$29.5M Georgia Tow Truck Child Brain Injury Verdict

$29.5M Georgia Tow Truck Child Brain Injury Verdict

$29.5M Dingess v. Hasan Verdict: A DeKalb County jury awarded $29.5 million after a tow truck driver struck a seven-year-old girl during a neighborhood bicycle ride, leaving her with a permanent traumatic brain injury. The verdict — and the fault apportionment that followed — offers critical lessons about commercial vehicle liability, Georgia’s comparative negligence law, and how juries value lifelong injury to a child.

At a Glance: Key Facts in Dingess v. Hasan

How a Neighborhood Bike Ride Became a Life-Altering Legal Battle

In 2023, a seven-year-old girl was riding her bicycle in her residential neighborhood when a tow truck operated by Zartavius Hasan, an employee of Associates Asset Recovery, LLC, struck her. What followed was catastrophic. The child sustained a traumatic brain injury — an injury that alters the trajectory of a child’s entire life, affecting cognition, development, personality, and independence.

Her family filed suit in DeKalb County, alleging that Hasan’s negligence behind the wheel, combined with his employer’s failure to maintain adequate safety practices and oversight, directly caused her devastating injuries. The case proceeded to trial, and jurors were asked to determine not just what happened — but who should bear responsibility for it.

“A $29.5 million gross verdict for a child’s traumatic brain injury sends an unmistakable message: commercial operators have a heightened duty of care in residential neighborhoods where children are present.”

The Verdict: $29.5 Million and Georgia’s Comparative Fault Rule

After hearing the evidence, the DeKalb County jury returned a gross damages verdict of $29.5 million — a figure that reflects the profound, lifelong consequences of a serious pediatric traumatic brain injury. However, Georgia’s modified comparative negligence law shaped the final financial outcome significantly.

Understanding Georgia’s 50% Bar Rule (O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33)

Georgia follows a modified comparative negligence standard, codified in O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33. Under this statute, a plaintiff can recover damages only if their share of fault is less than 50%. If a plaintiff reaches 50% or more fault, recovery is completely barred — regardless of how severe the injuries are.

In this case, the jury allocated fault as follows: 45% to the defendants (Hasan and Associates Asset Recovery, LLC), 45% to the child’s mother LaQuasia Dingess, and 10% to the child herself. Because the plaintiffs collectively were assigned 55% of the fault, the defendants’ financial liability was reduced proportionally to their 45% share. Applied to the $29.5 million gross verdict, that produced a net obligation of approximately $13.275 million — still one of the most significant personal injury verdicts in Georgia’s recent history.

Under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33, the general two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims in Georgia applies. However, for minors, the statute of limitations is typically tolled (paused) until the child turns 18, giving them until their 20th birthday to file in their own nameGeorgia’s modified comparative negligence law does not prevent recovery just because a plaintiff shared some fault — but the 50% threshold is an absolute bar. In Dingess, fault was carefully distributed to keep the defendants’ exposure meaningful while acknowledging the role of others.

Why Fault Apportionment Matters in Georgia Truck Accident Cases

Under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33(c), juries must consider the fault of all persons or entities who contributed to the injury — including non-parties. This creates a strategic battleground in virtually every Georgia personal injury trial. Defendants routinely argue that others bear a share of responsibility in order to reduce their own exposure.

In Dingess v. Hasan, the defense succeeded in shifting a significant portion of fault to the child’s mother — arguing that her supervisory conduct contributed to the incident. The child herself was assigned 10% fault, which is legally permissible under Georgia law even for very young plaintiffs where evidence supports it. The result underscores a critical tactical reality for plaintiffs: how fault is framed and argued at trial can swing the financial outcome by millions of dollars.

Employer Liability: Why Associates Asset Recovery Was Named as a Defendant

In Georgia, when an employee causes injury while acting within the scope of their employment, the employer can be held vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Associates Asset Recovery, LLC — the tow truck company that employed Hasan — was named as a defendant alongside its driver for precisely this reason.

Beyond vicarious liability, plaintiffs may also pursue claims of negligent hiring, negligent retention, and negligent supervision against commercial employers. These independent theories of liability ask whether the company itself failed in some duty — by failing to screen the driver properly, by maintaining inadequate safety policies, or by failing to ensure commercial vehicles were operated safely in residential areas. Evidence at trial reportedly included arguments that the company shared responsibility for inadequate safety practices — a claim the jury implicitly credited by assigning 45% of total fault to the defendants collectively.

The Heightened Duty of Commercial Vehicles in Residential Neighborhoods

Georgia law imposes a duty of reasonable care on all drivers, but commercial vehicle operators face heightened scrutiny when operating in settings where the presence of vulnerable individuals — particularly children — is foreseeable. A tow truck entering a residential neighborhood is reasonably expected to encounter children at play, on bicycles, or near the roadway. The failure to reduce speed, maintain an adequate lookout, or take other precautionary measures in such environments can support findings of negligence. The Dingess verdict is consistent with the principle that commercial operators bear significant responsibility when their failure to exercise care results in catastrophic harm to a child.

Traumatic Brain Injuries in Children: Why These Cases Command High Verdicts

Pediatric traumatic brain injuries represent some of the most consequential personal injury cases in American law. Unlike adult TBI cases, where the injury’s impact on an established career or life trajectory can be quantified, child TBI cases involve projecting harm across an entire lifetime of unrealized potential. Georgia juries typically consider the full scope of damages when evaluating a child’s TBI claim, including:

• Past and future medical expenses, including neurology, rehabilitation, speech therapy, occupational therapy, and long-term care
• Loss of future earning capacity, measured against the child’s expected lifetime earnings
• Pain and suffering, both physical and emotional
• Loss of enjoyment of life and diminished quality of life
• Costs of future assistive devices, accommodations, and caretaking

A $29.5 million gross valuation for a seven-year-old’s TBI reflects the severity of the neurological damage and the many decades of medical care, lost opportunity, and diminished quality of life that lie ahead. These verdicts are not windfalls — they are actuarial attempts to make a child whole for a lifetime of consequences they did not choose.

What This Verdict Signals for Georgia Personal Injury Law

The Dingess v. Hasan verdict carries several important implications for plaintiffs, defense counsel, and commercial operators in Georgia.

Juries Take Child Safety Seriously

Even with a significant comparative fault reduction, the jury’s gross finding of $29.5 million signals that Georgia jurors view child safety in residential settings as a high-priority value. Commercial operators who fail to observe appropriate precautions in neighborhoods can face substantial verdicts.

Comparative Fault Arguments Are Double-Edged

The defense successfully shifted substantial fault to the plaintiffs — but they were still held responsible for $13.275 million. In some cases, aggressive comparative fault arguments can alienate jurors; in others, they can meaningfully reduce exposure. The outcome in Dingess shows how pivotal the fault percentage battle can be.

Employer Liability Remains a Powerful Theory

Naming Associates Asset Recovery alongside its driver allowed the plaintiffs to pursue the company’s deeper pockets and to argue broader institutional negligence beyond the individual driver’s actions. This dual-defendant approach is a well-established strategy in Georgia commercial vehicle litigation.

Documentation and Evidence Development Are Decisive

Cases of this magnitude are won and lost on evidence. Expert testimony on the nature of the TBI, its long-term prognosis, the expected cost of lifetime care, and the child’s lost earning capacity likely played a central role. Accident reconstruction, dashcam or surveillance footage, the driver’s employment records, and the company’s safety policies are all critical battlegrounds.

Has Your Child Been Injured in an Accident Caused by a Negligent Driver or Commercial Vehicle?

At Haug Barron Law Group, we represent Georgia families who have been devastated by the reckless or negligent conduct of drivers and the companies that employ them. We understand the full scope of damages that a child’s serious injury can produce — and we fight to hold responsible parties fully accountable.

Our attorneys handle personal injury cases on a contingency fee basis, which means you pay nothing unless we recover compensation for your family. If your child has been seriously injured, time matters: Georgia’s statute of limitations gives most injured parties two years from the date of the incident to file a claim.

Have questions about child injury claims and major verdicts?

Visit our Child Injury FAQs to learn how liability is proven, what damages may be available, and how cases involving children are handled in Georgia.

Significant verdicts in child injury cases highlight the importance of holding negligent parties fully accountable. Contact Haug Barron Law Group to discuss your case and protect your child’s right to full compensation.

Legal Disclaimer: This article is intended for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The outcome of any legal matter depends on the specific facts and applicable law. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Haug Barron Law Group. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. If you have been injured or believe you have a legal claim, you should consult a licensed Georgia attorney promptly. Case information referenced in this article is drawn from publicly available sources; Haug Barron Law Group was not counsel of record in Dingess, et al. v. Hasan, et al.