Falls County Jury Awards $4,054,500 After Design Defect Injury
A truck driver was injured when a water tank fell on his leg. The tank was part of a road reclamation system. The driver sued the system's manufacturer, alleging defects in its design and warnings. The manufacturer argued the tank was safe when delivered and was damaged by improper use. The jury found the manufacturer liable for design and marketing defects.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Plaintiff
- Amount
- $4,054,500
- County
- Falls County, TX
- Resolved
- 2020
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Leg / Foot Injury
- Accident Type
- Truck/Commercial
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Negligence
Case Overview
On September 17, 2018, a truck driver in Marlin, Falls County, suffered severe leg fractures when a 2,200-pound water tank tipped over onto his left leg. The water tank was a component of a pavement reclamation system designed and manufactured by Asphalt Zipper Inc. The injured worker, acting as the plaintiff, subsequently sued Asphalt Zipper Inc., alleging the company was liable for design and marketing defects, as well as negligent warnings and instructions regarding the water tank.
The plaintiff contended that the water tank’s design failed to account for a proper center of gravity and adequate testing. This resulted in an unstable tank due to the center of gravity being too far forward and a leg attachment mechanism that allowed excessive wear and movement. The defense argued that it provided proper training to the plaintiff's employer and that the tank was stable upon delivery, asserting any damage that led to the incident was caused by improper use and would have been obvious. The defense also claimed some external force must have been applied for the tank to tip and denied that the damage was due to ordinary wear or was foreseeable.
The plaintiff sustained compound fractures to his left tibia and fibula, requiring multiple surgeries, including bone grafting and internal fixation. He claimed long-term effects such as an altered gait, chronic back pain, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder, leading to an inability to return to his job or renew his commercial driver's license. While a subsequent motor vehicle accident in 2020 resulted in further injury to the same leg, the plaintiff's primary treating doctor testified it did not significantly alter his overall prognosis from the original incident.
After a three-day trial, a jury awarded the plaintiff $4,054,500. The jury concluded that Asphalt Zipper Inc. was liable for design and marketing defects, which caused the plaintiff's injuries. However, the jury did not find that either party's negligence proximately caused the injury.
VerdictlyTM Score
This outcome differs from typical 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 better results for your case?
Share your situation and we'll connect you with experienced motor vehicle accident attorneys who have handled cases like this in Falls County.
Similar cases you may find useful
Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.
A driver alleged that a tractor-trailer driver was negligent in causing a rear-end collision. The plaintiff suffered neck and spinal injuries requiring surgery. The defendants disputed causation and the extent of the injuries. The plaintiff claimed the truck driver was under the influence of drugs. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff.
One driver was stopped at an intersection preparing to turn left when their vehicle was struck from behind by another vehicle. The driver claimed neck injuries. The other driver's insurer offered its policy limit. The injured driver sued their own insurer for underinsured motorist benefits, alleging the other driver was negligent. The defense questioned the extent of injuries and suggested they were pre-existing.
One driver was traveling in Montgomery County when her pickup truck was rear-ended by another vehicle in a four-vehicle chain collision. The plaintiffs' vehicle was pushed into the vehicle in front of it. The plaintiffs claimed injuries to their backs and necks. The driver of the rear vehicle contended that the accident started with the plaintiffs hitting the vehicle ahead of them. It was raining at the time of the accident.
One driver was traveling south when their vehicle was struck from behind by another vehicle. The occupants of the first vehicle claimed injuries to their back and neck. The driver of the first vehicle alleged the other driver was speeding and inattentive, while the second driver claimed the first vehicle stopped suddenly. The first driver sought damages for medical costs, pain, and suffering.
One driver was stopped behind another vehicle when her car was hit from behind by a trailing car. The injured driver claimed injuries to her back, head, and neck, including herniated discs and nerve impingement. The defense conceded liability, and the trial focused on damages. The injured driver testified that she still experiences back pain and has difficulty lifting children, impacting her ability to work as a nanny.