Jury Awards $242 Million in Defective Seatbelt Rear-End Crash
One driver rear-ended another vehicle, causing the front seats to collapse. The occupants of the rear-ended vehicle were thrown forward, injuring their children. Both children suffered traumatic brain injuries, and one fell into a coma. They required extensive rehabilitation and will face lifelong issues. The parents sued the car manufacturer, alleging the seat belt system was defectively designed. They also sued the driver who caused the initial collision.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Plaintiff
- Amount
- $24,200,000
- County
- Dallas County, TX
- Resolved
- 2018
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Head/Brain Injury
- Accident Type
- Rear-end
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Accident
Case Overview
A family was involved in a rear-end collision in their 2002 Lexus ES 300. The parents were in the front seats, and their two young children, ages five and three, were restrained in the back. The impact caused the front seats to collapse backward, catapulting the parents into the rear and injuring the children. Both children suffered traumatic brain injuries, with one falling into a coma. They required extensive hospitalization and rehabilitation, including therapy to relearn walking and talking, and are expected to face lifelong learning difficulties.
The parents, individually and on behalf of their children, filed a lawsuit against the vehicle's manufacturers, Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., and Toyota Motor Corp. They alleged the car's belting system was defectively designed, specifically lacking a pretensioner that would tighten the seat belts during a rear-end collision. The plaintiffs also named the driver of the other vehicle as a defendant.
During the proceedings, the children's stipulated medical expenses amounted to approximately $575,700 and $560,600. A jury subsequently awarded $242 million to the plaintiffs. This award included $3 million each to the parents for their mental anguish and $144 million in punitive damages against the manufacturer defendants. The jury apportioned liability at 90 percent to Toyota Motor Corp., 5 percent to Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., and 5 percent to the defendant driver.
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 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.