Tarrant County Jury Awards $339,285 in Motor Vehicle Negligence
A driver swerved to avoid a sofa in the road and struck another vehicle. The sofa had fallen from a truck. The driver of the first vehicle claimed multiple injuries. The case involved claims against the furniture store that sold the sofa, the driver of the truck, and the driver of the second vehicle. The driver of the second vehicle had settled prior to trial. The driver of the truck also settled prior to trial. The trial focused on the furniture store's alleged negligence in securing the sofa. The jury found negligence and awarded damages.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Plaintiff
- Amount
- $583,600
- County
- Tarrant County, TX
- Resolved
- 2016
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Lumbar Disc Injury
- Accident Type
- Other
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Negligence
Case Overview
On February 9, 2013, a physician and family were traveling south on Highway 360 near Glade Road when their vehicle swerved to avoid a sofa in the roadway, subsequently colliding with another car. The sofa had fallen from a truck driven by a customer who had recently purchased it from a furniture store operating as The Dump. The physician claimed multiple injuries, including a torn knee meniscus, a torn rotator cuff, carpal tunnel syndrome, and the aggravation of pre-existing degenerative conditions in the neck and lower back.
The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the driver of the truck, the driver of the other vehicle, and The Dump, alleging negligent failure to properly secure the sofa. The driver of the other vehicle and the truck driver settled their claims with the plaintiffs prior to trial. As a result, the remaining claim at trial involved the injured physician against The Dump. The physician argued that The Dump's employees were solely responsible for securing the sofa, not the truck driver, and that the sofa falling indicated their negligence. The plaintiff's counsel also contended that security video footage provided by The Dump was altered or incomplete, suggesting it would have shown the employees solely loading and tying down the sofa.
The Dump denied negligence, asserting that the truck driver helped load the sofa and assisted in securing it. The defense also argued that the driver of the struck vehicle was negligent for failing to maintain a proper lookout or taking faulty evasive action. The trial judge denied the plaintiff's request for a spoliation instruction regarding the video footage but ordered The Dump to pay sanctions of $28,056.25 for attorney and expert witness fees related to the discovery dispute. Defense medical experts testified that the physician's injuries were pre-existing or minor and unrelated to the accident.
The jury found both The Dump and the truck driver 50% negligent. The jury awarded the physician $583,600 in damages. However, due to the truck driver's prior settlement, The Dump was held liable for $291,800 of the total damages. The final judgment against The Dump included the damages, prejudgment interest, taxable costs, and the spoliation sanctions, totaling $339,285.04. The physician plans to seek a new trial, citing the jury's failure to award non-economic damages.
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 Tarrant County.
Similar cases you may find useful
Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.
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.
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 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.
A deli clerk filed a lawsuit after she slipped and fell at her workplace, a Kroger Signature Supermarket in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 23, 2011. The incident occurred behind the deli counter, an area that had been cleaned and mopped prior to her arrival. The plaintiff claimed she suffered a traumatic brain injury, anxiety, and depression after striking her head on the floor. She alleged that the supermarket's parent company, Kroger Texas LP, failed to provide a safe workplace by not properly training employees or having a policy to warn of wet floor conditions. The plaintiff's husband also sued for loss of services. The case was filed in United States District Court as Kroger Texas LP did not carry Texas workers' compensation. The plaintiff presented medical evidence of a concussion, scalp hematoma, and cervical neck sprain immediately following the fall, with subsequent diagnoses of a traumatic brain injury, impaired memory and attention, and chronic pain. Her expert neurologist testified that the injuries were causally related to the accident and would prevent her from working again. The plaintiff sought $2.6 million in damages for past and future pain and suffering, mental anguish, and economic losses, including over $300,000 for future medical care and over $500,000 for lost earnings and household services. The defense contended that routine cleaning procedures were followed, and the plaintiff, being aware of such maintenance, did not require additional warnings. The defendant argued that placing caution cones in the active deli area, which was considered a kitchen, would have created a greater tripping hazard for employees. The defense also asserted that all employees, including the plaintiff, were trained to be aware of their surroundings, and that the plaintiff was wearing required non-slip shoes and her workstation had a non-slip floor cover. Additionally, the defense claimed the plaintiff had pre-existing cervical and lumbar spine injuries from a 1998 motor vehicle accident, suggesting her medical experts had not fully reviewed her prior medical history. After an eight-day trial and one hour of deliberation, a jury returned an 8-0 verdict in favor of the defense. The jury found that Kroger Texas LP was not negligent in the plaintiff's injury, resulting in no award of damages.
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.