Hidalgo Jury Awards $810,000 in Fatal Pedestrian Accident
A driver struck and killed a pedestrian in a crosswalk at night. The pedestrian's estate sued the driver and his employer, alleging negligence. The defense argued the pedestrian was also at fault. The jury found the driver negligent but also found the pedestrian partially responsible. The estate was awarded damages for the pedestrian's pain and suffering.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Plaintiff
- Amount
- $900,000
- County
- Dallas County, TX
- Resolved
- 2016
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Head/Brain Injury
- Accident Type
- Pedestrian
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Negligence
Case Overview
On March 27, 2014, a pedestrian was fatally struck by a van while crossing East Coma Avenue in a marked crosswalk in Hidalgo. The westbound van, driven by an employee of a transit service company, collided with the pedestrian, who sustained fatal injuries. The pedestrian's estate, represented by his brother, subsequently sued the driver and the employer, alleging negligence for failing to keep a proper lookout, yield the right of way, and control the vehicle's speed.
The plaintiff argued the driver was solely negligent. Surveillance video confirmed the pedestrian was in the crosswalk, and accident reconstruction experts for both sides agreed the van was speeding at impact, though they differed on the exact velocity. Experts also concluded that if the driver had adhered to the speed limit, the pedestrian would not have been in the intersection at the time of the van's passage. The defense contended the pedestrian was contributorily negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout and cited challenging environmental conditions, including dark streets and glare, as factors preventing the driver from seeing the pedestrian. The plaintiff's counsel highlighted that the driver initially provided no excuse for failing to see the pedestrian, and the defense's environmental theory developed later. Damages sought were limited to the pedestrian's conscious pain and suffering, which a defense medical expert disputed.
Following a five-day trial, a Hidalgo jury found both parties negligent. The jury assigned 90 percent of the fault to the driver and 10 percent to the pedestrian, awarding $900,000 for pain and suffering. After accounting for comparative responsibility, the net award to the estate totaled $810,000. The defense subsequently filed post-trial motions challenging the verdict.
VerdictlyTM Score
This outcome is within expected ranges
This score is calculated by analyzing injury type, accident details, geographic location, temporal trends, and comparing against 2,000+ similar cases in our database.
Want 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 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 stopped their vehicle on a highway when the other driver struck them from behind at a high speed. The impact caused the driver to hit their head and briefly lose consciousness. The injured driver claimed the accident caused a brain injury, preventing them from completing college studies, and also affected their ability to care for their young son. The other driver admitted to the collision but disputed the extent and cause of the injuries.
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 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.