Hurst Jury Awards $5,667.07 in Rear-End Collision
One driver was traveling southbound on a highway when the other driver rear-ended them. It was raining at the time of the crash. The injured driver sued the other driver for failing to maintain a proper lookout and control their speed. The defense argued the impact was too minor to cause injuries, but the jury found in favor of the injured driver.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Plaintiff
- Amount
- $5,667
- County
- Tarrant County, TX
- Resolved
- 2015
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Back Strain / Soft Tissue
- Accident Type
- Rear-end
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Negligence
Case Overview
On December 5, 2013, a rear-end collision occurred on State Highway 26 in Hurst, Texas, during rainy conditions. The plaintiff, an insurance adjuster, sued the defendant, alleging negligence for failing to maintain a proper lookout, driving too fast for conditions, and not keeping an assured safe stopping distance. The plaintiff also cited a violation of the Texas Transportation Code regarding safe stopping distance as negligence per se. The defendant stipulated to liability for the collision on the morning of the trial.
The plaintiff claimed cervical sprains and strains, with treatment that included visits to a minor emergency clinic and 16 chiropractic sessions, resulting in $4,317.07 in medical bills. Damages were also sought for past pain and suffering and lost earning capacity. The defendant argued the impact was minor, asserting a speed of 5 to 10 mph and noting no damage to the plaintiff's vehicle, implying the collision was insufficient to cause the claimed injuries.
After a two-day trial and two hours of deliberation, the jury awarded the plaintiff $5,667.07. This included $4,317 for past medical costs, $350 for past lost earning capacity, and $1,000 for past pain and suffering. Including prejudgment interest and taxable costs, the final judgment amounted to $7,364.67. The jury's award reflected full compensation for medical expenses but limited non-economic damages, suggesting consideration of the defense's argument regarding the minor nature of the impact.
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 Tarrant County.
Similar cases you may find useful
Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.
One driver was stopped on a road when their car was struck from behind by another car. This initial impact propelled the stopped car into a third vehicle. The driver of the first car claimed injuries to their back and neck, seeking damages for medical expenses and pain.
One driver was stopped at a red light when their vehicle was struck from behind by another vehicle. The driver who was struck claimed injuries to their back, knee, and neck. The case alleged the trailing driver was negligent for failing to maintain a safe distance and control their speed. The jury found the trailing driver liable and awarded damages for past medical expenses.
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.
One driver was stopped in traffic when their vehicle was struck from behind by another vehicle. The driver who was rear-ended claimed injuries to their back and neck. The case proceeded to trial to determine damages, as liability was conceded.
One driver was traveling on a freeway when their car was struck from behind by a box truck. The driver who was hit claimed injuries to their back and neck. The responding officer believed the truck driver failed to control speed, but also faulted the other driver for an unsafe lane change. The truck driver claimed the other driver suddenly moved into their path. The jury found both drivers equally liable for the accident.