Following are two articles regarding the $100M verdict against Werner Enterprises. If you or one of your commercial trucks is involved in an accident, please engage help. Get someone you trust, and of course I am glad to help – JoelBeal@JBATelematics.com. No mater what you think about the facts of the case, preparedness is key.
Texas Supreme Court hears Werner’s controversial nuclear verdict case
Tyson Fisher
The Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a controversial nuclear verdict case involving Werner Enterprises that has a wide range of stakeholders calling for tort reform.
On Tuesday, Dec. 3, attorneys for Werner, a truck driver and victims of a fatal crash stated their case in front of the Texas Supreme Court. Last year, the 14th Court of Appeals in Texas affirmed a lower court’s nine-figure verdict finding the trucking company and its driver liable for a 2014 crash.
Werner’s case has left trucking and legal stakeholders scratching their heads. Despite all the facts suggesting the truck driver did nothing wrong, plaintiffs’ attorneys convinced a jury otherwise. At the center of oral arguments on Tuesday was the level of duty a truck driver owes to motorists traveling on the other direction of a divided highway.
Attorneys also argued whether a legal doctrine known as the Admission Rule should be formally adopted in Texas. That rule could prevent a trucking company’s practices, policies and overarching operations and culture from being used in certain crash lawsuits.
2014 crash
The Texas Supreme Court case stems from a lawsuit filed by the family of Zachary Blake and Brianna Blake. Zachary, who was 7 years old, was killed in the crash with a Werner truck. Brianna, who was 12, was rendered a quadriplegic.
On Dec. 30, 2014, the Blakes were traveling east on Interstate 20 in Texas in a pickup truck driven by Zaragoza “Trey” Salinas. Weather conditions were icy at the time. Salinas lost control of the vehicle going 50-60 mph and careened across a grass median, entering the westbound lanes.
At this time, Shiraz Ali was driving a truck for Werner going west on I-20. He was driving below the speed limit when the pickup truck began to spin. Also present in the Werner truck was Jeff Ackerman, a Werner driver-trainer. According to the appellate brief, Ali reacted within half a second, hitting the brakes.
Even the Blakes’ expert witness conceded that Ali’s reaction was “very quick” and “appropriate to the conditions.”
In addition to Salinas making statements suggesting guilt and responsibility, a Texas Department of Public Safety trooper defended Ali’s actions. Trooper Villareal, a 17-year veteran who investigated the accident, concluded “this is truly an accident,” Ali “didn’t do anything wrong” and there was nothing Ali “could have done to avoid the collision.” A higher-ranking trooper who approved the report concurred.
More details of the crash can be found here.
Werner on the hook for more than $100M
During the trial, plaintiffs were allowed to present evidence that had no direct proximate effect on the crash in order to persuade the jury that Werner’s culture and policy had caused it.
This evidence included:
- Details about Werner’s training and supervision of Ali
- Werner’s lack of a “command center” for weather monitoring
- Werner’s handling of crash investigations
- Claims of Werner’s driving school director being unqualified
- Werner’s failure to require a CB radio
- Werner’s failure to require an outside temperature gauge
Werner argued, however, that this evidence had nothing to do with the crash in question and that relevant evidence insufficiently supported a finding of negligence.
In 2018, a jury found Werner 70% liable, Ali 14% liable and Salinas 16% liable. After calculating all damages, the jury award for the plaintiffs was in excess of $100 million. In May 2023, a state appellate court affirmed the ruling.
Duty of care
A question critical to the case in front of the Texas Supreme Court is where to draw the line when determining a truck driver’s duty of care to other road users.
Representing Werner and Ali, attorney Thomas Wright argued that drivers should not have to anticipate someone coming into their lane from the opposite side of an interstate with a 30-plus-foot median between them. Although motorists can foresee another vehicle encroaching into their lane in icy conditions when going the same direction, it is unreasonable to believe a car coming from the other direction is also foreseeable.
Wright conceded that a trucker owes a duty of care to react appropriately once a wayward vehicle enters his or her lane. In this case, both sides acknowledged that Ali reacted quickly and safely.
Representing the Blakes, attorney Darrin Walker argued that a cross-median crash was foreseeable considering the weather conditions. Supporting that argument, Walker pointed to the CDL manual, which states that drivers should slow down to about 15 mph during inclement weather. Ali was traveling at about 43 mph.
“The purpose of this rule is mainly to protect other motorists, because passenger vehicles are even more likely than an 18-wheeler to lose control on icy road conditions, and we don’t want an 18-wheeler going highway speeds on icy roads when another motorist loses control in front of it,” Walker said.
Admission rule
Werner is asking the Texas Supreme Court to adopt what is called the Admission Rule, which could determine the fate of nuclear verdicts like Werner’s.
The company has argued that since it accepted responsibility by admitting Ali was in the course and scope of employment, plaintiffs cannot pursue “derivative theories of negligence.” Under the Admission Rule, once an employer establishes liability, “evidence of the employer’s hiring, training or supervision practices becomes inadmissible as irrelevant and likely to prejudice the jury,” according to the law firm Lewis Brisbois.
In this case, the appellate and district courts rejected the Admission Rule by allowing a variety of evidence dealing with Werner’s companywide policies and training. This in turn allowed plaintiff attorneys to use a tactic known as reptile theory, which evokes emotions of fear and anger in jurors to encourage nuclear verdicts. As Lewis Brisbois put it, “This company was so terrible you should punish them, regardless of whether any of our evidence showed the company or its driver’s actions actually caused the subject crash.”
The Admission Rule has been adopted in several states. In Texas, courts are split on the rule, with some adopting it and others – like the 14th Court of Appeals – rejecting it.
Werner is asking the Texas Supreme Court to cement the Admission Rule into state legal precedent.
During oral arguments, Werner said that a trucker’s entire day is on trial. Rather than focusing on what a driver did immediately before and during a crash, juries are considering irrelevant information about the company.
(H3) What should have been a quick trial turned into a six-week circus dissecting every decision made by Werner.
“We wanted to make this case about everything except for the three-second accident sequence,” Wright said. “It was all about trying the company.”
Walker argued that the Admission Rule disincentivizes employers from training and supervising their employees. He said that the negligence of the employer and the negligence of the employee both contribute to an injury.
“I think it’s unfair to hide that from the jury and then foist liability that would ordinarily fall on the employer onto the untrained employee,” Walker said.
The following groups have filed amicus briefs in the case, all of them supporting Werner’s bid for the Texas Supreme Court to adopt the Admission Rule:
- Acuity Insurance
- American Trucking Associations
- Schneider National Carriers
- Texas Association of Defense Counsel
- Texas Civil Justice League
- Texans for Lawsuit Reform
- Texas Trucking Association
- Trucking Industry Defense Association
- U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Texas Supreme Court Hears Werner’s $100M Verdict Appeal
Attorneys Spar Over Jury Award in 2014 Fatal Accident
Eric Miller
Attorneys for Werner Enterprises have asked the Texas Supreme Court to reverse a $100 million verdict against the company in a case involving a fatal accident. The case centers on a 2014 crash in which a pickup truck crossed a median and struck a Werner truck traveling in the opposite direction on a snowy highway.
Werner has during trials in lower courts steadfastly maintained that its driver could not have avoided the crash and did not share any of the fault. However, a Texas jury in a 2018 trial was instructed that it could apply a “proximate cause” legal standard in the case. A proximate cause is defined as a partial cause that was a substantial factor in bringing about an injury, and without which such injury would not have occurred. The court ruled that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that insufficient training and supervision for the Werner driver behind the wheel at the time “proximately caused the collision.” An appeals court upheld that ruling, prompting Werner to take its case to the state’s highest court.
In oral arguments on Dec. 3, Werner attorney Thomas Wright told the court that Werner driver Shiraz Ali could not have foreseen that a pickup truck would suddenly cross an icy divided highway and strike the carrier’s truck. He further argued that the appeals court deviated from legal precedent in upholding the lower court ruling, and “disregarded all the cases from the Texas state courts and around the country’s lower courts.” Wright added that the appeals court, “for the first time has held that a driver in his own lane under control of his vehicle is liable when somebody on the opposite side of an interstate highway loses control, spins out, crosses over a 30-foot median plus the shoulders, runs into the driver in his own lane with no time to react.”
Countering Wright’s stance, Supreme Court Justice Jane Bland asked, “Is it reasonably foreseeable that on an icy day that there may be lane intrusion by someone if not this exact scenario traveling across a highway median, but somewhat skidding and entering your lane?
Wright replied, “It’s certainly foreseeable somebody in the next lane could come into your lane, but you cannot realistically travel down the highway in any kind of weather if you have to anticipate that somebody without warning leave the interstate lane 30 feet across. That’s why they built the interstate highway system, to keep these cars separated. What’s the point of having an interstate?
Wright continued, “We believe that the plaintiff’s way to decide the case is to say he had no duty to people across the road. …If I thought that driving down the [divided] highway afraid that somebody would lose control, come across and hit me and it would be my fault, I might just stay home.”
Arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs in the case, attorney Darrin Walker suggested that the Werner driver should either have been “driving very slow or pulling over during icy conditions, and that at the time of the collision was driving too fast.”
“The road was like a skating rink,” Walker said. “It was covered in ice, cars were going off the road left and right, and there were two cross-median collisions in this case.” He acknowledged, however, that the Werner driver did not encounter those crashes.
“In some cases there may be some circumstances whereas a matter of law a cross-median collision is not foreseeable and the driver does not have to take any precautions,” Walker said, “but in this case the evidence was clear that a cross-median collision was foreseeable.”
The crash resulted in the death of 7-year-old Zachery Blake, catastrophic permanent injuries to 12-year-old Brianna Blake, significant injuries to 14-year-old Nathan Blake and the Blake children’s mother, Jennifer Blake.
Want more news? Listen to today’s daily briefing above or go here for more info
Werner objected to the 2018 jury’s finding that the driver and company were negligent, and also to the court judge’s decision to allow certain evidence in the case. Additionally, Werner objected to the jury’s award of future medical care expenses for the plaintiffs.
Werner maintained that at the time of the accident, Ali was “proceeding in his lane, in control of a Werner tractor-trailer and well below the speed limit, when the [plaintiff’s] vehicle suddenly careened into his path, leaving him no time to avoid a collision.”
Despite this, the lower court jury found both Werner and Ali liable and assessed the award, according to court documents.
Trucking industry groups have come forward to support Werner in legal briefs filed with the Texas Supreme Court. They include American Trucking Associations, the Texas Trucking Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Texas Civil Justice League.
“In recent years, trucking companies have faced a growing trend of so-called ‘nuclear verdicts’ in highway accident litigation — verdicts that are not only shockingly large, but which, like the verdict here, are fundamentally unfair in that they are untethered to the realities of the case,” ATA wrote in a brief filed with the high court last month.
Werner ranks No. 16 on the Transport Topics Top 100 list of the largest for-hire carriers in North America and No. 4 on the truckload/dedicated sector list. It also ranks No. 30 on the TT100 of the largest logistics companies in North America.
