Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DAMAGES—INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT—N.D. Tex.: Court awards $440,000 to man injured while changing tire, (Mar 18, 2025)

By Brian Craig, J.D.

The district court denied the injured man’s request for $5 million in damages against the wheel manufacturer based in India.

In a case brought by a man who was injured while changing a tire on a loader, the federal district court in Amarillo, Texas, has awarded $440,274.89 in damages, plus interest, but denied the man’s request for $5 million in damages against the wheel manufacturer, Wheels India, Ltd., based in India. The district court judge largely adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and overruled most of the objections raised by the injured man, who sought additional damages. The district court adopted all of the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations with the exception of $50,000 in damages for disfigurement resulting from a scar to the man’s forehead (Lucero v. Wheels India, Ltd., No. 2:20-CV-207-Z-BV (N.D. Tex. Mar. 17, 2025)).

A man suffered injuries from an explosive separation of a split tire ring when he changed a tire on a Caterpillar wheel loader. He received treatment for multiple skull and orbital bone fractures, spent a week in a coma, and two total weeks in the hospital. The man and his common-law wife sued several parties, including the loader manufacturer Caterpillar Inc., and the wheel manufacturer, Wheels India, Ltd., based in India. The claims included negligence and gross negligence. All of the defendants except the wheel manufacturer either settled, or the injured man dismissed claims against the other defendants. The man was eventually able to serve the wheel manufacturer based in India. He and his common-law wife sought $5 million in damages against the wheel manufacturer.

The Magistrate Judge held an evidentiary hearing and concluded that the injured man and his common-law wife should receive $54,080 for lost wages; $36,194 for medical expenses; $250,000 for past and future pain, suffering, and mental anguish; $25,000 for disfigurement; and $50,000 for loss of consortium and household services. The injured man and his common-law wife objected to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation on damages.

Default judgment. The district court concluded that default judgment against the India-based wheel manufacturer was both procedurally and substantively proper. After years of navigating India’s bureaucracy, contending with the manufacturer’s service refusal, and appealing to the Fifth Circuit, the injured man finally obtained satisfactory service on the wheel manufacturer via email.

Sustained damages. The district court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation on damages with the exception of damages for disfigurement. The Magistrate Judge properly concluded that the injured man should receive $54,080 for lost wages based on the evidence. The man claimed he was self-employed and claimed over $1 million in lost wages, but the Magistrate Judge noted that the injured man presented no evidence at the damages hearing to support claims that he was employed in the moving and storage business; nor did he provide pay stubs, tax returns, bank records, or other similar evidence. As to past medical expenses, the reliable affidavits established $36,194.89 in damages. The Magistrate Judge properly refused to consider an exhibit in an email rather than an affidavit on medical expenses based on hearsay. The district court agreed with the Magistrate Judge that $250,000 in damages for pain, suffering, and mental anguish was within the range of awards seen in other Texas cases. The man did not testify about specific nonwork-related tasks or activities he could no longer perform. The evidence supported the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation of $50,000 for loss of consortium and loss of household services for the injured man’s common-law wife. The man was easily irritable, lived in the garage, and avoided family activities, dinners, and household work for about two years after the accident. There was no testimony about any loss of physical intimacy between the man and his common-law wife.

Disfigurement damages. The district court found that the evidence supported an award of $50,000 for disfigurement for a scar across the man’s forehead, rather than $25,000 recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Disfigurement impairs the appearance of a person, or is that which renders unsightly, misshapen, or imperfect, or deforms in some manner. While the man suffered a prominent scar across the forehead, he did not have a misshapen head, nor did he need to wear anything to cover the scar. The district court judge rejected the injured man’s claim that he was entitled to $100,000 in disfigurement damages.

Thus, the district court awarded $440,274.89 in total damages, plus prejudgment and postjudgment interest, to the injured man and his common-law wife.

The case is No. 2:20-CV-207-Z-BV.

Judge: Kacsmaryk, M.

Attorneys: Kevin A. Isern (Lovell, Isern & Farabough, LLP) for Eric Lucero. Brad Howell (DyKema Gossett PLLC) for Caterpillar Inc.

Companies: Caterpillar Inc.; Wheels India Ltd.

Cases: CourtDecisions DamagesNews IndustrialCommercialEquipNews DesignManufacturingNews TexasNews