Case Background
The lawsuit began on May 6, 2020, in the Fourth Judicial Circuit Court in Duval County, Florida. Raphael Deguzman and Rachel Deguzman each sued Tyrinda Dixon in their individual capacities. Rachel Deguzman also sued as parent and natural guardian of her daughter, M.D., a minor. Judge Waddell A. Wallace, III presided over the case. The litigation lasted more than six years. Shortly before trial, the two adult Plaintiffs dropped their individual claims. As a result, only M.D.'s claim went before the jury.
Cause
According to the Amended Complaint, the crash occurred on or about October 11, 2019, in Jacksonville. Dixon owned and drove a 2018 Mercedes-Benz SLC300 northbound on Julia Street. At the same time, Rachel Deguzman drove a 2016 Nissan Murano westbound on Adams Street. Raphael Deguzman owned the Nissan and rode as a passenger. M.D. was also a passenger. The Plaintiffs alleged that Dixon negligently operated or maintained her car, causing it to collide with the Nissan.
In her Answer, Dixon admitted the vehicle, ownership, and occupancy details. However, she denied that she drove negligently.
Injury
The Amended Complaint alleged that M.D. suffered bodily injury with resulting pain, impairment, disability, disfigurement, and mental anguish. It further alleged that her injuries were permanent within a reasonable degree of medical probability.
Later filings made the claim more specific. The Plaintiffs' expert disclosures described an alleged permanent and progressive brain injury. They also alleged developmental and learning deficiencies linked to the crash. The Defendant disputed these allegations throughout the case.
Damages
The Amended Complaint sought damages above $30,000, exclusive of costs, interest, and attorneys' fees. For M.D., the Plaintiffs sought compensation for pain and suffering, impairment, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, and lost enjoyment of life. They also sought past and future medical expenses.
In June 2023, Raphael Deguzman dropped his own claims for loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity. The Plaintiffs’ expert disclosures listed a life care planner and an economist to value M.D.’s future care.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Rachel Deguzman, as Parent and Natural Guardian of M.D., a minor | Raphael Deguzman, individually [Dropped: 09/08/2026] | Rachel Deguzman, individually [Dropped: 09/08/2026]
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Brandi A. Gartrell, Morgan & Morgan | Eric Block | Matthew Grossman | Nicholas Seidule | Keith Mitnik | Jeffrey Humphries | Michael Maddox
Defendant(s): Tyrinda Dixon
Counsel for Defendant(s): Jennifer L. Kass | Victoria M. Merritt | Joseph T. Kissane | Heather Nicole McGriff | Dan Shapiro
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
The Amended Complaint raised four counts based on negligence. Count I belonged to Raphael Deguzman. Count II belonged to Rachel Deguzman individually. Count III was brought on behalf of M.D. Count IV was Rachel Deguzman's individual claim for the loss of her daughter's companionship, society, and services.
Each count rested on the same theory. The Plaintiffs alleged that Dixon's careless driving directly and proximately caused their losses.
On September 8, 2026, Raphael Deguzman and Rachel Deguzman, individually, dropped their claims without prejudice. The Court then granted a motion to amend the case style. The case proceeded on M.D.'s claim alone.
Before trial, the Plaintiff filed several motions in limine. One sought to bar any reference to the Defendant’s admission of negligence and statements of contrition. Another targeted any allusions to fraud, collusion, or malingering.
Defense
In her Amended Answer, Dixon denied that she drove negligently and denied that the crash caused the claimed injuries. She also raised nineteen affirmative defenses.
She asserted comparative negligence by the Plaintiffs, including failure to use safety equipment and failure to keep a proper lookout. She argued that pre-existing conditions, or prior and subsequent accidents, caused the claimed injuries. She also asserted that the Plaintiffs failed to meet the permanency requirements of section 627.737(2), Florida Statutes.
Other defenses targeted the consortium claim. Dixon argued that this claim required a permanent total disability. She also argued that any recovery was limited to the years before the minor reached majority.
Dixon’s position changed shortly before trial. On September 10, 2026, she admitted negligence, according to a Plaintiff’s motion in limine. The jury instructions stated that Dixon admitted she was the only negligent party. However, she still disputed the nature and extent of M.D.’s claimed injuries.
Jury Verdict
Trial began on September 14, 2026. The jury returned its verdict on September 25, 2026. Because Dixon admitted negligence, the verdict form did not include a negligence question. On the first question, the jury awarded $0 for M.D.’s past economic expenses. It also awarded $0 for her future economic expenses.
The second question asked whether M.D. sustained a permanent injury as a result of the October 11, 2019 collision. The jury answered "No."
The verdict form told jurors to stop if they answered "No" to that question. Accordingly, the jury did not reach the question on non-economic damages. That question covered pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life, among other losses. The docket records the result as a verdict for the Defendant.
The latest docket entry was dated September 30, 2026. As of that date, no judgment or post-trial motions had been filed. The case remained open.
Court Documents:
Documents are available for purchase upon request at [email protected]
