Jury Awards $37.61 Million in Defective Seat Belt Product Liability
One driver was involved in a rollover collision. The passenger in the third row of the vehicle suffered a broken neck, resulting in quadriplegia. The passenger sued the vehicle manufacturer, alleging the restraint system was defectively designed. The jury found the seat belt was defective and awarded damages.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Plaintiff
- Amount
- $37,610,000
- County
- Dallas County, TX
- Resolved
- 2019
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Spinal Cord Injury
- Accident Type
- Rollover
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Accident
Case Overview
A passenger in a 2011 Honda Odyssey minivan sustained a broken neck, resulting in C6-7 quadriplegia, during a rollover collision. The passenger, seated in the vehicle's third row, had used a shoulder belt secured from the ceiling.
The injured passenger subsequently filed a lawsuit against American Honda Motor Co., the vehicle manufacturer. The plaintiff alleged the restraint system was defectively designed because it allowed the third-row shoulder belt to be used without a corresponding lap anchor. This design, the plaintiff contended, permitted the passenger's torso to move out of the shoulder restraint, placing undue force on the neck during the crash. The plaintiff asserted that the vehicle should have featured integrated seat belts.
The jury awarded more than $37.61 million in damages. Liability was apportioned, with 63 percent assigned to the vehicle manufacturer, 32 percent to the Uber driver, and 5 percent to the passenger. The jury determined that the seat belt was defectively designed and concluded that federal motor vehicle safety standards were inadequate to protect the public from an unreasonable risk of injury.
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 stopped in traffic when their vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle. The driver who was hit claimed serious injuries to their neck and back, including paralysis in one arm, requiring surgery. The other driver argued that a third vehicle caused the accident or that the injured driver's own actions contributed. The jury found the second driver fully at fault.
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 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.