Lubbock Jury Awards $13.4M in Modified Golf Cart Injury
A 9-year-old boy was injured when a modified golf cart he was driving tipped over. The boy's parents sued the golf cart manufacturer and the homeowners for alleged design defects, warning deficiencies, and negligent supervision. The jury found the manufacturer liable for design and warning defects but also found the homeowner partially responsible. The case resulted in a jury award.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Plaintiff
- Amount
- $33,500,000
- County
- Dallas County, TX
- Resolved
- 2019
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Head/Brain Injury
- Accident Type
- Other
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Accident
Case Overview
In July 2015, a nine-year-old boy in Lubbock, Texas, suffered severe head and brain injuries when a modified golf cart he was driving tipped over at a friend's home. The cart, a Yamaha model, had been equipped with an aftermarket lift kit. The boy sustained permanent neurological and physical deficits, rendering him unable to communicate or mobilize. His parents filed a lawsuit alleging negligence against the homeowner for allowing unsupervised child operation of the modified cart. They also sued Yamaha Motor Manufacturing Corporation of America and Yamaha Golf-Car Co., claiming product liability due to warning deficiencies and design defects, such as the absence of warnings against child operation and the cart's instability after modification. Several other parties involved in the cart's modification and distribution settled confidentially before trial.
At trial, plaintiffs argued Yamaha knew about aftermarket modifications and associated risks, and had removed prior warnings against child operation. Yamaha countered that the incident stemmed from third-party modifications, not its design, and from the homeowner's decision to allow unsupervised child use, stressing it was not responsible for carts after they left its possession. A jury awarded total damages of $33.5 million. It found the homeowner 40 percent negligent. The jury also assigned 40 percent comparative responsibility to the cart's modifier and 20 percent to the lift kit manufacturer for design and warning defects, though these entities had settled prior to trial. Yamaha and the homeowner's realty company were not found liable. Based on the homeowner's 40 percent comparative negligence, the plaintiffs' net recovery totaled $13.4 million.
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 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.