Grapevine Jury Issues Defense Verdict in Transformer Accident Negligence
A man walking on a street claimed he was burned by liquid or sparks from an overhead transformer. He sued the transformer's owner, alleging negligence. The owner disputed the claim, suggesting a bird caused the transformer fault and that only harmless sparks were emitted. The man claimed injuries including a cracked tooth and neck and back pain. The defense argued there was no medical evidence of burns or a cracked tooth, and that his complaints were due to a pre-existing condition.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Defense
- Amount
- Undisclosed
- County
- Dallas County, TX
- Resolved
- 2018
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Back Strain / Soft Tissue
- Accident Type
- Other
- Case Type
- back, head, neck
Case Overview
In August 2016, a livery vehicle driver was walking on South Main Street in Grapevine when an overhead, pole-mounted transformer experienced a fuse overload. The plaintiff claimed the transformer emitted liquid or sparks, striking and burning him. He alleged that the transformer exploded and that hot oil or debris fell onto him. The plaintiff subsequently sued Oncor Electric Delivery Co. LLC, the transformer's owner, alleging gross negligence in its maintenance caused the incident.
The plaintiff claimed he was startled by the event, ran backward, collided with a parked vehicle, hit his head, and landed on his back. He sought damages for a cracked front tooth, neck and back soft-tissue injuries, residual emotional distress, and related medical expenses and pain. His counsel argued that a properly maintained transformer would not have exploded.
The defendant disputed that the transformer exploded or leaked hot liquid. Defense counsel argued that a bird was the likely cause of the fuse fault, which led to harmless sparks being emitted from the fuse barrel and projected downward. The defendant also contended that the plaintiff never sought treatment for burns and that his neck and back complaints were a pre-existing condition, citing a prior motor-vehicle accident with similar orthopedic injuries. After a four-day trial and two hours of deliberation, the jury rendered a defense verdict.
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 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 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.
One driver was stopped at a red light when their car was hit by another vehicle. The driver who was hit claimed injuries to their back, neck, and shoulder. The passenger in the car also claimed an injury. The case involved an insurance claim after the at-fault driver was uninsured.
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 was stopped at a traffic signal when their car was struck from behind by another vehicle. The driver who was rear-ended claimed injuries to their back and neck. The driver who caused the collision admitted to being groggy and potentially falling asleep briefly before the impact. The injured driver sought damages for medical expenses and pain.