Texas Jury Issues Defense Verdict in Commercial Vehicle Negligence
One driver alleged the other driver changed lanes unsafely, causing a collision. The injured driver claimed severe injuries to their head, neck, and back. The defense argued the injured driver's own negligence contributed to the accident. The jury found in favor of the defendants.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Defense
- Amount
- $35,283
- County
- Dallas County, TX
- Resolved
- 2021
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Head/Brain Injury
- Accident Type
- Truck/Commercial
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Negligence
Case Overview
On June 18, 2018, a motor vehicle accident occurred involving the plaintiff and a commercial driver operating a vehicle for a defendant carrier corporation. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit, alleging the defendant driver unsafely changed lanes and crashed into her vehicle at high speed, causing severe injuries to her head, neck, and back. The plaintiff claimed the driver was negligent and grossly negligent, and that the carrier corporation was negligent in hiring, training, supervising, retaining, monitoring, and entrusting a vehicle to the driver.
The court partially granted and denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing some negligence claims. The case proceeded to trial, where expert testimony was presented. The jury received instructions regarding negligence, ordinary care, proximate cause, and the assignment of comparative responsibility if both parties were found negligent.
On March 10, 2021, the jury found in favor of the defendant driver and the defendant carrier corporation. The jury determined that the plaintiff's contributory negligence was a factor in the accident. The court entered judgment against the plaintiff, and costs totaling $35,283.03 were subsequently awarded to the defendants.
VerdictlyTM Score
This outcome is within expected ranges
This score is calculated by analyzing injury type, accident details, geographic location, temporal trends, and comparing against 2,000+ similar cases in our database.
Want results like this 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 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.
On November 7, 2012, a plaintiff alleged that a defendant operator negligently drove a tractor-trailer, causing it to rear-end the plaintiff's stopped vehicle. The plaintiff claimed he sustained personal injuries as a result of the defendant operator's negligence. In October 2014, the plaintiff, along with his wife and minor child, filed a negligence lawsuit against the defendant operator and his employer in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco. A jury trial followed. In October 2015, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, awarding him $146,231.28 for personal injuries. The jury also awarded $20,000 in loss of consortium damages to the plaintiff's wife and minor child, bringing the total award to $166,231.28.
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.
On October 10, 2012, a vehicular collision occurred on West 34th Street in Houston, Texas. The plaintiff was driving eastbound when she slowed for traffic, and her vehicle was struck from the rear by a defendant's vehicle. The force of the impact pushed the plaintiff's car into the automobile in front of hers. The plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit, asserting the defendant failed to maintain a proper lookout, apply brakes in a timely manner, and manage an assured clear distance. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff claimed to have suffered a blow to the head, lost consciousness, and was diagnosed with a concussion, a hematoma of the head, broken ribs, a collarbone, and a pelvis. She further alleged permanent brain injury affecting memory, balance, and causing tremors, in addition to depression. The defendant denied all allegations of negligence, contending the plaintiff caused the accident by making a right turn from a driveway into traffic and then suddenly braking. The defendant also disputed the extent of the plaintiff's injuries, maintaining that some were unrelated to the collision and resulted from pre-existing illness, disease, or another accident. After hearing the arguments, a jury found the defendant 100% liable for the accident. The plaintiff was awarded $70,000 in past damages.
In Dallas County, a plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit following a rear-end collision that resulted in a soft tissue neck injury. The plaintiff sought compensation for medical expenses totaling $9,901, along with damages for physical pain, mental anguish, and physical impairment. During the proceedings, both sides presented evidence regarding the plaintiff's injury and treatment, including testimony from chiropractic experts. The plaintiff argued for comprehensive damages related to the collision, while the defendant disputed the extent or causation of certain claimed injuries and their associated costs. A jury subsequently found the defendant negligent in causing the collision. However, the jury's award for damages was limited. It included $9,901 for past medical care, matching the plaintiff's claimed expenses, but awarded no damages for past or future physical pain and mental anguish, past or future physical impairment, or future medical care. The verdict, reached by an 11-1 vote, effectively recognized liability but restricted the scope of recoverable damages.