Texas Jury Issues Verdict in Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Crash

On July 12, 2012, a vehicle driven by the plaintiff-driver, with the plaintiff-passenger, stopped for a traffic light in Noblesville, Indiana. The defendant, driving an SUV, subsequently failed to stop and rear-ended the plaintiffs' vehicle. The plaintiff-driver was transported to the emergency room with complaints of neck and back pain, incurring medical expenses of $80,714, with providers accepting $48,550 as payment. The plaintiff-passenger also reported neck pain, seeking medical care two weeks post-incident, with medical expenses totaling $74,938, reduced to $40,530 by providers. The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit, alleging the defendant's negligence caused the collision and their injuries. The defendant disputed the claims, arguing that most of the plaintiffs' reported injuries were pre-existing. This defense included evidence of the plaintiffs' prior chiropractic treatment for chronic pain. The defendant further contended that the impact was low-speed and too minor to cause compensable injury, presenting testimony from a biomechanics expert. Following a three-day trial in Noblesville, the jury deliberated for approximately one hour before returning a verdict in favor of the defendant. The court then entered a judgment for the defense.

A driver and passengers filed a lawsuit following a rear-end collision that occurred in Indianapolis on August 1, 2014. The plaintiff driver had stopped at a red light on Meridian Street when a vehicle operated by the defendant struck the rear of their car. The plaintiff driver incurred $14,580 in medical expenses, and a plaintiff passenger incurred $18,926. The plaintiffs initially sued the defendant driver, also filing an underinsured motorist claim against an insurer, which was later dismissed. Three passengers subsequently settled their claims and were dismissed, leaving the plaintiff driver and one passenger to proceed with their lawsuit. The plaintiffs alleged the defendant was responsible for the collision and their resulting injuries. The defendant disputed both liability and the extent of damages, with both sides presenting expert medical testimony. Following a trial in Indianapolis, a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs. The jury awarded the plaintiff driver $7,500 and the plaintiff passenger $3,500, for a combined total of $11,000. The court entered a judgment for that amount, which was subsequently satisfied. The jury's awards were less than the plaintiffs' claimed medical expenses.

In September 2012, a 73-year-old driver lost control of her 2007 Mini-Cooper on U.S. 50 in Martin County, near Halbert Township. The vehicle veered into a ditch and rolled over multiple times, coming to rest upside down. The driver sustained a C6-7 cervical fracture and a permanent C5-T1 spinal injury, resulting in partial quadriplegia and medical bills exceeding $562,000. She reported either falling asleep or swerving to avoid an animal as the cause of the initial loss of control. The plaintiff subsequently sued the vehicle manufacturer, alleging negligent design due to the absence of a roll-activated side curtain airbag. She contended this design defect led to enhanced injuries that would have been prevented with the airbag, specifically during the head strike inside the vehicle during the roll. Expert testimony from design, biomechanics, and accident reconstruction specialists supported her claim. An attorney-prepared paper, based on self-conducted rollover tests, was offered as evidence but was excluded by the court. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's proof was inadequate, asserting that the proposed airbag design would not have altered the injury outcome. Defense experts testified that the plaintiff struck her head on the roof rail. The defense also highlighted that the vehicle met all government safety standards, leading to a jury instruction about a rebuttable presumption of non-negligent design if standards were met. Additionally, the defendant implicated the plaintiff's own comparative fault for losing control of the vehicle. After a six-day trial in federal court, the jury was asked to determine if the Mini-Cooper was negligently designed by lacking a roll-activated side curtain airbag, which then led to an enhanced injury. The jury answered no, concluding deliberations and leading the court to enter a judgment for the defense.

A motor vehicle accident occurred between a passenger vehicle and a semi-tanker, which resulted in a traumatic brain injury for the plaintiff. The plaintiff presented expert testimony regarding vocational economic analysis, trucking safety, and life care planning. The defendant offered expert testimony on accounting and financial analysis, as well as vehicle accident investigation and reconstruction. The outcome of the case was not detailed in the record.

A 73-year-old driver sustained severe spinal injuries in a single-vehicle rollover crash on September 29, 2012, on U.S. 50 in Martin County near Halbert Township, Indiana. The driver lost control of a 2007 Mini-Cooper; while the exact cause was unclear, the driver initially reported falling asleep but later recalled swerving to avoid an animal. The vehicle veered into a ditch and rolled multiple times, coming to rest upside down. The incident resulted in a C6-7 cervical fracture and a permanent C5-T1 spinal injury, leading to partial quadriplegia and medical bills totaling over $562,000. The driver, as plaintiff, subsequently filed a lawsuit against BMW AG and BMW of North America, alleging the Mini-Cooper was negligently designed because it lacked a roll-activated side curtain airbag. The plaintiff contended that this design defect led to enhanced injuries, specifically the head trauma that caused the spinal damage, which would have been avoided with the proposed airbag. Experts in design, biomechanics, and accident reconstruction testified for the plaintiff. An exhibit detailing roll-over tests conducted by the plaintiff's attorney in a different vehicle, intended to demonstrate the preventability of spinal injuries, was offered but excluded by the court. The defendants countered that the plaintiff's proof was inadequate, arguing the proposed airbag would not have prevented the injuries because the plaintiff struck her head on the roof rail. Defense experts in biomechanics and design supported this position. BMW also emphasized the vehicle met all government safety standards, which carried a rebuttable presumption of no negligent design. The defense additionally pointed to the plaintiff's comparative fault in losing control of the vehicle. Following a six-day federal court trial, the jury was asked to determine if the Mini-Cooper was negligently designed due to the absence of a roll-activated side curtain airbag, and if this defect led to enhanced injuries. The jury found against the plaintiff, concluding there was no negligent design. A judgment was subsequently entered in favor of the defendants.