The Dallas Court of Appeals has affirmed a judgment awarding $665,000 to a plaintiff in a trucking case.
SL Nabors Commercial/Residential Roofing, Ltd. v. Rico Delmon Allen (No. 05-24-00854-CV; March 26, 2026) arose from a wreck between a passenger vehicle and a commercial truck in Dallas County. The case went to a jury trial. At the close of evidence, the trial court granted a directed verdict on liability against SL Nabors. The jury awarded over $1 million, $665,000 of which were noneconomic damages (past and future physical pain and mental anguish, past and future physical impairment). The trial court awarded a further $4,648.85 in costs. SL Nabors appealed.
In an opinion by Justice Barbare, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment as modified. SL Nabors first argued that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court’s award of noneconomic damages. Looking to the Gregory v. Chohan standard, the court observed that “[t]o survive a legal-sufficiency challenge to an award of mental anguish damages, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating both (1) the existence of compensable mental anguish and (2) a rational connection, grounded in the evidence, between the injuries suffered and the amount awarded” (citations omitted). Plaintiff also carries the burden of showing the “nature, duration, and severity” of the mental anguish suffered. As to future mental anguish, “the plaintiff must further demonstrate a reasonable probability that compensable mental anguish will persist” (citation omitted).
Plaintiff presented evidence that: (1) he immediately suffered head, shoulder, and back pain and visited the ER a few hours after the accident; (2) two days later he visited a chiropractor for pain and other symptoms, which were treated with muscle relaxers; (3) he began physical rehabilitation; (4) he couldn’t complete household chores or open heavy doors; (5) he visited the chiropractor 20 times in 11 months; (6) he continued to be unable to do chores, sleep well, make the bed, lift objects heavier than 10 pounds, or participate in recreational activities; (7) he had an MRI that showed a disk protrusion at the C-3 and C-4 cervical spine; (8) the physician recommended a facet joint injection in Plaintiff’s cervical and lumbar spine to alleviate inflammation; (9) he took the injections; (10) he received three injections but they didn’t help with the pain; (11) the physician told the jury that a herniated disk wouldn’t heal itself and is “forever compromised in terms of its integrity,” weakening the spine; (12) he had surgery to repair a torn labrum; (13) the accident impaired his ability to work in his job as a sales representative, which earned him $4000 to $7000 a month; (14) he had to switch to call center work at $3000 a month; (15) he unsuccessfully tried to start a small business; (16) his income dropped from $80,000 to $40,000; (17) he felt mentally “drained” and lost his faith in God; (18) he and his wife divorced because he didn’t want to talk to her; (19) he was evicted from his home; and (2) he was in constant pain.
In his closing argument, Plaintiff’s counsel suggested at least $500,000 for past physical pain and mental anguish and $200,000 to $250,000 for future pain and suffering. The jury awarded less than that ($250,000 in past pain and suffering; $100,000 for future), showing that the jury “did not ‘simply pick a number and put it in a blank,’ as SL Nabors argues” (citations omitted). Assessing the evidence, the court held that it met the Gregory standard. And since Plaintiff “established the existence of some pain, a great deal of discretion is given to the factfinder in awarding the amount it deems appropriate.” Similarly, Plaintiff demonstrated “nature, duration and severity” of pain and suffering “more than mere disappointment, anger, resentment, or embarrassment” (citations omitted). The court concluded that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the jury’s award.
As to past and future physical impairment, Plaintiff presented evidence that: (1) after the accident he could not engage in sporting activities with his children, as he had before; (2) he can’t take vacations; (3) his medication reduced his ability to engage with his children, such as helping with homework; (4) he couldn’t lift his son; (5) his mother moved in with the family to care for the children; and (6) he no longer went out as often and felt nervous to drive. SL Nabors agreed that this was some evidence of impairment but took issue with the amounts awarded ($200,000 for past impairment, $115,000 for future), arguing that the jury simply picked a number. Again the court found a “rational connection, grounded in the evidence, between the injuries suffered and the dollar amount awarded for past and future physical impairment.” Deferring to the jury’s discretion, the court upheld the award.
Moving on to future medical expenses, the court observed that the “jury may base an award on the nature of the plaintiff’s injuries, the breadth and scope of medical treatment the plaintiff received in the past, the immediacy of his treatment following the alleged cause of the injury, the success of the treatment, the reasonable cost of the treatment, the plaintiff’s incurred medical expenses, his progress toward recovery under the treatment received, and his medical condition at trial” (citations omitted). Plaintiff presented his physician’s and chiropractor’s opinions that in likely medical probability he would continue to have problems and need future care. SL Nabors conceded that this evidence was enough to show some future medicals, but not the $200,000 the jury awarded. The court observed that Plaintiff demonstrated that each steroid injection cost almost $8000, that he would experience chronic pain and disk degeneration as time went on. It pointed out that in the three years between the accident and the trial, Plaintiff incurred $188,743.73 in medical expenses, which SL Nabors did not challenge as unreasonable. Seeing as “[e]vidence of the reasonable value of past medical expenses, along with the probable necessity of future medical treatment, has often been held to support an award of future medical expenses,” the court again deferred to the jury and upheld the award.
The only thing the court determined the trial court got wrong was the award of costs. Although the court determines which party is “successful” for purposes of awarding costs, the court clerk has to tabulate them (citations omitted). Consequently, “the trial court erred by stating a specific amount taxed as costs” (citations omitted). The court thus deleted the $4648.85 and otherwise affirmed the judgment.
