Federal Court Trials

At Brock Person Guerra Reyna, we have tried hundreds of cases over the years, too many to include in this website. We have, however, chosen to include each of those cases governed by a jury verdict where the amount sought was in excess of $500,000. It is important to note that we have included every case tried under this broad category, not just select verdicts.

Valdez v. Ford Motor Company (Western District of Texas) Plaintiff was driving a Ford F-150 when he lost control on a highway, went off road, rolled over, and crashed. He was killed in the crash and his wife, his 3 children, and his parents sued Ford alleging he was fully belted but died because he was partially ejected and because the vehicle did not have rollover activated air bags. The family claimed that Ford knew for over 20 years that customers get killed in rollover crashes, that Ford knew there was rollover activated air bag technology available that would reduce the likelihood of fatalites, that Ford introduced rollover activated air bags into many vehicle lines, and that Ford deliberately ceased funding for its suppliers to develop rollover activated air bags into the F-150. Ford alleged that the decedent was unbelted, that he was fully ejected, and that he was solely responsible for his own fatal injuries, denying that there was any defect with the F-150. The Plaintiff asked the jury to award $15,000,000. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Ford Motor Company, finding no product defect and finding that the decedent was 100% responsible for his own fatal injuries.

Cortez v. Valmont Industries and D&F Farms (Western District of Texas) Plaintiff, age 17, was working in the fields as a laborer when she tripped and fell adjacent to an irrigation system. Her clothing was caught by an unguarded drive line and she was pulled into the machine, causing multiple compound fractures of her arm along with a degloving of the skin from the muscle (nearly severing her arm in the process). The Plaintiff sued on a product liability theory alleging the irrigation system was defective because the safety guards fell off and because it did not have a safety switch that shut the system off if the guards were not on the drive lines. The owner of the farm testified that the safety guards did not last and came off the system soon after it was purchased. The Plaintiff was left with permanent injuries to her arm and had very little use of it after the accident. She was not able to return to work after the accident. Her medical specials were $50,000 and her lost wage earning capacity was $1,000,000. The Plaintiff asked the jury to award $4,000,000. The pre-trial demand was $1,750,000. The pre-trial offer was $50,000. The jury returned a verdict of $1,563,916 in favor of the Plaintiff against D&F Farms. The jury returned a zero verdict in favor of Valmont Industries (Brock Person Guerra Reyna client).

Sowders v. TIC United (Western District of Texas) Plaintiff was rear ended on an interstate highway by a fully loaded 18 wheel tractor-trailer being driven by an employee of Defendant. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant was inattentive and following too closely. The investigating officer cited the Defendant as contributing to the accident. Defendant’s driver claimed that Plaintiff cut in front of the tractor-trailer during heavy traffic and that an emergency was created. The past specials were $325,000. The Plaintiff sued on a negligence theory and asked the jury to award $1,300,000. The pre-trial demand was $475,000. The pre-trial offer was $325,000. The jury returned a zero verdict in favor of the Defendant (assessing 100% negligence on the Plaintiff).

Stokes v. R&R Brokerage (Western District of Texas) Plaintiffs sued Defendant claiming that they were discriminated against because of their race. They claimed that they were paid less than similarly situated non-minorities. They further claimed retaliation because they were terminated less than ten days after filing their charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Defendant denied all charges. The Plaintiffs asked the jury to award $500,000. The pre-trial demand was $100,000. The pre-trial offer was $10,000. The jury returned a zero verdict in favor of the Defendant.