Texas Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Landmark Trucking Case

Reg Reinoso

Author

The Texas Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a high-profile case involving Werner Enterprises, a trucking company at the center of a multi-million-dollar verdict stemming from a 2014 crash. This case has drawn statewide and national attention from the trucking industry, plaintiff attorneys, and safety advocates alike, as it could redefine how liability is determined in trucking accidents and potentially influence future litigation strategies.

At the heart of the case is a 2014 collision on Interstate 20 during icy conditions. Plaintiffs argued that the Werner truck driver was traveling too fast for the weather, making the crash foreseeable when the passenger car lost control, crossed the median, and entered the truck’s lane. However, other evidence presented at trial suggested that the truck driver reacted quickly and appropriately under the circumstances, raising critical questions about fault and foreseeability in such conditions.

At the heart of the matter is the question of duty: What level of responsibility does a truck driver owe to other road users in extraordinary circumstances, like a vehicle losing control and crossing a median? Additionally, the case raises important legal questions about whether courts should consider company policies, training, and culture when determining liability. With stakes this high, the court’s decision could reshape the landscape for both victims of negligence and the trucking industry in Texas and beyond.

Legal Issues Regarding Duty of Care and Admission Rule

A pivotal issue before the Texas Supreme Court is the scope of a truck driver’s duty of care, particularly in unusual or extreme circumstances. The plaintiffs argue that the truck driver should have anticipated the possibility of a vehicle losing control and crossing the median during icy weather. They pointed to guidance in the Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) manual, which advises significantly reducing speed in hazardous conditions to protect all road users, including those who may lose control.

The case also raises questions about whether Texas should adopt the Admission Rule, which limits evidence plaintiffs can present once an employer admits liability for an employee’s actions. Werner argued that allowing evidence about company policies, such as training or weather monitoring, unfairly shifted the jury’s focus and led to an excessive verdict. Plaintiffs, however, contended that excluding such evidence would discourage companies from prioritizing safety and proper training. This debate has significant implications for how trucking lawsuits are handled in Texas.

Implications for Plaintiffs and the Future of Trucking Litigation

The debate over Duty of Care and the Admission Rule could significantly impact plaintiffs in trucking cases. If adopted, this rule might limit the ability of injured parties to present evidence of systemic failures, such as inadequate training or poor company policies, that contribute to crashes. Plaintiffs argue this would reduce accountability for companies and shift more blame onto individual drivers, even in cases where broader negligence may have played a role.

For those advocating for safer roads and corporate responsibility, this issue underscores the importance of a fair legal system that balances employer liability with worker and public safety. How the Texas Supreme Court rules could set a precedent, influencing not only trucking cases but also broader conversations about corporate accountability in industries that directly affect public safety.

This article is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for legal advice.