June 29, 2025
The big picture: The Texas Supreme Court overturned a massive jury verdict against Werner Enterprises, ruling that a truck driver staying in his lane below the legal speed limit cannot be held liable when another vehicle crosses a 42-foot median in icy conditions.
What happened
A pickup truck lost control on icy I-20 near Odessa, crossed the wide median, and collided head-on with a Werner semi-truck traveling under the speed limit in its proper lane.
The scene: Dangerous icy conditions had already caused multiple accidents that the Werner truck had passed, with other trucks parked off the roadway for safety.
The devastation: One person died, another became quadriplegic, and two others suffered severe brain and physical injuries.
The verdict: A jury initially awarded nearly $90 million, finding Werner 84% at fault (14% driver, 70% corporate negligence) versus 16% for the pickup driver.
The weather factor
What plaintiffs argued: Werner’s driver and trainer failed to check weather conditions before departure and had no knowledge of freezing rain advisories.
The context: Multiple vehicles had already been involved in weather-related incidents on the same stretch of highway, with trucks pulling over due to dangerous conditions.
The legal reversal
Why it matters: The state’s highest court applied the “substantial factor” test for proximate cause—a practical, common-sense standard that asks whether a defendant was actually responsible for the harm, not just present when it occurred.
The lengthy appeal: This decision culminated a protracted appeals process, with the Texas Supreme Court ultimately ruling that any Werner driver negligence was not the proximate cause.
Deep dive: Proximate cause doctrine
The legal standard: Proximate cause isn’t just about “but for” causation (would the injury have happened without defendant’s conduct). Instead, it requires proof that defendant’s negligence was a “substantial factor” in causing injury.
What “substantial factor” means:
- Incorporates “the idea of responsibility” into causation analysis
- Requires practical perspective using common sense experience
- Must show defendant is “actually responsible for the ultimate harm”
- Being part of the chain of events isn’t enough if involvement was mere “happenstance of time and place”
The court’s reasoning: If defendant’s conduct merely creates conditions that make harm possible, it’s not a substantial factor as a matter of law.
Court’s hypothetical scenarios
Speed argument demolished: Plaintiffs claimed slower speed would have prevented collision. The court noted that if Werner’s driver had been going 100 mph, the pickup also wouldn’t have collided with him.
The analogy: Court compared this to head-on collisions—courts must assign fault to the driver whose negligence made the accident happen, not to a driver whose negligence merely brought him to the time and place where accident occurred.
Alternative scenarios the court considered:
- If no vehicles were in pickup’s path, occupants wouldn’t have been injured
- If Werner truck had been a small car, F-350 could have killed or severely injured those occupants
- Werner driver’s speed only put him at the place and time where accident occurred
Corporate liability implications
Werner’s corporate negligence claims: Even allegations of inadequate training and supervision failed because the underlying driver conduct wasn’t a proximate cause.
The derivative rule: If individual driver’s actions don’t proximately cause an accident, there can be no derivative corporate negligence for failure to train or supervise that driver.
Court’s finding: Claims against Werner corporation fail for the same reason as claims against the driver—the pickup’s loss of control was the sole cause.
The bottom line
Key legal principle: “Substantial factor” means only parties whose substantial role in bringing about injury makes them “actually responsible for the ultimate harm.”
For trucking companies: Being part of the chain of events leading to an accident doesn’t automatically equal liability—courts will examine whether your role was truly substantial or merely “happenstance of time and place.”
The precedent: Even corporate negligence claims (inadequate training, supervision) fail when the underlying driver conduct wasn’t a proximate cause of the accident.
Practical impact: This decision reinforces the requirement that courts apply practical, real-world standards when determining fault in complex accident cases, potentially protecting defendants who are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time through no fault of their own.
The court emphasized that proximate cause is “a practical test, the test of common experience” when determining legal rights and liability.
