Texas Jury Awards Plaintiff $280,000 in Rear-End Collision

One driver collided with the rear of another vehicle. The driver in the rear vehicle alleged injuries, pain, suffering, and medical expenses due to the other driver's negligence. The case involved claims for negligence and underinsured motorist benefits. The defendant denied the allegations and raised defenses including comparative negligence. The case was settled.

On September 8, 2011, the plaintiff's vehicle was rear-ended by an underinsured motor vehicle on Florida's Turnpike at the Glades Road exit ramp in Palm Beach County, Florida. The plaintiff alleged the collision resulted from the other driver's negligence and sought damages for her injuries through her uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier, the defendant insurance company. The plaintiff filed a complaint against the insurer on March 21, 2014, asserting uninsured/underinsured motorist and bad faith claims related to its handling of her claim. The defendant insurer responded that the plaintiff was the sole legal cause of the alleged injuries and was therefore barred from recovery. The defense presented expert testimony in accident reconstruction, emergency medicine, dentistry, radiology, and orthopedic surgery. A jury determined that the negligence of the other driver caused injury to the plaintiff. However, the jury also found that the plaintiff had not suffered a permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical probability as a result of the motor vehicle accident.

On January 28, 2019, a motor vehicle operated by the defendant operator rear-ended a vehicle driven by the plaintiff on County Road 225 in Bradford County, Florida. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant operator was negligent while working for the defendant company and claimed to have sustained serious and permanent injuries as a result of the collision. The plaintiff filed a complaint on February 14, 2020, alleging negligence and vicarious liability against the defendants. The defendants admitted negligence in the collision but disputed the nature, extent, and causation of the plaintiff’s claimed injuries and damages. A jury ultimately found that the plaintiff had not sustained a permanent injury, addressing a central point of dispute regarding the plaintiff's claim for damages.

A motor vehicle collision occurred on December 27, 2010, in St. Petersburg, Florida, when an underinsured motorist rear-ended a vehicle operated by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs, the injured driver and a spouse, filed a complaint in June 2012 against their uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier, 21st Century Indemnity Insurance. They alleged the driver's damages from the collision exceeded the $50,000 liability policy held by the at-fault driver. An amended complaint filed in September 2014 added a claim of bad faith against the defendant insurer. During the proceedings, the defendant presented expert testimony from professionals in accident reconstruction, neurosurgery, biomechanics, and radiology. The jury ultimately awarded $0 to the injured driver for damages and $0 to the spouse for loss of consortium.

On May 10, 2015, a motor vehicle collision occurred on I-295 North along the Buckman Bridge in Jacksonville, FL. The plaintiff, who was operating a vehicle, alleged that the defendant negligently struck his vehicle, resulting in injuries. The plaintiff claimed he had sustained minor injuries in a previous rear-end collision in January 2015 and was still receiving treatment at the time of the subject collision. The plaintiff contended that the injuries sustained from both collisions could not be apportioned or separated, and therefore the defendant was liable for the combined injuries. The defendant admitted negligence for the May 2015 collision but disputed the extent of damages and causation. The defendant also argued that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages, which contributed to his losses. Both sides presented medical and vocational experts to support their arguments. A jury subsequently found the defendant 10% negligent and the plaintiff 90% negligent. The jury awarded zero damages for future medical bills and future loss of earnings, concluding that the plaintiff had not suffered a permanent injury.