Deer Park Jury Finds Negligence, No Damages in Rear-End Collision

On November 14, 2011, a rear-end collision occurred on the Katy Freeway in Houston, Texas. The plaintiff had stopped her vehicle in the left lane due to traffic when the defendant's vehicle struck it from behind. The plaintiff alleged the collision caused sprains and strains to her cervical and thoracic spine and left shoulder. The lawsuit claimed the defendant was negligent by traveling at an excessive speed, failing to maintain an assured clear distance, and failing to brake in a timely manner. Initially, the defendant argued the plaintiff made a sudden stop, which prevented avoidance. However, prior to trial, the defendant stipulated liability for the collision. The dispute then focused on the extent of the plaintiff's injuries, with the defendant maintaining that the plaintiff was not seriously injured and any alleged injuries were pre-existing. A jury found that the plaintiff did not suffer any serious or permanent injury in the collision.

An individual filed a negligence lawsuit following a rear-end collision that occurred on October 25, 2011, in Houston, Texas. The plaintiff, a 36-year-old mechanic, was stopped at the intersection of Wallisville Road and Main Street, waiting to make a left turn, when the defendant's vehicle struck the rear of the plaintiff's car. The plaintiff alleged the defendant was negligent by failing to control speed, maintain a proper lookout, and properly apply brakes. The plaintiff claimed the collision caused injuries to his cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine, including disc bulges and a disc protrusion. The defendant denied all allegations of negligence and injury, asserting that the plaintiff's own comparative or contributory negligence caused the accident. A jury found the defendant negligent and awarded the plaintiff $9,020 in compensatory damages.

On March 13, 2012, a plaintiff was injured in a multi-vehicle collision while driving in slow traffic near Highway 59 in Houston, Texas. The defendant driver reportedly swerved into the plaintiff's lane, striking a vehicle behind the plaintiff, which then collided with the rear of the plaintiff's slowing car. The plaintiff subsequently filed a vehicular negligence action. The plaintiff alleged the defendant was negligent in failing to maintain a proper lookout, operating a vehicle unsafely, and failing to apply brakes in a timely manner, which led to injuries including to the chest, neck, back, and a partial to full thickness tear of the right rotator cuff. The defendant denied all allegations of negligence and injury. Following the proceedings, the court found the defendant negligent and that this negligence caused harm to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was awarded $10,000 for past pain and suffering, $10,000 for past disfigurement, and $10,003 for past medical expenses, totaling $30,003.

In September 2009, a plaintiff, then 68, was involved in two separate rear-end collisions in Houston. The first incident occurred on September 13 when a vehicle driven by a first defendant rear-ended the plaintiff's stopped car after a light changed. On September 21, a second defendant, operating a vehicle for an employer, rear-ended the plaintiff's car during rush hour traffic. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against both drivers, alleging negligence for failing to maintain a proper lookout or control speed. The suit also included claims of respondeat superior, negligent entrustment, and gross negligence against the employer, though the latter two claims were later nonsuited by the plaintiff during trial. The plaintiff claimed a lumbar injury or exacerbation of a pre-existing condition, which necessitated the implantation of a spinal cord stimulator and led to early retirement. Damages sought included physical pain, mental anguish, physical impairment, and lost earning capacity. The first defendant argued a low impact speed, while the second defendant claimed a sudden emergency and noted that neither police nor ambulances were called after their collision. Defendants presented expert testimony asserting the plaintiff's symptoms were pre-existing and unrelated to the collisions, highlighting prior medical conditions, a 2008 accident, and a pain management regimen predating the 2009 incidents. The defense also noted the plaintiff did not present medical testimony. At the close of all evidence, the court granted a directed verdict against the first defendant on negligence. However, the jury found no negligence on the part of the second defendant and ultimately awarded zero damages to the plaintiff. The outcome reflected the jury's acceptance of the defense's arguments regarding the lack of causation between the collisions and the plaintiff's claimed injuries.