In car accident cases, it is not uncommon for a defendant to argue that a collision was low-impact and, therefore, could not have caused the plaintiff’s harm. Some defendants will go so far as to retain a biomechanical engineer to support such assertions. While defendants have the right to rely on expert testimony, such testimony must be relevant and helpful to the jury; otherwise, it will be precluded, as shown in Jesus Jimenez Escamilla, Jr., v. Gabriela Estrada, (No. 05-23-00236-CV) a recent ruling issued by a Texas court. If you suffered injuries in a car accident, it is smart to talk to a Texas car accident lawyer as soon as possible.
History of the Case
It is alleged that in October 2017, the defendant rear-ended the plaintiff at an intersection in Dallas, Texas. The defendant, driving a Nissan Titan pickup truck, felt a “soft bump” during the collision, while the plaintiff, driving a Chevrolet Camaro, initially indicated she was not injured and did not feel any pain. However, upon returning home, the plaintiff noticed pain in her neck and back. Two weeks later, she visited the hospital, where X-rays showed spondylosis and degeneration but no fractures.
Reportedly, in January 2018, the plaintiff saw an orthopedic surgeon who suggested her injuries were caused or worsened by the accident. She was referred to a double board-certified doctor in anesthesiology and pain management. An MRI revealed cervical radiculopathy with cervical disk herniation. In March 2019, the plaintiff filed a negligence suit against the defendant, alleging his conduct was the proximate cause of her injuries. The parties entered into a Rule 11 Agreement in which the defendant stipulated to causing the accident, leading to a jury trial on the causation of the plaintiff’s injuries and damages. Continue Reading