Wylie, Texas Court Rules Mistrial in Child Seat Product Liability
An infant suffered severe head injuries when the car seat he was in was struck broadside in a vehicle collision. The infant's head hit the interior of the car door due to the impact. The lawsuit alleged the car seat was defectively designed and lacked adequate warnings. The jury found the car seat manufacturer and the driver who struck the vehicle liable for damages.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Plaintiff
- Amount
- $13,478,106
- County
- Dallas County, TX
- Resolved
- 2020
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Head/Brain Injury
- Accident Type
- T-bone
- Case Type
- Product Liability, Defective Design
Case Overview
In Wylie, Texas, parents of an infant child filed a product liability and negligence lawsuit after their son sustained catastrophic brain injuries in a December 2013 vehicle collision. The infant was a passenger in a Chevrolet Cavalier, properly secured in a child safety seat equipped with an aftermarket insert, when the vehicle was struck broadside at an intersection. The impact caused the infant's head to strike the protruding rear passenger door.
The plaintiffs alleged the car seat manufacturer, the insert manufacturer, and the striking driver were responsible. They claimed the car seat was defective in design, labeling, and marketing due to inadequate side wings and a lack of warnings regarding aftermarket inserts. The plaintiffs also argued safer alternative designs existed. All defendants denied negligence; the car seat and insert manufacturers also brought in the host driver as an additional defendant, alleging negligence for failing to maintain a proper lookout and avoid the collision.
The car seat manufacturer settled out of court but remained on the verdict sheet. A jury initially found the insert manufacturer 2% liable, the car seat manufacturer 47% negligent, and the host driver 51% negligent, awarding over $13 million in damages. The court deemed this verdict inconsistent and sent the jury back for further deliberation. The revised verdict was accepted. However, following the jury's discharge, the insert manufacturer objected to the procedural error of returning the jury for re-deliberation rather than accepting the original answers. The court ultimately declared a mistrial, and a retrial is pending.
VerdictlyTM Score
This outcome differs from typical similar cases
This score is calculated by analyzing injury type, accident details, geographic location, temporal trends, and comparing against 2,000+ similar cases in our database.
Need better results 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.
One driver was traveling on a tollway when their vehicle ran out of gas and became disabled. The other driver, who was following behind, struck the disabled vehicle. The first driver claimed injuries to their neck and back. The jury found the second driver 80% liable and the first driver 20% liable.
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.
One driver stopped in traffic due to construction. The other driver rear-ended the stopped vehicle. The injured driver claimed ankle and back injuries. The defense argued the accident was unavoidable or that the driver acted as an ordinary and prudent driver. The jury found the second driver liable but awarded no damages.
One driver was traveling in Beaumont when their vehicle struck the rear end of a pickup truck. The occupants of the car claimed they suffered injuries. The driver of the pickup truck fled the scene and was never identified. The occupants sued their own insurer for underinsured-motorist benefits. The case proceeded to trial regarding one occupant's claim, with the defense arguing inconsistencies in her account of the accident.
One driver was stopped at an intersection preparing to turn left when their vehicle was struck from behind by another vehicle. The driver claimed neck injuries. The other driver's insurer offered its policy limit. The injured driver sued their own insurer for underinsured motorist benefits, alleging the other driver was negligent. The defense questioned the extent of injuries and suggested they were pre-existing.