Florida $2 Million Tractor-Trailer Verdict, 50/50 Fault Split in U-Turn Crash

An Alachua County, Florida jury awarded Charles Thomas $2 million after a tractor-trailer making a U-turn on US Highway 301 collided with his passenger car, then reduced the recovery by half after apportioning equal fault to Thomas and the trailer's driver. The verdict in Thomas v. C&S Wholesale Services came after a nine-day trial in the 8th Judicial Circuit presided over by Judge Gloria Walker, and it included $1.3 million in medical expenses and $700,000 in non-economic damages. Thomas was represented by Clancy Boylan of Morgan & Morgan, and defendants C&S Wholesale Services and tractor-trailer driver Gregory Streater were represented by Jerry Hamilton of Hamilton Miller & Birthisel. Because the jury found Thomas 50 percent responsible, his net recovery under Florida's comparative fault rules is approximately $1 million.

Case at a Glance

• Verdict: $2,000,000 gross, approximately $1,000,000 net after comparative fault
• Medical Expenses: $1,300,000
• Non-Economic Damages: $700,000
• Case Type: Trucking Accident (Tractor-Trailer)
• Court: 8th Judicial Circuit, Alachua County, Florida
• Case No.: 2024-CA-004343
• Judge: Gloria Walker
• Plaintiff: Charles Thomas
• Defendants: C&S Wholesale Services; Gregory Streater (driver)
• Plaintiff Attorney: Clancy Boylan, Morgan & Morgan
• Defense Attorney: Jerry Hamilton, Hamilton Miller & Birthisel
• Trial Length: 9 days

How the Crash Happened on US-301

Streater was hauling a C&S Wholesale Services tractor-trailer on US Highway 301 in 2023 when he missed an exit. Instead of continuing to the next one, he attempted a U-turn across the highway. Thomas's passenger car struck the trailer during the maneuver.

Thomas suffered multiple broken bones and a traumatic brain injury. Medical records introduced at trial supported the $1.3 million in proven medical expenses.

Why the Jury Split Fault 50/50

Both sides argued the other driver could have avoided the collision. For the plaintiff, Boylan framed the U-turn as the defining act of negligence.

"That's what makes this decision so unreasonable," Boylan told the jury. "That's what negligence is, folks: doing something that is unreasonable."

The defense pushed the opposite theory, focusing on Thomas's opportunity to react as the trailer swung across his lane.

"If you have time to see it, you have time to avoid it," Hamilton argued. "End of story."

After deliberation, the jury found each driver 50 percent responsible.

What the $2 Million Verdict Covers, and Why It Was Cut in Half

The $2 million total breaks down into $1.3 million in medical expenses and $700,000 in non-economic damages for pain, suffering, and the lasting effects of the traumatic brain injury. Florida's comparative fault rules reduce a plaintiff's recovery by the percentage of fault the jury assigns to the plaintiff. With Thomas found 50 percent at fault, his award dropped from $2 million gross to roughly $1 million net.

One procedural wrinkle shaped the final number. When the jury first returned its verdict, it awarded medical expenses but declined non-economic damages. After both sides raised an inconsistency objection, Judge Walker sent the case back for reconsideration. The jury then added $700,000 in non-economic damages, which reflected the severity of Thomas's injuries.

Why This Verdict Matters for Florida Trucking Cases

Cases involving commercial tractor-trailers and evasive maneuvers on open highways often turn on which driver had the last clear chance to avoid the collision. A 50/50 split is common when jurors see negligence on both sides. For plaintiff lawyers handling Florida trucking accidents, the result is a practical reminder that even well-tried cases with serious injuries and strong medical evidence can see recoveries cut in half when comparative fault lands at the midpoint. For background, see our Florida personal injury public resources.

Takeaway

The $2 million gross verdict in Thomas v. C&S Wholesale Services is a reminder that fault-splitting in tractor-trailer cases can reshape a plaintiff's recovery even when damages are clearly proven. If you or someone you love has been seriously injured in a trucking crash, verdicts like this one show what juries are willing to award when the evidence is strong and counsel is prepared for a full trial. Find a Florida plaintiff attorney on Major Verdict with the trial record to back it up, and browse more plaintiff verdict news for similar outcomes across the state.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is comparative fault and how did it affect this verdict?

Comparative fault is a legal rule that reduces a plaintiff's recovery by the percentage of fault the jury assigns to the plaintiff. Here, the jury found Charles Thomas 50 percent responsible, so his gross award of $2 million was reduced by half. His actual recovery is approximately $1 million.

Q: Why did the judge send the jury back for more deliberation?

The initial verdict awarded medical expenses but declined non-economic damages, which the attorneys argued was inconsistent with a finding of serious injury. Judge Gloria Walker returned the case for reconsideration, and the jury then added $700,000 in non-economic damages tied to the plaintiff's traumatic brain injury and other harm.

Q: Can plaintiffs in Florida still recover when found partly at fault?

When a plaintiff's share of fault is 50 percent or less, Florida law reduces the award by that percentage but still permits recovery. Plaintiffs found more than 50 percent at fault under current Florida law recover nothing, so verdicts near the midpoint often turn on fine-grained questions of comparative responsibility.