In Texas, liability for an 18-wheeler crash can reach the driver, the motor carrier, a broker, a shipper, a maintenance contractor or a trailer owner. Chapter 72 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code lets a defendant split the trial into two phases, which changes how your case is built from day one.
The Driver Is Rarely the Only Defendant
A tractor-trailer on I-20 may be operated by one company, owned by another, loaded by a third, dispatched by a broker and serviced by a fourth. Each of those relationships is a possible source of responsibility and, just as important, a separate insurance policy.
The core theory is usually respondeat superior: an employer is responsible for an employee’s negligence committed within the course and scope of the job. Beyond that, direct claims against the company itself — how it hired, trained, supervised or entrusted the truck to that driver — are a distinct category, and Texas law treats them very differently at trial.
Identifying every party is not paperwork. It determines how much coverage exists and who has an incentive to blame whom.
- The driver, as an employee or an owner-operator.
- The motor carrier whose authority the load moved under.
- The owner of the tractor or the trailer, when different from the carrier.
- The shipper or the party that loaded and secured the cargo.
- A freight broker, depending on its role in selecting the carrier.
- A maintenance or repair contractor responsible for brakes, tires or inspections.
Chapter 72 Splits the Trial in Two
Since 2021, Texas trucking cases run under Chapter 72 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Under Section 72.052, on the defendant’s motion the trial is bifurcated. Phase one determines liability for the crash and the compensatory damages that flow from it. Phase two, if it is reached, takes up the claims held back from phase one and any exemplary damages.
This is not a scheduling detail. It decides what a jury hears while it is deciding whether the trucking company is responsible for your injuries at all. A phase-one jury may never learn about the driver’s record, the company’s training program or its safety history.
Because the split happens on the defendant’s motion, you should assume it will happen and prepare a phase-one case that stands on its own facts: speed, following distance, lane position, hours behind the wheel, and what the vehicle’s own data recorded.
Phase one
Phase two (if reached)
Liability for the accident itself
Direct claims held back from phase one
Your compensatory damages
Exemplary (punitive) damages
Regulatory-violation evidence only if §72.053 is satisfied
Broader company-conduct evidence
Bifurcation under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §72.052.
The Stipulation That Removes Your Strongest Story
Section 72.054 is the provision that reshapes most cases. When the employer stipulates that the driver was acting within the course and scope of employment, claims for negligent hiring, training, supervision and entrustment are generally kept out of phase one.
The trade is deliberate. The company accepts responsibility for whatever the driver did, and in exchange the jury deciding liability does not hear how the driver came to be behind the wheel — the failed road test, the prior violations, the training that was skipped.
That is why phase-one preparation cannot depend on company-conduct evidence. It has to prove the crash on the driving itself, using the electronic control module, the electronic logging device, telematics, dashcam footage, and reconstruction from the physical scene.
Regulatory Violations Are Not Automatically Admissible
People assume that a violation of federal or state trucking regulations decides the case. Under Section 72.053, evidence of a regulatory violation comes into phase one only if the violation proximately caused the injury and the regulation specifically governs that defendant.
Both halves matter. A logbook irregularity that had nothing to do with how the crash happened may never reach the jury deciding liability. A rule that governs carriers generally, but not this defendant in this role, has the same problem.
The workable approach is to tie each regulation to the mechanics of the collision — this hours violation to this driver’s fatigue at this hour, this brake standard to this stopping distance.
Werner Enterprises v. Blake Raised the Bar on Causation
On June 27, 2025, the Texas Supreme Court decided *Werner Enterprises v. Blake, reversing a verdict of roughly $100 million. The Court’s reasoning turned on proximate cause*: the presence of the truck, and its speed on an icy stretch of highway, were not enough where another vehicle lost control, crossed the median and struck it.
The Court also expressly declined to adopt the admission rule — the approach in some states under which an employer’s admission of course and scope automatically bars direct-negligence claims. In Texas, that question is governed by Chapter 72’s bifurcation and stipulation framework, not by a common-law bar.
For anyone bringing a truck case now, Werner is the reason the causation record has to be built first. Establishing that a truck was there, was large, and was moving is not a case. Establishing what the driver did, when, and how that produced the collision is.
Trucks on Tarrant County Roads — and What to Do First
The exposure here is not abstract. Tarrant County recorded 1,716 commercial-vehicle crashes in 2024, including 19 fatal crashes involving a commercial motor vehicle — roughly 10% of the county’s 189 fatal crashes. On I-20 through Arlington, about 6.4% of the traffic stream is tractor-trailers, close to one vehicle in fifteen.
The first two weeks decide what evidence still exists. Engine control module data, electronic logging records, dispatch and telematics files, driver qualification records and camera footage all sit inside retention schedules that keep running while you are in treatment. A written preservation demand is what stops the ordinary overwrite cycle.
If you were hurt in a crash with an 18-wheeler, the early work is preservation and party identification. Jim Ross Law Group offers a free consultation at 817-275-4100, and there is no fee unless we win.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue the trucking company, or only the driver?
Both, usually. An employer is generally responsible for an employee driver’s negligence committed within the course and scope of the job, and the carrier’s commercial policy is normally the primary coverage. Separate direct claims against the company for hiring, training, supervision or entrustment exist too, but Chapter 72 controls when a jury hears them.
What is a bifurcated trial in a Texas truck case?
It is a trial split into two phases under Section 72.052, on the defendant’s motion. Phase one decides liability for the crash and your compensatory damages. Phase two, if reached, covers the claims held back and any exemplary damages. The practical effect is that a phase-one jury may hear a much narrower story than you expect.
Why would the trucking company admit its driver was on the job?
Because under Section 72.054 that stipulation generally keeps negligent hiring, training, supervision and entrustment claims out of phase one. The company accepts responsibility for the driver’s conduct and, in return, the jury deciding liability does not hear about the driver’s record or the company’s safety practices.
Does a federal safety violation automatically prove the truck driver was at fault?
No. Under Section 72.053, evidence of a regulatory violation is admissible in phase one only if the violation proximately caused the injury and the regulation specifically applies to that defendant. A paperwork or logbook problem unconnected to how the collision happened may never reach the liability jury.
What did Werner Enterprises v. Blake change?
The Texas Supreme Court reversed a roughly $100 million verdict on June 27, 2025, holding the evidence insufficient on proximate cause where another vehicle lost control and struck the truck. The Court also declined to adopt the admission rule used in some other states. The result is a heavier practical burden on causation proof.
How quickly does truck evidence disappear?
Faster than most people expect. Engine control module data, electronic logging records, telematics and camera footage are governed by retention schedules measured in weeks, and vehicles get repaired or sold. A written preservation demand sent in the first days is the practical step that keeps material from being overwritten in the ordinary course.
How common are commercial truck crashes in Tarrant County?
Tarrant County recorded 1,716 commercial-vehicle crashes in 2024, including 19 fatal crashes involving a commercial motor vehicle — about 10% of the county’s 189 fatal crashes that year. Freight volume on I-20 is a large part of the picture, where roughly 6.4% of traffic is tractor-trailers.
Is there a cap on what I can recover in a Texas truck accident case?
There is no cap on non-economic damages such as pain and suffering in an ordinary negligence case. Exemplary damages are capped at the greater of $200,000, or twice economic damages plus non-economic damages up to $750,000, with a statutory exception for certain felony conduct.
This page is for general information only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different and past results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future case. Jim Ross Law Group, P.C., 2201 E Lamar Blvd #110, Arlington, TX 76006.