Request FREE consultation - 1866-758-4529 
By Greg Baumgartner | Updated August 2026
| CASE UPDATE: A Texas jury returned a verdict of more than $89 million against Werner Enterprises and its driver. The Texas Supreme Court later reversed that judgment and rendered judgment in favor of the defendants. This article explains the final result and why proof of causation matters in a Texas truck accident case. |
A Texas jury found Werner Enterprises and its trainee driver responsible for a catastrophic crash on an icy stretch of Interstate 20. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. But on June 27, 2025, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the case. The Court held that the Werner driver’s conduct was not a substantial factor in causing the collision. It ruled that the pickup driver’s loss of control and sudden crossing of a 42-foot median was the sole proximate cause.
The Court denied rehearing on September 26, 2025, making the reversal the final state-court result. The official order is available in the Texas Supreme Court’s rehearing record.
The crash occurred on December 30, 2014, on I-20 near Odessa. Freezing rain had created dangerous road conditions. Jennifer Blake and her three children were passengers in an eastbound Ford F-350 driven by Trey Salinas.
Salinas lost control of the pickup. It crossed a wide grassy median and entered the westbound lanes. The pickup collided with a Werner Enterprises tractor-trailer driven by Shiraz Ali, a student driver. His trainer was in the sleeper berth.
Seven-year-old Zackery Blake was killed. Brianna Blake was rendered a permanent quadriplegic. Jennifer and Nathan Blake suffered traumatic brain injuries and other physical injuries. The human cost was devastating, regardless of the later legal ruling.
The plaintiffs argued that Ali was driving too fast for the icy conditions, even though he was below the posted speed limit. They also alleged that Werner sent an inexperienced driver into hazardous weather without adequate training or access to important weather updates.
The jury assigned 70% of the responsibility to Werner employees other than Ali, 14% to Ali, and 16% to Salinas. The trial court entered a judgment of more than $100 million, including amounts beyond the $89.7 million verdict commonly cited. In 2023, the Houston Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.
That was not the end of the case. A verdict is not the same as a final recovery. Post-trial motions and appeals can reduce or eliminate a verdict when a required legal element is not supported by sufficient evidence.
The Supreme Court focused on proximate cause. To recover damages for negligence in Texas, it is not enough to show that a defendant acted carelessly or that the injury would not have happened in exactly the same way without that conduct. The conduct must also be a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.
The plaintiffs presented evidence that Ali should have driven more slowly or should not have remained on the road. Their expert also testified, however, that Ali reacted quickly and appropriately once the pickup crossed the median. The event unfolded in about two seconds.
The Supreme Court concluded that the pickup’s loss of control was the event that actually caused the crash. In the Court’s view, the Werner truck’s presence and speed merely created the condition that made the impact possible. That was not enough to establish substantial-factor causation.
The plaintiffs also pursued claims based on Werner’s training, supervision, and decision to dispatch an inexperienced driver into winter weather. Those allegations concern the types of evidence that may be examined to prove trucking company negligence.
But the Supreme Court held that the company’s claims depended on proof that Ali’s driving proximately caused the injuries. Because the Court found no legally sufficient causation as to Ali, it also rejected the claims against Werner.
This does not mean that poor training, unsafe dispatch decisions, or company pressure can never support a truck accident claim. It means those failures must be connected to negligent driving or other conduct that substantially caused the collision or worsened the injuries.
After more than 40 years of handling serious accident cases, I view Werner as an important warning about how a truck case must be built. Evidence of a broken safety rule can be powerful, but a safety violation alone does not prove the entire case.
The evidence must complete the chain. What did the driver or company do wrong? How did that conduct affect the truck’s speed, position, braking, route, or ability to avoid the crash? Did it substantially cause the collision or increase the injuries? Those questions should guide the investigation from the beginning.
The defense will often try to separate a company’s bad choices from the final moments before impact. A plaintiff’s lawyer must connect the company documents, electronic data, driver testimony, expert analysis, and physical evidence into one clear explanation of causation.
Federal rules require commercial drivers to use extreme caution when snow, ice, rain, fog, or similar conditions affect visibility or traction. Under 49 C.F.R. § 392.14, a driver must reduce speed and stop operating when conditions become too dangerous for safe travel.
But the presence of bad weather does not automatically prove either side’s case. The key question is how each driver responded to the conditions and whether that conduct caused the crash. Our guide to truck accidents caused by dangerous weather in Texas explains the evidence that may be relevant to a weather-related claim.
The evidence needed will depend on how the collision happened. In a serious case, the investigation may include:
This evidence can be lost or overwritten. A prompt preservation letter and a focused investigation can make the difference between suspicion and proof.
Werner does not create a blanket shield for trucking companies. It reinforces a basic requirement: every negligence theory must be supported by evidence that the conduct substantially caused the injury.
That requirement is especially important when several events or parties may have contributed to a crash. A careful investigation should identify each responsible actor, determine what each one did, and explain how that conduct fits into the actual sequence of the collision.
When a truck crash causes a death, the same causation questions apply alongside the damages available to surviving family members. Learn more about fatal truck accidents and wrongful death claims in Texas.
No. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the judgment on June 27, 2025, and rendered judgment in favor of Werner Enterprises and its driver. The Court later denied rehearing.
The Supreme Court held that the Werner driver’s conduct was not a substantial factor in causing the injuries. It found that the pickup driver’s loss of control and sudden crossing of the median was the sole proximate cause.
Proximate cause generally requires cause in fact and foreseeability. Cause in fact includes both but-for causation and proof that the conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.
Potentially, but the plaintiff must prove the required elements and connect the company’s conduct to an act or omission that proximately caused the injury. In Werner, the claims against the company failed because the driver’s conduct was not a proximate cause.
No. A rule violation may be important evidence, but the plaintiff must still prove causation and the other required elements of the claim.
A serious truck accident case should be evaluated on its own facts. If you or a family member was badly injured in a commercial truck crash, speak with Texas truck accident lawyer Greg Baumgartner about the evidence, the responsible parties, and the next steps. Baumgartner Law Firm offers a free consultation and charges no attorney’s fee unless we win your case. Call (281) 893-0760.
Related Resources:
