$12.45 millionVerdict

$12.45 Million Jury Verdict for Couple Hurt by New Prime 18-Wheeler on I-45

Verdict · 129th District Court of Harris County, Texas (Alonzo v. John, No. 14-20-00148-CV, affirmed Fourteenth Court of Appeals March 29, 2022) · 2019

Won by Williams Hart & Boundas.

Jim Hart won a $12.45 million jury verdict for a Houston couple severely injured when a New Prime tractor-trailer rear-ended their sedan on I-45, though the Texas Supreme Court later reversed on procedural grounds and remanded for a new trial.

What happened

On a Houston interstate, Roberto Alonzo, driving for New Prime, Inc., rear-ended a sedan carrying Christine John and Christopher Lewis. The force of the impact pushed John's car into a third vehicle.

John bore the worst of it. She sustained head trauma along with bulging and herniated spinal discs, and over time developed trigeminal neuralgia, a chronic nerve-pain condition affecting the face. Lewis suffered back and neck injuries. Neither had been at fault.

Alonzo and New Prime conceded liability at trial, leaving the jury to decide only the extent of damages. Jim Hart of Williams Hart and Boundas represented John and Lewis at the 129th District Court of Harris County. The jury awarded Christine John $2.5 million for past physical pain, $4.7 million for future physical pain, $1.7 million for past mental anguish, and $3.1 million for future mental anguish. Lewis received $150,000 for past physical pain and $300,000 for future mental anguish. The combined total was $12.45 million.

New Prime and Alonzo challenged the verdict on multiple grounds, including the size of the noneconomic-to-economic damages ratio and allegations of improper conduct during voir dire and closing argument. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston affirmed the judgment in full in March 2022, rejecting each challenge, per the Texas Civil Justice League's review of the opinion.

New Prime then petitioned the Texas Supreme Court. In May 2024, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that plaintiff's counsel had made an uninvited accusation of discriminatory animus during closing argument that constituted incurable improper jury argument. The underlying liability findings and injury facts remain undisputed; the case returns to the trial court for a new damages determination.

Sources

This account is drawn from contemporaneous public reporting and the court record.