In May of 2018, a Houston, Texas jury slammed Werner Enterprises, Inc. with a verdict exceeding 90 million dollars in reaction to a truck wreck that took the life of an 8-year-old boy and left a 12-year-old girl with permanent traumatic brain injuries. The case was appealed but affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Texas Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on appeal. A Google search of Werner v. Blake reveals that many of the various pro-trucking industry websites are quick to applaud this decision and even quicker to share their view of the facts that surrounded this tragic case.
The crash took place in Odessa, Texas in 2014 but the case was tried in Harris County. I learned it was happening while it was going on, so I took the opportunity to go down to the Courthouse and watch the closing arguments—you know, the part where both sides summarize the evidence that was presented. You will not find some of the most egregious facts on many of the trucking websites. The ones that might make you realize that the jury got the verdict right.
Case Background
What You Will Read
The basic facts that you will read on the trucking websites focus on the collision event vs how it should have been prevented. A mother, son (age 8), and daughter (age 12) are passengers in a vehicle driven by her male friend. The car is traveling below the posted speed limit when it hits black ice. The vehicle swerves across a grassy median and hits a Werner Enterprises 18-wheeler on the opposite side of the divided roadway traveling towards them.
My Notes from the Werner v. Blake Closing Arguments
The evidence as summarized in the closing was as follows:
- Several years before this collision, Werner Enterprises bought its own truck driving school to train its drivers. Even though one of their driver’s handbooks said to slow down to 5 mph and get off the road when there was dangerous ice on the roads, the evidence suggested that the school taught that this was not a requirement.
- The driver in question had only been driving for about 6 weeks prior to the wreck.
- The driver had a trainer in the vehicle with him but the trainer was asleep in the truck berth at the time of the wreck.
- The driver had not yet “earned” the privilege of using an air temperature monitor to know if it is freezing outside nor had he “earned” the privilege of using the CB radio—where he would have heard chatter about the ice on the road all morning. He had these on/in the vehicle, but he was not allowed to use them. This was basically a form of hazing the new drivers.
- Minutes after he took off with his load a message comes to him via Qualcomm saying this is a “just-in-time load,” which means that on-time delivery is critical.
- The driver passed several other multi-vehicle wrecks as he was driving that morning which should have clued him into the ice issue.
- The driver passed several large parking lots where he could have pulled off the road to wait for the roads to be safe again.
The collision killed the 8-year-old boy and caused a severe traumatic brain injury to the 12-year-old girl. The evidence suggested she would require a lifetime of assistance.
The Plaintiffs’ Position
The position of the plaintiffs was very simple. There is a driver’s handbook that tells truck drivers to slow down to 5 mph and get off the road when there is a risk of ice on the road. The rule isn’t just about trucks potentially sliding. It is about the fact that trucks cause serious damage when there is a wreck, and it is a given that ice on a highway has a high probability of causing cars to go out of control. The car that’s out of control cannot stop itself from colliding with things. If a 26,000-pound truck is driving at 69 mph and the car swerves into it, the car and occupants will get hurt. If the truck is off the road or only going 5 mph like the handbook says, you don’t have a catastrophic injury. Indeed, the evidence showed that there had been another truck wreck that day in the area where the truck was going 5 mph, and no one was seriously injured. Safety rules are not always just about assigning blame for who loses control, they are about preventing injury.
In this case, the injury was preventable. The evidence indicated that the company chose to treat it as a suggestion vs a rule in order to deliver more loads and make more profits. Based upon what was argued in closing, they basically took away the tools needed to alert the driver of the ice on the road and sent a message to not be late.
The Defense
Prior to trial, the defense prepared the driver for his deposition. Before the deposition, they apparently made him watch an instructional video on driving when there is ice but not before driving on the day of the wreck. The defense took the position that they and their driver did nothing wrong and that they were not going to change their driving practices. That was a mistake. It opened the door to the jury sending them a message to make them change their practice.
The Texas Supreme Court
The trucking industry is hopeful that the ultra-conservative Texas Supreme Court with a history of opinions that seem to stretch to be unfavorable to plaintiffs will find a way to overturn the verdict in this case. When you look at the recent history of the Texas Supreme Court opinions, you can see why they are optimistic. I have previously written about Gregory v. Chohan, an opinion rendered by the Supreme Court in the summer of 2023. In that case, the Texas Supreme Court tossed out another big personal injury verdict because they did not like how they established the value of someone’s suffering from the loss of a loved one. However, they provided virtually no practical insight into what evidence is acceptable.
Other Cases Involving Werner
This was the biggest verdict ever against Werner Enterprises. However, in October 2019, a New Mexico jury returned a verdict against Werner for 40.5 million in relation to a 2017 crash. In that truck accident, a student driver for Werner who had only been driving 8 days crossed several lanes of traffic and a concrete median to hit a Honda Pilot head-on. The crash killed the Honda Pilot’s driver. Evidence suggested the Werner driver was driving unsupervised over 60% of his driving time prior to the crash even though he was not supposed to be driving unsupervised according to Werner policies and procedures. Again, the jury sent a multi-million-dollar message.
The Message
Werner has its own student driving program. In the 2018 lawsuit, it was alleged that Werner chose to ignore the rules in the commercial driver’s handbooks and taught their drivers that they were not required to get off the road in icy conditions but that it was merely a suggestion. In the 2019 lawsuit, Plaintiff alleged that the Werner employees were disregarding their own program requirements that would have prevented the student driver involved from being on the road unsupervised. In both cases, the jury sent a big message to Werner to change their ways: safety rules are not optional. Hopefully, the Texas Supreme Court will take a stand for justice and affirm the decision as well.
Author
