Jury Awards $54,008.89 for Vehicle Damage Negligence
One driver was using a luxury car owned by another person. When the driver returned the car, it had sustained damage to the rear and front wheel. The owner sued the driver, alleging negligence and breach of contract. The driver admitted to damaging the wheel and that his initial explanation for the damage was untrue. The jury found the driver liable for the damages.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Plaintiff
- Amount
- $54,009
- County
- Dallas County, TX
- Resolved
- 2019
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Other
- Accident Type
- Other
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Accident
Case Overview
On March 12, 2018, the plaintiff, an owner of various companies, provided his 2011 Lamborghini LP 610 Performante Spyder to his employee, the defendant, for personal use. The defendant, who was also the plaintiff's half-brother, accessed the vehicle through a contract with an exotic car club. Later that day, the defendant returned the Lamborghini with damage to its rear and right front wheel. The car club subsequently assigned its claims against the defendant to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging negligence in the vehicle's operation, breach of bailment, and breach of a written contract. During the two-day trial, the defendant admitted that his initial account of being rear-ended by a hit-and-run driver was false. He testified that he accidentally "curbed" the wheel while exiting a parking lot and that his girlfriend rear-ended him as they returned the car. He denied speeding or reckless driving, despite a previous statement acknowledging he had been speeding. The plaintiff testified that the defendant promised to pay for the damage but failed to do so. The defense did not strongly dispute liability but contended that the defendant was truthful and only responsible for the wheel damage, estimated at $125.
The plaintiff sought damages for repair costs totaling $30,626.39, including storage and towing. Additionally, the plaintiff claimed $17,308.33 for loss of use due to lost monthly payments from the car club, approximately $15,000 for diminution in market value, and $14,282.50 for attorney fees through trial.
After two hours of deliberation, the jury found the defendant liable on all three causes of action: negligence, breach of bailment, and breach of contract. The jury awarded the plaintiff $54,008.89. Post-trial discussions with jurors indicated they reduced the awards for storage and loss of use to one month.
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 rear-ended another vehicle stopped at a red light. The driver who was hit filed a lawsuit seeking damages for medical expenses and pain and suffering. The parties reached a settlement agreement.
One driver was stopped at a red light when their car was hit by another vehicle. The driver who was hit claimed injuries to their back, neck, and shoulder. The passenger in the car also claimed an injury. The case involved an insurance claim after the at-fault driver was uninsured.
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.