Table of contents
Introduction: The Deadly Reality on Houston’s Highways
Houston is the energy capital of the world, and with that title comes something far less glamorous: an extraordinary volume of commercial truck traffic. Every day, tens of thousands of 18-wheelers, tanker trucks, and heavy commercial vehicles barrel down I-10, I-45, I-69, and the Sam Houston Tollway. These trucks keep the economy moving. They also kill and catastrophically injure people at an alarming rate.
I’m Attorney Chi Nguyen, and representing families devastated by 18-wheeler accidents is some of the most important work I do. In my experience handling truck accident cases in the Houston area, I’ve seen the same pattern repeat itself: a trucking company cuts corners on safety, an exhausted or unqualified driver causes a catastrophic collision, and then the company’s insurance carrier deploys every resource at its disposal to minimize what it pays the victims.
What makes truck accident cases uniquely frustrating is the propaganda campaign the trucking and insurance industries have waged to make the public—and legislators—believe that the real problem isn’t dangerous trucks on the road, but greedy lawyers and runaway juries. They’ve invented a term for it: “nuclear verdicts.” But when you look at the actual cases behind these verdicts, a very different picture emerges.
This article draws on research from the Center for Justice & Democracy and the Consumer Federation of America to give you the facts the trucking industry would rather you not know. If you or a loved one has been involved in an 18-wheeler accident in Houston, this information could be critical to your case.
The Alarming Rise in Truck Accident Fatalities—And Why It’s Happening
The numbers are staggering, and they’re getting worse. According to preliminary data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), more than 5,800 people were killed in crashes involving large trucks in 2022—the highest number in nearly four decades. These aren’t just statistics. These are parents, children, spouses, and friends whose lives were ended or irreparably altered because a trucking company decided that speed and profit mattered more than safety.
Who Bears the Brunt?
Data from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) tells a devastating story about who actually suffers in truck crashes. Approximately 97 percent of vehicle occupants killed in two-vehicle crashes involving a passenger vehicle and a large truck were occupants of the passenger vehicle. This makes sense when you consider the physics: large trucks often weigh 20 to 30 times as much as a standard passenger car. When an 80,000-pound tractor-trailer collides with a 4,000-pound sedan on I-10, there is no contest. The people in the car absorb virtually all of the destructive force.
The Industry’s Own Safety Failures
The rise in truck accident fatalities is not a mystery or an act of nature. It is the direct consequence of an industry that has failed to invest adequately in safety. Research shows that the explosion of e-commerce and consumer demand for rapid home deliveries has created intense pressure for more long-haul and short-haul trucks on the road. But rather than responding to these increased demands with enhanced safety measures, the trucking industry has done the opposite.
Even the trucking industry’s own research organization, the American Transportation Research Institute, has acknowledged that motor carriers typically do not allocate enough resources toward safety and crash prevention. The industry has lobbied federal regulators to weaken safety regulations and has been slow to implement proven safety technologies. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has repeatedly called on the trucking industry to implement speed limiters and automatic emergency braking systems on heavy trucks. Persistent problems also include underride crashes—which the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has identified as requiring improved data collection, inspections, and research—as well as the proliferation of dangerous “chameleon carriers,” which are trucking companies that hide their identity to evade federal penalties, fines, and legal liability.
I’ve seen these failures firsthand in Houston truck accident cases. When it comes to the deaths, injuries, and lawsuits that follow, the trucking industry has no one but itself to blame.
How Trucking Companies Put Dangerous Drivers on Texas Roads
One of the most disturbing patterns I encounter in Houston truck accident cases is the frequency with which trucking companies knowingly employ drivers with dangerous safety records. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is the federal agency charged with regulating more than 500,000 commercial trucking companies. Despite this regulatory framework, enforcement gaps and industry resistance create a system where dangerous drivers regularly remain behind the wheel.
Real Cases, Real Consequences
The cases documented in the Center for Justice & Democracy’s research reveal a consistent and disturbing pattern of corporate negligence. In one case, a major trucking company kept a driver on the road despite that driver having been involved in four serious wrecks in the previous three years, along with numerous traffic violations and federal safety regulation violations. The company had already settled a lawsuit from a near-fatal crash involving the same driver three years earlier, yet took no corrective training or safety steps in violation of its own company rules and safety regulations. For this company, the earlier settlement was simply a cost of doing business. Nothing was remedied.
This is not an isolated example. Research shows that prior crash involvement increases the likelihood of a future crash by 113 percent, according to the American Transportation Research Institute’s own data. Yet trucking companies routinely hire and retain drivers with documented safety problems because replacing them would mean spending money on recruitment, training, and potentially higher wages. The economic calculation is coldly rational: accept the risk of killing someone, because the cost of prevention is higher than the expected cost of a lawsuit.
The Werner Enterprises Case: A Texas Tragedy
One of the most significant truck accident cases in Texas history illustrates exactly how this corporate negligence plays out. Werner Enterprises is one of the largest trucking companies in the United States, employing approximately 10,000 drivers and operating over 7,400 trucks. Its driver turnover rate is around 80 percent. Of the 8,000 drivers it hires each year, half start out with no commercial driving experience. Werner puts these new drivers through its truck driving schools, where they are supposed to learn state and federal rules for driving in hazardous conditions.
Federal regulations under 49 C.F.R. § 392.14 require truck drivers to exercise “extreme caution” in hazardous conditions and to stop driving if conditions are sufficiently dangerous. The federally mandated Texas CDL Manual specifies that in hazardous conditions, drivers should slow to “a crawl” (10–15 mph or slower) or stop driving entirely. Yet Werner taught its student drivers that these rules were optional, and that driving an 18-wheeler at highway speed over icy roads was acceptable as long as the driver was personally comfortable with it.
On December 30, 2014, Werner student driver Shiraz Ali—with less than one week of driving experience and no winter-driving experience—was assigned to drive through an ice storm on a Texas highway. He traveled 52 miles through the storm at highway speed, passing at least three other crashes along the way without significantly slowing down. Jennifer Blake and her three children were passengers in a pickup truck on the same highway. When the pickup lost control on the ice and crossed the median, Ali’s 18-wheeler struck it at 45 mph. Seven-year-old Zackery was killed. Twelve-year-old Brianna was left in a minimally conscious vegetative state. Fifteen-year-old Nathan and his mother Jennifer suffered severe and permanent injuries.
A Texas jury found Werner liable, and a Texas appeals court upheld a judgment exceeding $100 million. The trucking industry cited this case as an example of an unreasonable “nuclear verdict.” But when you know the facts—an inexperienced driver sent through an ice storm by a company that taught him to ignore federal safety regulations—the verdict seems entirely justified.
The Industry’s “Nuclear Verdict” Myth: What They’re Not Telling You
The trucking and insurance industries have latched onto the term “nuclear verdict” to describe jury awards exceeding $10 million. Industry lobby groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform and the American Tort Reform Association publish reports lamenting these verdicts, positioning them as evidence that the American civil justice system is fundamentally broken and must be reformed—meaning, restricted.
A Misleading Statistical Picture
The industry’s statistical arguments have serious flaws. First, industry groups focus exclusively on verdicts above $10 million, which by definition skews the data toward extreme outliers. Meanwhile, the trucking industry’s own research found that verdicts under $1 million have actually been decreasing since 2010, and that the overall incident rate per truck has also been declining. As one industry publication acknowledged, verdicts and settlements of any kind are rare, and the average verdict under $1 million is trending downward.
Second, industry reports use mean (average) verdict amounts rather than median amounts. The Chamber itself acknowledges that the median nuclear verdict is about $20 million, while the mean is $76 million—nearly four times higher. In statistics, when the mean is that much higher than the median, it means a handful of extreme outliers are distorting the picture. Using the mean to characterize the overall trend is, at best, misleading.
How Industry Reports Distort the Cases
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the “nuclear verdict” narrative is how the industry lobby groups describe the underlying cases. The Center for Justice & Democracy examined the actual cases behind these verdicts and found systematic distortions. The industry consistently downplays the severity of injuries, omits critical facts about corporate wrongdoing, and presents the corporation’s losing defense arguments as if they were established facts.
In one case involving a trucking company whose driver killed five people—including two children—the Chamber’s report failed to mention a single victim, let alone all five. It omitted the driver’s unsafe driving history, the company’s decision to keep putting him on the road despite multiple previous crashes and numerous violations, and the company’s earlier settlement of a near-fatal case with no change in safety practices. Instead, the Chamber highlighted the company’s defense theory that the driver swerved to avoid a dog—a defense the jury rejected.
In another case involving a defective combat earplug that caused hearing loss in military veterans, the Chamber positioned the case in its section about lawyer advertising, insisted on repeating the manufacturer’s losing argument, and blamed lawsuit ads for the verdict—rather than acknowledging the defective product that harmed service members.
The Disappearing Jury Trial
The industry’s characterization of an out-of-control jury system is contradicted by a more fundamental fact: jury trials are vanishingly rare and have been declining for decades. Researchers at the U.C. Berkeley School of Law’s Civil Justice Research Initiative have documented that the civil jury trial is an institution in crisis—not because of excessive verdicts, but because so few cases actually reach a jury. Most personal injury claims are resolved through settlement negotiations, often on terms heavily favoring the insurance company. The small number of cases that do go to trial tend to involve the most egregious conduct and the most devastating injuries—precisely because those are the cases where the defendant refused to offer fair compensation.
Woefully Inadequate Insurance: The $750,000 Problem
Here is a fact that shocks most Houston accident victims when they learn it: trucks transporting non-hazardous cargo are required to carry a minimum of only $750,000 per accident in insurance liability coverage. That number was set in the 1980s and has not been adjusted since—not for inflation, not for the skyrocketing cost of medical care, not for anything. You can review the current requirements on the FMCSA’s insurance filing requirements page.
Why $750,000 Is Dangerously Inadequate
To understand how absurd this figure is, consider the cost of treating the types of injuries typically caused by 18-wheeler accidents. A single traumatic brain injury can generate millions of dollars in lifetime medical costs. Spinal cord injuries resulting in paralysis routinely require tens of millions in care, equipment, and home modifications. Severe burn injuries necessitate years of surgeries and rehabilitation. Yet the federal minimum insurance requirement provides only $750,000 to cover all victims of a single accident—regardless of how many people are hurt or killed.
This woefully inadequate insurance minimum also fails to properly incentivize insurance companies to demand safer practices as a condition of coverage. When the financial exposure for killing or maiming someone is capped at such a low level, trucking companies can treat catastrophic injuries and death as an acceptable cost of doing business.
What This Means for Your Claim
In my Houston trucking accident practice, I’ve handled cases where the trucking company’s insurance coverage was grossly insufficient to cover my client’s injuries. This is why thorough investigation is so critical in truck accident cases. We need to identify every potentially liable party—the driver, the trucking company, the broker, the shipper, the maintenance provider, the truck or parts manufacturer—and every available source of insurance coverage. Sometimes, the difference between a client receiving adequate compensation and being left with devastating uncompensated losses comes down to whether their attorney knew where to look.
Your Rights Under Texas Law After an 18-Wheeler Accident
If you’ve been injured in a truck accident in Houston, Texas law provides several important protections. Understanding these rights is the first step toward holding the responsible parties accountable.
Statute of Limitations
Under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 16.003, you have two years from the date of the accident to file a personal injury lawsuit. For wrongful death claims, the two-year period begins on the date of death. In truck accident cases, time is especially critical because evidence can be destroyed quickly. Electronic logging device (ELD) data, dashcam footage, and vehicle inspection records may be overwritten or discarded if your attorney does not act swiftly to preserve them.
Comparative Fault in Truck Accidents
Texas follows a modified comparative fault rule (Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 33.001). You can recover damages as long as you are no more than 50 percent at fault. Your recovery is reduced by your percentage of responsibility. Insurance companies handling truck accident claims aggressively attempt to shift blame onto the injured motorist. I’ve seen cases where the trucking company tried to argue that my client was at fault for being on the road at all, or for driving a smaller vehicle that was “hard to see.” These arguments are often meritless, but they require an experienced attorney to defeat.
Multiple Liable Parties
Texas law recognizes that multiple parties may share responsibility for a truck accident. Under Chapter 33 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code, a jury determines each defendant’s percentage of responsibility. In truck accident cases, potentially liable parties include the truck driver (for negligent driving, fatigue, or impairment), the trucking company (for negligent hiring, training, supervision, or maintenance), the freight broker (for hiring an unsafe carrier), the shipper or loader (for improperly securing cargo), the vehicle or parts manufacturer (for defective equipment), and the maintenance provider (for negligent repairs).
Damages Available
In a Houston truck accident case, you may be entitled to recover past and future medical expenses, lost wages and lost earning capacity, physical pain and suffering (past and future), mental anguish, disfigurement and physical impairment, loss of consortium (for your spouse), and in cases involving gross negligence or malice, exemplary (punitive) damages under Chapter 41 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code. Given the severity of injuries typically caused by 18-wheeler collisions, these damages can be substantial and life-changing for victims and their families.
Texas Rules of Evidence and Spoliation
Under the Texas Rules of Evidence, critical trucking records are admissible as business records under Rule 803(6). If a trucking company destroys or fails to preserve evidence—such as ELD data, drug testing records, or driver qualification files—Texas courts can impose spoliation sanctions, including adverse inference instructions that tell the jury to presume the destroyed evidence was unfavorable to the trucking company. This is why sending a spoliation letter immediately after a truck accident is one of the most important things your attorney can do.
Critical Evidence in Houston Truck Accident Cases
Truck accident cases are dramatically more complex than standard car accident claims. The volume and technical nature of the evidence involved is one reason these cases require attorneys with specific experience in commercial vehicle litigation. Here is the evidence I prioritize in every Houston truck accident case:
Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs) and Hours-of-Service Records
Federal law requires most commercial truck drivers to use electronic logging devices to record their hours behind the wheel. Hours-of-service regulations exist because driver fatigue is one of the leading causes of truck accidents. When a trucking company pressures drivers to exceed their allowable hours, or when drivers falsify their logs, the ELD data can prove it. However, this data can be overwritten, so preserving it quickly is essential.
Driver Qualification Files
FMCSA regulations require trucking companies to maintain detailed driver qualification files, including employment history, driving record, medical certifications, and drug and alcohol testing results. In many of the cases I’ve worked, the driver qualification file revealed that the trucking company knew about the driver’s prior accidents, violations, or medical issues and chose to keep them on the road anyway. This evidence is powerful proof of negligent hiring and supervision.
Event Data Recorders (“Black Boxes”)
Most modern commercial trucks are equipped with event data recorders that capture speed, braking patterns, engine performance, and other critical data in the moments before, during, and after a crash. This data can prove that a truck driver was speeding, failed to brake, or was operating the vehicle in violation of safety protocols. Like ELD data, this evidence must be preserved immediately.
Maintenance and Inspection Records
Federal and Texas state law require regular inspections and maintenance of commercial vehicles. Under the Texas Transportation Code, commercial vehicles operating on Texas roads must meet specific safety standards. Failure to properly maintain brakes, tires, lights, and other critical systems is a common factor in truck accidents. Maintenance records can reveal a pattern of deferred repairs or ignored safety deficiencies that directly contributed to the crash.
Company Safety History and FMCSA Records
The FMCSA maintains records of every trucking company’s safety inspections, violations, and crash history through the SAFER System (Safety and Fitness Electronic Records). These records are publicly available and can reveal whether a company has a pattern of safety failures. In my experience, companies involved in catastrophic truck accidents in Houston often have long histories of safety violations that went unaddressed. This evidence can be devastating in establishing negligent supervision and corporate indifference to public safety.
Conclusion: Holding Trucking Companies Accountable in Texas
The trucking industry wants you to believe that large jury verdicts in truck accident cases are evidence of a broken legal system. The evidence tells a different story. These verdicts are the result of an industry that systematically underinvests in safety, employs drivers with dangerous records, lobbies to weaken federal safety regulations, and then hides behind insurance industry propaganda when the inevitable catastrophic consequences occur.
The civil justice system exists precisely to hold companies accountable when their pursuit of profit results in death and catastrophic injury. In Texas, the jury system—protected by the Texas Constitution—allows ordinary citizens to evaluate the evidence, assess the conduct of corporations, and determine fair compensation for victims. Research consistently demonstrates that juries are thoughtful, careful decision-makers who draw on their collective experience to assess injuries and their financial consequences. The industry’s attack on this system is not motivated by fairness. It is motivated by a desire to avoid accountability.
If you or someone you love has been injured or killed in an 18-wheeler accident in Houston or anywhere in Texas, time is not on your side. Evidence can be lost, deadlines can expire, and the trucking company’s legal team is already working to protect the company’s interests. You need an attorney who understands the complexity of these cases, who knows how to identify and preserve critical evidence, and who will fight to ensure that you receive the full compensation Texas law entitles you to.
I offer free consultations to truck accident victims and their families. Contact my office today to discuss your case. Together, we can hold dangerous trucking companies accountable and work toward the justice you deserve.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many people are killed in truck accidents each year?
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), more than 5,800 people were killed in crashes involving large trucks in 2022—the highest number in nearly four decades. Data from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) shows that approximately 97 percent of vehicle occupants killed in two-vehicle crashes involving a passenger vehicle and a large truck were occupants of the passenger vehicle.
How long do I have to file a truck accident lawsuit in Texas?
Under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 16.003, you have two years from the date of the accident to file a personal injury lawsuit. For wrongful death claims, the two-year clock starts on the date of death. In truck accident cases, acting quickly is especially critical because ELD data, dashcam footage, and inspection records can be overwritten or destroyed.
What is a “nuclear verdict” and why does the trucking industry talk about it?
“Nuclear verdict” is a term invented by the trucking and insurance industries to describe jury awards exceeding $10 million. Industry lobby groups use these verdicts to argue the civil justice system is broken. However, research by the Center for Justice & Democracy found that these verdicts consistently involve genuinely horrific corporate misconduct and devastating injuries. The industry systematically omits these facts when citing the verdicts publicly.
Why is the $750,000 minimum trucking insurance so inadequate?
The $750,000 minimum liability insurance requirement for trucks carrying non-hazardous cargo was set in the 1980s and has never been adjusted for inflation or rising medical costs. A single traumatic brain injury can generate millions in lifetime medical costs. Spinal cord injuries resulting in paralysis routinely require tens of millions in care. This $750,000 must cover all victims of a single accident, regardless of how many people are hurt or killed. You can review the current requirements on the FMCSA’s insurance filing requirements page.
Who can be held liable in a Houston 18-wheeler accident?
Texas law recognizes that multiple parties may share responsibility. Potentially liable parties include the truck driver, the trucking company (for negligent hiring, training, or maintenance), the freight broker, the shipper or loader (for improperly securing cargo), the vehicle or parts manufacturer, and the maintenance provider. Identifying all liable parties and available insurance coverage is critical to ensuring adequate compensation.
What evidence is most important in a Houston truck accident case?
Critical evidence includes electronic logging device (ELD) data showing hours-of-service compliance, driver qualification files revealing prior accidents or violations, event data recorder (“black box”) data capturing speed and braking before the crash, maintenance and inspection records, and the trucking company’s FMCSA safety history. Much of this evidence can be destroyed or overwritten quickly, which is why sending a spoliation preservation letter immediately is essential.
About the Author
Chi Nguyen is a Houston personal injury attorney dedicated to helping accident victims understand their rights and receive fair compensation under Texas law. With extensive experience representing injured Texans, Attorney Nguyen combines legal expertise with a commitment to client education and empowerment.