Houston Vehicular Negligence Settles for $22,000

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.

A plaintiff filed a vehicular negligence action after his stopped vehicle was struck from the rear by a defendant's vehicle on April 10, 2014, at an intersection in Houston, Texas. The plaintiff alleged the defendant failed to control the vehicle, maintain a proper lookout, and take evasive action. The plaintiff claimed to have sustained an ankle sprain and discogenic injuries to the cervical and lumbar spine as a result of the collision. The defendant denied all allegations of negligence, including that the plaintiff sustained serious or permanent injuries from the accident. A jury ultimately found the defendant negligent. The jury awarded the plaintiff $16,361 for past damages and an additional $10,000 for future 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 October 2011, a plaintiff was driving a compact car eastbound on Interstate 10 in Harris County, Texas. While moving to the outside shoulder to yield to an approaching fire truck, the plaintiff's vehicle struck a rectangular hole in the pavement, causing a right front tire blowout. The hole, approximately two feet long and several inches deep, had resulted from the removal of a traffic-counting device and had not been refilled. The plaintiff alleged a shoulder injury. The plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit against the Texas Department of Transportation, alleging the hole constituted an unreasonably dangerous "special defect" that the agency knew or should have known about. The court ruled that the hole was a special defect as a matter of law. The defendant denied knowledge of the condition and contended that the plaintiff was negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout. The plaintiff claimed the incident aggravated a pre-existing partial rotator cuff tear, while the defense argued the injury was entirely pre-existing and noted a six-month gap in the plaintiff's treatment history. After a two-day trial, a jury found the Texas Department of Transportation negligent and awarded the plaintiff $9,973. The jury's finding of negligence was based on the determination that the defendant "knew or should have known" of the dangerous condition. The jury did not find the defendant negligent based on "actual knowledge," nor did it find the plaintiff comparatively negligent. The award included damages for past medical costs, past physical impairment, past lost earning capacity, and past physical pain.

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.