.png)
The Texas Supreme Court recently issued a major opinion reversing a nearly $90 million judgment against a national motor carrier in a personal injury suit arising from a multi-vehicle crash on an icy interstate. The case, which had drawn widespread attention from the transportation and insurance industries, centered on whether the company's driver—who was traveling westbound below the posted speed limit—could be held liable for a catastrophic collision caused by another vehicle that lost control in the eastbound lanes, crossed a wide median, and struck the truck head-on.
Although the collision resulted in heartbreaking injuries and the death of a child, the Texas Supreme Court held that the motor carrier and its driver could not be held legally responsible under Texas tort law. In doing so, the Court reinforced longstanding principles of proximate cause and rejected a growing trend of expansive liability theories that seek to impose responsibility on trucking companies for events far removed from their conduct.
The facts of the accident were largely undisputed. On a winter afternoon in West Texas, icy conditions had created treacherous driving throughout the region. A pickup truck traveling eastbound on I-20 suddenly lost control on the ice and veered across a 42-foot-wide grassy median, directly into the path of an oncoming westbound 18-wheeler operated by a driver in training. The commercial driver was unable to avoid the collision, despite reacting within half a second and applying his brakes. The impact was fatal for one of the passengers in the pickup and caused permanent injuries to others.
At trial, plaintiffs focused heavily on the commercial driver’s conduct prior to the moment of impact. Although he was driving under the speed limit, they argued that he should have been going slower given the weather and roadway conditions. They also faulted the motor carrier for allowing him to operate the vehicle in those conditions at all, pointing to his trainee status and alleging insufficient supervision and training.
The jury ultimately assigned only 16 percent of fault to the driver of the pickup that lost control. The remaining 84 percent was split between the commercial driver and his employer. The verdict, totaling over $89 million, was upheld by an en banc court of appeals.
On review, however, the Texas Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove a legally sufficient connection between the conduct of the truck driver and the injuries that resulted. While acknowledging that the driver’s speed might have constituted negligence under the circumstances, the Court emphasized that proximate cause under Texas law requires more than proof that a defendant’s conduct was a but-for cause of the harm. To be legally responsible, the defendant’s conduct must have been a substantial factor in bringing about the injury in a way that makes the actor actually responsible for the result.
The Court reasoned that the pickup truck’s sudden and unexpected loss of control, combined with the broad physical separation of the two travel directions, made this case fundamentally different from typical two-lane road collisions. In the Court’s view, the sole proximate cause of the crash was the pickup’s loss of control and its crossing into oncoming traffic. The commercial driver’s speed may have created the condition that made the collision possible, but it was not a substantial factor in causing it under Texas law. As a result, the Court reversed the judgment and rendered a take-nothing verdict in favor of both the driver and his employer.
1. Proximate cause requires more than but-for causation.
The Court’s opinion draws a clear line between negligence that creates a condition and negligence that actually causes harm. Even if a driver is arguably negligent in some respect, liability will not follow unless that negligence plays a substantial and meaningful role in causing the accident. The Court rejected the idea that simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time is enough.
2. Claims against the employer must stand or fall with the employee’s conduct.
Plaintiffs pursued both direct and derivative theories against the motor carrier, including negligent hiring, training, and supervision. But the Court found these claims could not survive once it determined that the driver’s conduct was not a proximate cause of the injuries. Without actionable negligence by the driver, the employer could not be held separately liable for placing him on the road.
3. Split-second reaction times matter.
A recurring theme in the opinion was the very limited amount of time the driver had to respond once the pickup crossed the median. The Court noted that expert testimony confirmed the driver reacted almost immediately and appropriately once the danger became visible. This sharply contrasted with other cases where a driver had more time to avoid an accident, reinforcing the importance of fact-specific analysis.
4. Modern highways are treated differently than two-lane roads.
The Court emphasized the practical difference between drivers operating on opposite sides of a divided interstate and those passing each other on narrow, rural highways. While older cases had allowed for liability in certain head-on collisions on two-lane roads, the Court found that the separation created by a wide median changed the analysis entirely. It was not reasonably foreseeable that a driver in his proper lane on a divided highway would be struck by a vehicle crossing from the opposite direction.
The Werner decision reaffirms core tort principles that limit liability to those actually responsible for causing harm, rather than those merely present at the time it occurs. It provides much-needed clarity for commercial motor carriers facing high-exposure litigation in difficult venues and may signal a broader shift toward reining in speculative theories of liability in trucking cases.
If you have questions about this decision or its implications for your business, please reach out to your Chartwell contact or any member of our Transportation or Insurance Coverage teams.
