- Home
- All Practice Areas
- Personal Injury
- What is Personal Injury?
- Personal Injury Statute of Limitations
- Can I Handle My Own Case?
- How Personal Injury Claims Work
- How Our Attorneys Can Help
- Denied Insurance Claims
- Personal Injury Damages
- Premises Liability
- San Antonio Personal Injury Attorney
- Types of Personal Injury
- Burn Injuries
- What is a Personal Injury Lawsuit?
- San Antonio Injury Attorney
- Can I File an Injury Claim?
- Mediating a Personal Injury Case
- The Victim's Duty to Mitigate Damages
- San Antonio Personal Injury Lawyers
- Preponderance of Evidence
- San Antonio Personal Injury Attorneys
- Proving Proximate Cause
- San Antonio Law Firms
- The Thin Skull Rule
- San Antonio Injury Lawyer
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- San Antonio Injury Law Firm
- Vicarious Liability
- Personal Injury Attorneys in San Antonio
- Subrogation
- Personal Injury Lawyers in San Antonio
- San Antonio Injury Lawyers
- New Braunfels Personal Injury Attorney
- Wrongful Death
- Texas Wrongful Death Law Explained
- Wrongful Death Statute of Limitations
- The Benefits of a Wrongful Death Attorney
- Auto Accident Wrongful Death
- Semi Truck Accident Wrongful Death
- Wrongful Deaths on the Job
- Construction Accident Wrongful Death
- Loss of Future Earnings Compensation
- Texas Wrongful Death Lawyer
- New Braunfels Wrongful Death Lawyer
- Big Rig Accidents
- Texas Truck Accident Attorney
- Commercial Vehicle Accidents
- 18-Wheeler Accident Litigation
- Truck Accident Claims
- Insurance Company Tactics
- Fatal Big Rig Accidents
- Dump Truck Accidents
- Flatbed Trailer Accidents
- Falling Cargo Accidents
- Causes of 18-Wheeler Accidents
- San Antonio 18-Wheeler Accident Attorney
- San Antonio Truck Accident Lawyers
- San Antonio Truck Accident Attorney
- Unsafe Trucking Practices
- San Antonio Trucking Accident Attorney
- San Antonio Texas Trucking Accident Lawyer
- Tractor Trailer Accident Attorney
- Texas Truck Accident Lawyer
- San Antonio Truck Accident Firm
- New Braunfels 18-Wheeler Attorney
- New Braunfels Truck Accident Lawyer
- Automobile Accidents
- San Antonio Auto Accident Lawyer
- Common Car Accident Injuries
- How To File an Accident Injury Claim
- San Antonio Car Accident Lawyer
- Child Injuries in a Car Accident
- Passenger Injuries
- Fatal Car Accidents
- Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Insurance
- Proportionate Responsibility
- Tire Defect Accidents
- San Antonio Rollover Accident Attorney
- The Benefit of Hiring An Attorney
- Challenges Recovering Compensation
- Auto Accident Attorney in San Antonio
- San Antonio Accident Injury Lawyer
- San Antonio Auto Injury Attorney
- Uninsured Motorist Accidents
- San Antonio Accident Attorney
- What To Do After an Accident
- San Antonio Car Wreck Lawyer
- New Braunfels Car Accident Lawyer
- Work Related Accidents
- San Antonio Workers' Comp Lawyer
- Workers Comp Vs Non-Subscriber
- Fatal Workplace Accidents
- Gas & Oil Drilling Accidents
- Lifting Injuries While Working
- Non-Subscriber Injury Law
- What To Expect After a Work Injury
- Oilfield Worker Injury Accidents
- San Antonio Workers Compensation Attorney
- New Braunfels Work Injury Lawyer
- Construction Accidents
- Drunk Driver Accidents
- Other Vehicle Accidents
- Dangerous & Defective Products
- Drowning Accidents
- Day Care Abuse
- Medical Malpractice
- What is Medical Malpractice?
- Filing a Medical Malpractice Claim
- Malpractice Claims & Litigation Process
- Nursing Home Abuse & Neglect
- Misdiagnosis & Faulure to Diagnose
- Pharmacy & Prescription Errors
- Surgical Errors & Mistakes
- Nursing Malpractice
- Dental Malpractice
- Birth Injury
- San Antonio Nursing Home Abuse Attorney
- The Informed Consent Document
- Birth Injury Malpractice
- Drug & Pharmacy Injuries
- Personal Injury
- Our Attorneys
- Success Stories
- Information Center
- Contact
San Antonio Car Accident Passenger Injury
Michael Grossman, Car Wreck Lawyer in San Antonio TX, Discusses Injured Passengers in Car Accidents

In theory, filing an insurance claim after a car accident should work like this:
- Driver A is somehow negligent and causes an accident in which driver B is hurt.
- Driver B contacts driver A’s insurance company to receive compensation.
- Driver A’s insurance company determines the full extent of driver B’s damages.
- Driver A’s insurance company then pays for the expenses associated with driver B’s injuries and property damage.
Unfortunately, the process is rarely this straightforward. Numerous factors can complicate things. Driver A may not have insurance or may not have enough insurance. A passenger in one or both of the vehicles might have been injured. Driver A may fight charges of liability. Any of these elements can turn a simple process in a tangled legal nightmare. But an experienced auto accident attorney can help you receive the compensation you need, regardless of your particular situation.
Receiving Compensation as a Passenger in a Car Accident
Passengers have numerous options available for seeking compensation if they are injured in an accident. As a passenger in a car driven by the plaintiff, you may also be eligible to file a lawsuit against the negligent driver in addition to the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff. You may also be able to seek compensation through the plaintiff’s insurance policy. Even if you are a passenger in the car driven by the responsible party, you may be able to seek compensation from one or both of the insurance companies involved. You may even be able to file a personal injury lawsuit in order to secure the full extent of the compensation you are owed.
Special and General Damages
Injured passengers can seek compensation for two broad categories of damages: special damages and general damages. Special damages are the most straightforward, though even they have their complexities. Special damages include a victim’s past and future medical expenses, damage to the victim’s property, court costs, lost wages, and lost potential future income.
Calculating lost wages is relatively simple. Lost wages simply covers the money you could have made if you had not spent some time in the hospital recovering from your injuries. Lost potential future income is much more technical. This covers any loss in earning capacity due to your injuries. For example, if a construction worker who makes $50,000 a year is paralyzed after a car accident, he or she likely can no longer perform his or her job. In this situation, let us say that the victim would have continued working for another 25 years if the accident had not taken place. This means that the victim is entitled to almost $1.3 million just to cover his or her lost income capacity. As you might imagine, proving up these damages is not an easy process. In particular, you must convince a jury or insurance company that you will likely never be able to return to work due to your injuries. An experienced lawyer can help you convince insurance companies of the validity of your claim.
General damages are even more complex. General damages cover less tangible damages such as pain and suffering, mental or emotional turmoil, disfigurement, or even a damaged reputation. The extent of these damages is entirely subjective, and it takes an aggressive attorney to successfully convince a jury that these types of damages deserve compensation. Determining how much compensation to request is a technical process, involving legal precedents and the attorney’s experience with these types of cases. If you ask for too much, the credibility of your claim could be damaged, but if you do not ask for enough, you will not receive the compensation you deserve.
In order to see the subjective nature of these injuries, consider these two theoretical examples. Let us say that a car containing a driver and one passenger is involved in an accident that was caused by a mechanical defect on the car. Both people in the car receive almost identical injuries, requiring very similar medical treatment. The compensation they might receive for special damages would then be almost identical. But let us say that the driver was knocked unconscious in the accident and remained unconscious for most of his recovery, while the passenger was fully aware of the entire process. The passenger would therefore experience much more pain due to the accident and would likely be entitled to a larger general damages claim.
As a second example, let us say that a driver is hurt in a car accident due to another person’s negligence and receives a large facial scar that will never heal. Anyone receiving such a disfigurement would deserve some sort of compensation for it. But if the victim was a model, he or she would likely receive much more compensation through a general damages claim than a plumber with the same injury. A facial scar impacts a model’s life much more than it would a plumber’s (in almost all cases).

As you can see, the extent of general damages is entirely up for negotiation – and insurance companies do not play nice when it comes to general damages. They will do everything they can to discredit your claims, and this process is much easier when the damages involved do not have an immediate monetary cost associated with them.
But our firm has been handling all kinds of car accidents for twenty years. We have successfully resolved hundreds of high-profile cases against every major insurance company in the nation. We know how to argue for the validity of even the most subjective types of damages. We are dedicated to making sure you receive compensation for the full extent of your injuries. Furthermore, insurance companies are aware of our successful track record, and they will often cooperate with our demands in order to avoid fighting a legal battle with our attorneys in the court room. So if you or a loved one has been hurt in a car accident, regardless of the specifics of your accident, contact experienced San Antonio car accident attorney Michael Grossman today.
Some of Our Most Recent Successful Cases
$700,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident / Work Injury (Fractured Pelvis, Other Internal Injuries)
A loading dock employee suffered a fractured and damage to internal organs as the result of a crushing injury sustained when an 18-wheeler backed into him and crushed him between the trailer and loading dock.
A loading dock employee suffered a fractured and damage to internal organs as the result of a crushing injury sustained when an 18-wheeler backed into him and crushed him between the trailer and loading dock.
Total Recovery:
$700,000.00
$700,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$175,000.00
$175,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$1,084.00
$1,084.00
$75,000.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Neck & Back Sprains)
(policy limits) Recovery for client who suffered sprains in the neck and back due to a rear-end car accident.
(policy limits) Recovery for client who suffered sprains in the neck and back due to a rear-end car accident.
Total Recovery:
$75,000.00
$75,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$21,277.00
$21,277.00
Litigation Expenses:
$680.00
$680.00
$47,500.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Broken Leg)
(policy limits) Recovery for client who sustained a broken leg in a car accident.
(policy limits) Recovery for client who sustained a broken leg in a car accident.
Total Recovery:
$47,500.00
$47,500.00
Attorney Fees:
$19,000.00
$19,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$168.00
$168.00
$1,000,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death/ Commercial Vehicle Accident
(policy limits) A husband and father of three was killed when the driver of an 18-wheeler veered into oncoming traffic, striking the young man's vehicle and several others. The defendant was employed by a small construction company that operated only a single 18-wheeler. As such, the defendants were largely underinsured and were not financially solvent.
Furthermore, the defendants had an eroding insurance policy and numerous other parties were intent upon filing claims of their own since the 18-wheeler struck multiple other vehicles. This created the need for an aggressive and rapid response before the other claimants could erode the policy.
Defense counsel made it clear that they wished to litigate the case despite the insurmountable liability arguments that our attorneys presented. They intended to designate a third party as a responsible defendant since the accident happened in a construction zone, even though it was abundantly clear that the construction zone played no role in the crash.
Additonally, the defendants made it clear that they wished to downplay the extent of the damages by virtue of a character assasination on the decedent. Fortunately for our clients, our firm has successfully litigated against the defendant's insurer in nearly a dozen cases, so the carrier was quite aware of our courtroom capabilities. We presented a sample lawsuit to the defendant's insurance carrier and informed them that the lawsuit was to be filed the moment that they refused to settle.
Additionally, our attorneys submitted a Stowers' Demand with a brief window of time for the defendants to respond. We made it abundantly clear that we intended to seek punitive damages and that we would assert the full limits of the carrier's exposure under the Stowers' Demand should the carrier not offer policy limits.
The defendant's attorney adamantly persuaded the carrier to litigate, however, our attorney's threats of litigation, past track record, and incredibly aggressive pre-litigation actions convinced the insurance carrier to disregard their own attorney's advice and to settle the case, lest they face our attorneys in court.
Had our clients been represented by virtually any other firm who did not have our specific track record or who would have not recognized that this case required special and immediate attention coupled with an abnormally aggressive stance, the client's would have certainly been tied up in litigation for years, with the limited supply of funds rapidly depleting since the other claimants who did not need to litigate would have essentially had right of first refusal.
(policy limits) A husband and father of three was killed when the driver of an 18-wheeler veered into oncoming traffic, striking the young man's vehicle and several others. The defendant was employed by a small construction company that operated only a single 18-wheeler. As such, the defendants were largely underinsured and were not financially solvent.
Furthermore, the defendants had an eroding insurance policy and numerous other parties were intent upon filing claims of their own since the 18-wheeler struck multiple other vehicles. This created the need for an aggressive and rapid response before the other claimants could erode the policy.
Defense counsel made it clear that they wished to litigate the case despite the insurmountable liability arguments that our attorneys presented. They intended to designate a third party as a responsible defendant since the accident happened in a construction zone, even though it was abundantly clear that the construction zone played no role in the crash.
Additonally, the defendants made it clear that they wished to downplay the extent of the damages by virtue of a character assasination on the decedent. Fortunately for our clients, our firm has successfully litigated against the defendant's insurer in nearly a dozen cases, so the carrier was quite aware of our courtroom capabilities. We presented a sample lawsuit to the defendant's insurance carrier and informed them that the lawsuit was to be filed the moment that they refused to settle.
Additionally, our attorneys submitted a Stowers' Demand with a brief window of time for the defendants to respond. We made it abundantly clear that we intended to seek punitive damages and that we would assert the full limits of the carrier's exposure under the Stowers' Demand should the carrier not offer policy limits.
The defendant's attorney adamantly persuaded the carrier to litigate, however, our attorney's threats of litigation, past track record, and incredibly aggressive pre-litigation actions convinced the insurance carrier to disregard their own attorney's advice and to settle the case, lest they face our attorneys in court.
Had our clients been represented by virtually any other firm who did not have our specific track record or who would have not recognized that this case required special and immediate attention coupled with an abnormally aggressive stance, the client's would have certainly been tied up in litigation for years, with the limited supply of funds rapidly depleting since the other claimants who did not need to litigate would have essentially had right of first refusal.
Total Recovery:
$1,000,000.00
$1,000,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$333,333.00
$333,333.00
Litigation Expenses:
$0.00
$0.00
$530,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Back Injury Requiring Surgery)
Plaintiff, a delivery driver, suffered a back injury resulting in spinal fusion surgery when he was injured in an accident involving falling cargo from an 18-wheeler. The defendants cited the plaintiff's failure to take evasive action as a source of contributory negligence and litigation commenced accordingly which culminated in an acceptance of liability and eventually satisfactory resolution.
Plaintiff, a delivery driver, suffered a back injury resulting in spinal fusion surgery when he was injured in an accident involving falling cargo from an 18-wheeler. The defendants cited the plaintiff's failure to take evasive action as a source of contributory negligence and litigation commenced accordingly which culminated in an acceptance of liability and eventually satisfactory resolution.
Total Recovery:
$530,000.00
$530,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$210,000.00
$210,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$145,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Back and Neck Injury)
Recovery for driver struck from behind by 18-wheeler: Driver sustained back and neck injury.
Recovery for driver struck from behind by 18-wheeler: Driver sustained back and neck injury.
Total Recovery:
$145,000.00
$145,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$48,333.00
$48,333.00
Litigation Expenses:
$2,696.00
$2,696.00
$300,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident / Work Injury (Facial Fractures and Head Trauma)
A loading dock worker suffered serious including numerous facial fractures and minor brain trauma when an 18-wheeler back into him, crushing him against the loading dock. The plaintiff's employer was a subscriber to Texas Workers' Compensation coverage, thus a claim was rightly filed against the third party trucking company whom the truck driver operating the reversing 18-wheeler worked for.
The plaintiffs asserted the position that the trucking company in question was liable on the basis of respondeat superior and negligent retention. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries by virtue of the plaintiff putting himself in harms way. They maintained that the plaintiff simply walked behind the reversing tractor trailer as it pushed back toward the loading dock.
It was later determined through deposition testimony that the truck driver had indeed instructed the plaintiff to stand behind the trailer in order to determine the vehicle's proximity to the dock. Once this fact came to light, the defendants agreed to mediate whereby the case was satisfactorily settled.
A loading dock worker suffered serious including numerous facial fractures and minor brain trauma when an 18-wheeler back into him, crushing him against the loading dock. The plaintiff's employer was a subscriber to Texas Workers' Compensation coverage, thus a claim was rightly filed against the third party trucking company whom the truck driver operating the reversing 18-wheeler worked for.
The plaintiffs asserted the position that the trucking company in question was liable on the basis of respondeat superior and negligent retention. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries by virtue of the plaintiff putting himself in harms way. They maintained that the plaintiff simply walked behind the reversing tractor trailer as it pushed back toward the loading dock.
It was later determined through deposition testimony that the truck driver had indeed instructed the plaintiff to stand behind the trailer in order to determine the vehicle's proximity to the dock. Once this fact came to light, the defendants agreed to mediate whereby the case was satisfactorily settled.
Total Recovery:
$300,000.00
$300,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$120,000.00
$120,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$9,807.00
$9,807.00
$102,500.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Both Legs Broken)
Recovery for client who suffered injuries to both legs in a truck accident.
Recovery for client who suffered injuries to both legs in a truck accident.
Total Recovery:
$102,500.00
$102,500.00
Attorney Fees:
$40,833.00
$40,833.00
Litigation Expenses:
$19,984.00
$19,984.00
$100,000.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Soft-Tissue Injuries)
Recovery for passenger of Uninsured Driver Injured in Head-On Crash.
Recovery for passenger of Uninsured Driver Injured in Head-On Crash.
Total Recovery:
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$40,000.00
$40,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$2,500.00
$2,500.00
$200,000.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Closed Head Injury)
Recovered for car accident victim who suffered a closed head injury.
Recovered for car accident victim who suffered a closed head injury.
Total Recovery:
$200,000.00
$200,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$66,666.00
$66,666.00
Litigation Expenses:
$1,500.00
$1,500.00



