San Antonio Jury Awards $498,960 in Underinsured Motorist Claim

A case was filed in Texas by the plaintiffs against an individual defendant and defendant Rockwell Collins, Inc. Few details were available regarding the incident that led to the lawsuit or the specific legal claims asserted. The record indicated the case concluded on June 12, 2015. No further information was provided regarding the arguments of each side, the outcome, or the reasons for the verdict or judgment.

In October 2011, a plaintiff was driving a compact car eastbound on Interstate 10 in Harris County, Texas. While moving to the outside shoulder to yield to an approaching fire truck, the plaintiff's vehicle struck a rectangular hole in the pavement, causing a right front tire blowout. The hole, approximately two feet long and several inches deep, had resulted from the removal of a traffic-counting device and had not been refilled. The plaintiff alleged a shoulder injury. The plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit against the Texas Department of Transportation, alleging the hole constituted an unreasonably dangerous "special defect" that the agency knew or should have known about. The court ruled that the hole was a special defect as a matter of law. The defendant denied knowledge of the condition and contended that the plaintiff was negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout. The plaintiff claimed the incident aggravated a pre-existing partial rotator cuff tear, while the defense argued the injury was entirely pre-existing and noted a six-month gap in the plaintiff's treatment history. After a two-day trial, a jury found the Texas Department of Transportation negligent and awarded the plaintiff $9,973. The jury's finding of negligence was based on the determination that the defendant "knew or should have known" of the dangerous condition. The jury did not find the defendant negligent based on "actual knowledge," nor did it find the plaintiff comparatively negligent. The award included damages for past medical costs, past physical impairment, past lost earning capacity, and past physical pain.

A civil case involving a plaintiff, who also acted as next friend for a second individual, and a defendant concluded in Texas on April 30, 2015. Few details were available regarding the specific incident that led to the lawsuit, the legal claims presented by either side, or the ultimate resolution of the dispute.

In Tarrant County, a plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging negligence following a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff claimed to have sustained bodily injuries, specifically soft tissue damage to the neck and back, as a result of the incident. A jury heard the case and delivered an 11-1 verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The jury found the defendant negligent and awarded damages totaling $2,226. This amount included $500 for past physical pain and mental anguish, and $1,726 for past medical care.

In September 2009, a plaintiff, then 68, was involved in two separate rear-end collisions in Houston. The first incident occurred on September 13 when a vehicle driven by a first defendant rear-ended the plaintiff's stopped car after a light changed. On September 21, a second defendant, operating a vehicle for an employer, rear-ended the plaintiff's car during rush hour traffic. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against both drivers, alleging negligence for failing to maintain a proper lookout or control speed. The suit also included claims of respondeat superior, negligent entrustment, and gross negligence against the employer, though the latter two claims were later nonsuited by the plaintiff during trial. The plaintiff claimed a lumbar injury or exacerbation of a pre-existing condition, which necessitated the implantation of a spinal cord stimulator and led to early retirement. Damages sought included physical pain, mental anguish, physical impairment, and lost earning capacity. The first defendant argued a low impact speed, while the second defendant claimed a sudden emergency and noted that neither police nor ambulances were called after their collision. Defendants presented expert testimony asserting the plaintiff's symptoms were pre-existing and unrelated to the collisions, highlighting prior medical conditions, a 2008 accident, and a pain management regimen predating the 2009 incidents. The defense also noted the plaintiff did not present medical testimony. At the close of all evidence, the court granted a directed verdict against the first defendant on negligence. However, the jury found no negligence on the part of the second defendant and ultimately awarded zero damages to the plaintiff. The outcome reflected the jury's acceptance of the defense's arguments regarding the lack of causation between the collisions and the plaintiff's claimed injuries.