In one of the toughest venues in Texas, a Harris County jury rejected a seven-figure damages claim in a trucking case, returning a verdict of just $162,000.
The plaintiff alleged that our client’s 18-wheeler struck the cab of his parked truck in a lot, causing him to fall from his sleeper berth, hit his head, and suffer a serious back injury. He later underwent back surgery and claimed over $755,000 in medical bills. His surgeon testified that the procedure was caused by the accident, and a life care planner projected over $300,000 in future treatment needs, including an adjacent-level surgery down the road. An economist opined that the plaintiff had $643,000 in future lost earning capacity, though he did not claim a total inability to work.
The plaintiff retained a full team of experts, including a safety expert, accident reconstructionist, surgeon, life care planner, and economist—and called several to testify at trial.
The trial was hard-fought. Several rulings by the Harris County judge significantly limited our ability to present key impeachment and context evidence—including the plaintiff’s post-accident DOT medical examination showing no back injury, cross examination of the life care planner regarding the amounts actually paid for medical services, and the plaintiff’s other pending injury claims in unrelated venues. Letters of protection were also excluded under a standing court order.
Despite those limitations, lead trial counsel Skylar Stanley delivered a cross-examination that ultimately turned the case. The plaintiff’s credibility collapsed under questioning. The accident did not occur in the manner alleged. The crash report indicated no injuries. The inconsistencies were decisive. The jury awarded just $62,000 in compensatory damages—far below the demand—and $100,000 in punitive damages based on the driver’s prior record.
The gross negligence finding stemmed from the driver’s history in the months leading up to the accident. The trucking company’s current safety director acknowledged that he would have terminated the driver had he been in charge at the time. Still, jurors shared afterward that they carefully calibrated their award and did not want to put the company out of business.
We’re proud of the result—and prouder still of how Skylar and our team handled a complex, high-stakes case against a well-resourced opponent, under tight evidentiary constraints. It’s a reminder that cross-examination remains one of the most powerful tools in the courtroom—and that even when facing limited evidence, truth and credibility still prevail.
Skylar Stanley
Lead Counsel
