Texas Jury Awards $61,500 Damages in Rear-End Collision
One driver was involved in a rear-end collision. The case resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Plaintiff
- Amount
- $61,500
- County
- Dallas County, LA
- Resolved
- 2016
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Other
- Accident Type
- Rear-end
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Negligence
Case Overview
A plaintiff received a $61,500 award in a case stemming from a rear-end collision. During the proceedings, the plaintiff presented testimony from an expert specializing in forensic economics and earnings capacity. The defense utilized experts in emergency medicine, biomechanics, accident reconstruction, and economics to present its arguments.
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.
A 2005 Pontiac Aztec, operated by the defendant driver, rear-ended a 2018 Chevrolet Silverado on SH 349 in Midland, Texas. The plaintiff, who operated the Silverado, subsequently claimed disabling injuries, pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of function, lost wages, and incurred medical and economic losses as a result of the collision. The plaintiff then filed a breach of contract action against his insurer, Progressive Paloverde Insurance Company, in the Louisiana District Court, Fifteenth Judicial District. The lawsuit alleged that the insurer failed to pay a reasonable amount for damages and losses under the plaintiff's uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, despite formal tender demands. The plaintiff sought judgment for damages, costs, and attorney fees. The case was later removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The defendant insurer admitted and denied parts of the allegations and asserted affirmative defenses, including failure to mitigate damages, comparative fault, and acting in good faith. The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement and filed a joint motion to dismiss the action with prejudice. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice.
A plaintiff initiated a lawsuit following a rear-end collision caused by a tractor-trailer driver. The litigation involved expert testimony concerning the plaintiff's alleged injuries and their long-term effects. A rehabilitation psychology and vocational rehabilitation expert, along with a neurological surgery expert, provided testimony on behalf of the plaintiff. For the defense, an occupational medicine expert offered testimony. The court ultimately awarded the plaintiff $3,038,077.
On August 22, 2017, an over-the-road trucker from Texas was rear-ended by a sedan driver. The trucker immediately reported radiating neck pain, was transported to an emergency room, treated, and released. The trucker subsequently sought care from an orthopedist in Texas, who referred them for physical therapy. After the initial course, the trucker did not continue treatment for approximately 19 months, stating an inability to take time off work. In May 2019, the trucker resumed treatment as symptoms persisted. An MRI revealed a cervical disc injury that compressed a nerve and led to radiating symptoms. A doctor recommended epidural steroid injections, which the trucker had not yet undergone due to a fear of needles but remained open to. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking damages from the defendant. The court directed a verdict on summary judgment for the plaintiff, establishing the defendant's liability. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's disc injury was not linked to the crash and was not a serious injury, emphasizing the significant gap in the plaintiff's medical care and presenting an independent medical examination to support this claim. The case proceeded to a bench trial in October 2020 in Louisiana. The court found for the plaintiff, awarding $17,454 for past medical expenses and $20,000 for future care. Claims for lost wages were rejected. The plaintiff also received $50,000 for pain and suffering, $15,000 for loss of enjoyment of life, and $5,000 for disability, totaling a judgment of $113,354. The court issued a barebones ruling without providing the specific basis for its reasoning.
A plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit following a rear-end motor vehicle collision. The incident occurred when the plaintiff's vehicle was stopped at a red light, alleging negligence by the defendant. Experts in neuropsychology, orthopedic surgery, and forensic economics testified for the plaintiff, suggesting claims related to injuries and lost earnings. A defense expert presented testimony regarding accident reconstruction and biomechanics, likely disputing the cause or extent of the alleged injuries. The case proceeded to trial on July 30, 2020, where a judgment was rendered.
A tractor-trailer, operated by a defendant driver and owned by two defendant trucking companies, rear-ended the plaintiff's motor vehicle. The plaintiff alleged the collision resulted in serious personal injuries, physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, physical impairment, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of income, and incurred medical expenses. The plaintiff filed vehicular liability and breach of contract actions in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The lawsuit named the defendant driver, the two defendant trucking companies, and their insurer, asserting claims of negligence and failure to provide insurance benefits. The plaintiff sought judgment for damages, court costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The defendants denied the allegations and asserted affirmative defenses, including the doctrine of sudden emergency, comparative negligence, failure to mitigate damages, and lack of jurisdiction. The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement. Following the settlement, they filed a joint motion to dismiss the action with prejudice, which the court granted.