Dallas–Fort Worth Motor Vehicle Accidents: Case Outcomes & Typical Values

A company that made highway guard rail end terminals was accused of violating the False Claims Act. The accuser claimed the company secretly modified the design, which led to vehicles impaling the guard rails and causing severe injuries. The company denied these allegations. A jury found in favor of the accuser and awarded damages, which were then trebled and increased by penalties, totaling over $663 million. However, an appeals court later overturned this judgment, stating the government had not declared the design unsafe.

A 20-year-old passenger sustained severe spinal cord injuries in a collision. The accident occurred when a utility truck ran a stop sign and hit the vehicle he was in. The defense argued the host driver's speed and the plaintiff's failure to wear a seatbelt caused the injuries. The jury found the truck driver's negligence caused the injury and awarded damages.

One driver was operating a vehicle that had previously been repaired by an auto maintenance company. The vehicle was later struck by another vehicle, causing it to catch fire. The occupants of the first vehicle sustained injuries and burns. It was discovered that the previous repairs were not performed to manufacturer specifications, potentially compromising the vehicle's safety.

One driver was traveling on a highway during a rainstorm when another driver struck their vehicle. The collision caused the vehicle to catch fire, and the occupants sustained severe injuries, including burns and crush injuries. The occupants sued the collision center that had previously repaired the car's roof, alleging negligent repair compromised the vehicle's structural integrity and led to the fire and their injuries. The defense argued the other driver was solely responsible for the accident.

One driver's vehicle had its roof improperly repaired with glue instead of welds. Later, when another vehicle hydroplaned and struck it, the roof detached, causing severe injuries to the occupants. The jury found the repair shop mostly at fault for the injuries.

A fire started in a home, leading to the deaths of two elderly residents. The fire was believed to have originated from a ceramic heater. The family of the deceased sued the heater manufacturer, alleging a manufacturing defect caused the fire. The defense argued the heater was not defective and pointed to other potential ignition sources. The jury found the manufacturer liable for the deaths.

One driver was involved in a crash that resulted in serious injuries. The case involved complex medical and accident reconstruction expert testimony. The jury awarded damages for future lost wages, medical expenses, and non-economic damages.

One driver was involved in a crash that resulted in serious spinal cord injuries. The case involved extensive medical and expert testimony regarding future medical expenses, lost wages, and damages.

One driver was involved in a crash that resulted in serious injuries. The case involved complex medical and accident reconstruction expert testimony. The jury awarded damages for future lost wages, medical expenses, and pain and suffering.

One driver was involved in a crash that resulted in serious injuries. The case involved claims related to future lost wages, medical expenses, and damages.

A 9-year-old boy was injured when a modified golf cart he was driving tipped over. The boy's parents sued the golf cart manufacturer and the homeowners for alleged design defects, warning deficiencies, and negligent supervision. The jury found the manufacturer liable for design and warning defects but also found the homeowner partially responsible. The case resulted in a jury award.

Two teenagers died in separate incidents. One died after being assaulted in a restaurant parking lot. The other died in a car crash while trying to take the first victim to the hospital. The families sued the restaurant, alleging negligent security. The case was settled after a jury verdict.