Texas Jury Issues Verdict in Negligent Rear-End Collision

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 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.

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.

A motor vehicle accident case was filed, though few details were available regarding the incident or the specific claims made. A rehabilitation psychology expert, specializing in areas including vocational rehabilitation, life care planning, and chronic pain management, was involved on behalf of the plaintiff. Information about the case's resolution was not available.

On December 17, 2017, a rear-end collision occurred in Gretna, Louisiana, when a defendant's vehicle hydroplaned and struck a pickup truck occupied by a driver and a passenger who were stopped at a red light. The defendant admitted fault for the crash. While the collision resulted in minor damage to the pickup's trailer hitch, the driver characterized the impact as significant. The driver subsequently sought treatment for an L5-S1 disc injury, including epidural steroid injections, and the passenger reported a cervical disc bulge, undergoing a period of pain management. Each plaintiff incurred approximately $40,000 in medical bills. The driver and passenger, as plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit against the striking defendant, seeking damages. They also brought an uninsured/underinsured motorist claim against their own insurer. The defense contended that the collision was minor and minimized the severity of the claimed injuries. Evidence presented by the defense noted that the plaintiffs did not seek immediate medical care, having driven several hours to Texas after the incident. A defense orthopedic expert concluded that the passenger sustained only a strain injury and the driver experienced an aggravation of degenerative conditions. Surveillance video depicting the driver white water rafting was also introduced to challenge the extent of the claimed injuries. The case proceeded to a three-day trial in Gretna. During deliberations, the jury requested to review vehicle photos, itemized medical bills, and the claim for car damage. Ultimately, the jury concluded that neither plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of the incident and therefore did not award damages. A judgment was subsequently entered in favor of the defense, closing the case.