTSD, carotid artery dissections, multiple fractures, and severe burns for the husband, and a cervical fracture, transected aorta, crushed pelvis, and multiple fractures for the wife.

The defendant collision center argued that the collision was so severe that the plaintiffs' injuries resulted from deceleration, not structural failure. The defense also maintained that the roof panel was not a structural safety component and that any collapse of the safety cage must have been due to a defect in the roof rail. The collision center further asserted that adhesive glue was as strong as, or stronger than, welds.

The jury found the collision center 75% liable for the incident and the driver of the other vehicle 25% liable. The jury awarded the husband $25,888,153 and the wife $16,047,471 in damages. Following the verdict, the case settled for an undisclosed sum under a high/low agreement. The parties also agreed to conduct further crash testing to evaluate the safety differences between glued and welded repairs.