Texas Jury Issues Verdict in Secondary Auto Accident Trial

A plaintiff, then age 48, was involved in a rear-end collision on I-264 near Shelbyville Road in Louisville, Kentucky, on February 25, 2017. The defendant, operating a vehicle behind the plaintiff, rear-ended the plaintiff's car in stop-and-go traffic. The defendant admitted fault for the moderate impact, which dented the plaintiff's bumper. No injury was reported at the scene. Six days later, the plaintiff began seeking treatment for soft-tissue neck and back pain. Approximately one month after the incident, the plaintiff reported knee pain, which an MRI later revealed as a meniscal tear. Surgery was performed that July. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking damages for medical expenses totaling $20,468, lost wages of $1,039, and $88,312 for pain and suffering. The plaintiff contended that both the soft-tissue injuries and the meniscal tear were a direct result of the collision. Treating physicians linked the knee injury to the crash, and a biomechanical engineering expert provided supporting testimony. The defendant conceded fault for the collision itself but disputed the causation of the knee injury. The defense highlighted the absence of immediate injury reports at the scene and the delay of about 30 days before the plaintiff mentioned knee pain. An expert physiatrist, evaluating the vehicle forces and the plaintiff's position, concluded that the crash had not caused the meniscal tear, suggesting the injury was instead related to the plaintiff's history of mild knee arthritis. A jury awarded the plaintiff $3,725 for medical expenses, specifically covering the first two weeks of chiropractic care. The jury rejected the plaintiff's claims for lost wages and pain and suffering. A defense judgment was subsequently entered, reflecting a reduction for personal injury protection (PIP).

A motor vehicle accident occurred on February 25, 2017, on Interstate 264 near Shelbyville Road, when the plaintiff's vehicle was rear-ended by the defendant's vehicle in stop-and-go traffic. The defendant admitted fault for the moderate impact, which resulted in a dented bumper, but no injuries were reported at the scene. Six days later, the plaintiff began treatment for soft-tissue neck and back pain. Approximately one month after the collision, the plaintiff reported knee pain, which an MRI later revealed as a meniscal tear. An orthopedic specialist in Louisville performed surgery for the tear. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking damages, alleging that both the soft-tissue symptoms and the meniscal tear were a direct result of the rear-end collision. The plaintiff sought medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering, supported by testimony from a biomechanical engineer expert who connected the crash to the injuries. The defendant argued that the knee injury was unrelated to the accident, citing the absence of injury reports at the scene and the 30-day delay in reporting knee pain. The defense presented testimony from a physiatrist who concluded that the crash forces and the plaintiff's position were insufficient to cause the meniscal tear, also noting the plaintiff's history of mild knee arthritis. A jury awarded the plaintiff $3,725 for medical expenses, specifically covering only the first two weeks of chiropractic care. The jury rejected the plaintiff's claims for lost wages and pain and suffering. A defense judgment was subsequently entered, reflecting a reduction for Personal Injury Protection (PIP). The outcome indicated the jury likely found only the initial soft-tissue claims credible, disassociating the later-reported knee injury from the accident based on the defense's arguments.