Law School 101—$100 million verdict reversed. Two words, one principle: common sense. That sums up a recent decision after years of litigation and multiple appeals finally aligned the legal outcome with practical reality.
The case is Werner Enters., Inc. v. Blake,
No. 23-0493, 2024 WL 6043877 (Tex. June 27, 2025). The Texas Supreme Court, applying a realistic analysis, held that a truck driver, driving in his own lane and under the speed limit, had no time to react when a pickup crossed a 42-foot median into his path. The trucker was simply not the "proximate cause" of the accident. It was not his fault, nor his company's. End of case. End of story.
But how did it get there? And why didn't the outcome from this 2014 accident arrive years earlier, before stacks of money were spent on defense and appeals?
Facts of the Case
The facts are pretty straightforward. The plaintiffs were occupants of an F-350 pickup truck on I-20 near Odessa. The conditions were icy, and there was a warning for freezing rain.
Ultimately, the F-350 pickup left its lane, crossed a 42-foot median, and travelled into the path of a tractor-trailer, which was travelling under the speed limit in its proper lane. Experts for both parties testified at trial that there was nothing more the truck driver could have done to react to avoid the oncoming pickup.
Plaintiffs presented evidence of the importance of the icy conditions—trucks pulled off the road, and other accidents passed by the truck. Neither the truck driver nor the trainer who was with him had checked the weather before leaving, and neither had any knowledge of a weather advisory of freezing rain.
Evidence at trial also included the lack of an outside thermometer on or CB radio in the truck. Plaintiffs faulted the company for not having a weather center to warn and reroute its trucks. They argued that the company needed to learn a lesson that was denied to its safety department because the needed information was hidden behind the "black curtain" of the legal department.
The injuries to the occupants of the F-350 were horrific: One was killed, and another was rendered a quadriplegic. Two others suffered traumatic brain and physical injuries.
The verdicts totaled almost $90 million before interest was applied. Liability was apportioned 16 percent to the F-350 driver, 14 percent to the truck driver, and 70 percent to other trucking company employees.
Legal Principles
A lengthy appeal process occurred, culminating in this decision by the Texas Supreme Court reversing the verdict. It held that any negligence on the part of the truck driver was not the "proximate cause" of the accident. The sole "proximate cause" was the F-350's loss of control, crossing the median, and careening into the path of the truck.
The outcome of this case was determined by the legal concept of "proximate cause." A basic concept, it is an inviolate requirement for legal liability for negligence. However, it was all but ignored or misapplied in this case by lower courts until recognized in the ultimate appeal.
"Proximate cause" is pretty straightforward. In this case, the court noted that "proximate cause" is a practical test—the test of common experience—used to evaluate human conduct when determining legal rights and liability. But in the hands of lawyers, "cause" can be a malleable concept; a concept strained to seek to impose liability based on "butterfly wing" theories with a distant and tenuous nexus to the resultant accident.
It is axiomatic that "mere happening of an accident is not proof of negligence." While there are some areas of law that apply "strict liability" from the happening of the occurrence—such as product cases—claims founded on negligence require more. That's where "proximate cause" comes in.
The court stated that "proximate cause" is not established merely by proof that the injury would not have happened if not for the defendant's negligence. Instead, it requires the presence of two elements.
First, the accident and resultant injuries would not have occurred "but for" the defendant's conduct. Such as "but for" the truck being on that road at that place at that time, this accident would not have happened.
Second, and crucially, "proximate cause" requires proof that the defendant's negligence was a "substantial factor" in causing the injury. The court in this case noted that "substantial factor" incorporates "the idea of responsibility" into the question of causation. "Substantial factor" requires a view from a practical perspective in light of common-sense experience.
The court held that just because a defendant is part of the chain of events that led to the injury, the defendant is not liable if his involvement was a mere "happenstance of time and place." In other words, just being present on that "road/place/time" is not determinative; it's simply not enough.
"Substantial factor" means only a party whose significant role in bringing about the injury is such that he is "actually responsible for the ultimate harm." If the defendant's conduct merely creates the condition that makes the harm possible, it is not a substantial factor in causing the harm as a matter of law. "Happenstance of time and place" is not enough to constitute a "substantial factor."
The court provided an analogy: In a head-on collision, both vehicles would meet the "but for" requirement—it would not have happened "but for" the presence of both vehicles at the same time and at the same place. However, the vehicle driving properly in its lane is not a "substantial factor." That lies solely with the violative vehicle whose improper conduct caused the collision.
Applying Principles to this Case
In this case, the defendant's presence on the highway, combined with his speed, furnished the condition that made the injuries possible. "But for" those elements, there would not have been contact between the vehicles. But it was not the "proximate cause" of the injuries.
The sole cause—sole "substantial factor"—"was the sudden, unexpected hurtling of the victims' vehicle into oncoming traffic, for which the defendants bore no responsibility." Compared to the pickup careening across the wide median, anything the defendant did or didn't do "is too attenuated to qualify the substantial factor for proximate causation."
The Texas Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that, if the truck driver had been driving more slowly, the pickup would not have collided. Sure, but as the court noted, if the truck had been traveling 100 mph, the pickup would not have collided with it either. Alternatively, if there had been no vehicles in the pickup's path, the occupants would not have been injured. Or, to the contrary, the court further noted that, had it been a small car rather than a tractor-trailer, the F-350 could have killed or severely injured the occupants of the car.
Corporate Negligence
The court then held that the corporate negligence, even if proven, could not have been a "proximate cause" of the plaintiffs' injuries because the truck driver was not the "proximate cause" of the accident. If his driving was not the "proximate cause" of the accident, there can be no derivative negligence of his employer for its failure to adequately train or supervise him.
Many jurisdictions will apply a similar concept. If vicarious liability for the acts of the driver is conceded by the corporate employer and there is no claim for punitive damages, many jurisdictions will eliminate the corporate claims.
Think about it: The damages are what they are. They are not increased by corporate claims. If the driver is at fault, the claimant is entitled to the damages. Conversely, if the driver is not at fault, the plaintiff cannot recover. The corporate claims are moot.
In this case, the corporate claims failed for the same reason as the claims against its driver—the pickup driver's loss of control was the sole cause of the accident.
Takeaways
Legal cases turn on fundamental legal principles. In a world of courtroom technology and expert opinions, we need to focus on the oft-overlooked basics that are determinative of the presence—or absence—of liability, such as "proximate cause" and its required element of "substantial factor."
Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.
Law School 101—$100 million verdict reversed. Two words, one principle: common sense. That sums up a recent decision after years of litigation and multiple appeals finally aligned the legal outcome with practical reality.
The case is Werner Enters., Inc. v. Blake, No. 23-0493, 2024 WL 6043877 (Tex. June 27, 2025). The Texas Supreme Court, applying a realistic analysis, held that a truck driver, driving in his own lane and under the speed limit, had no time to react when a pickup crossed a 42-foot median into his path. The trucker was simply not the "proximate cause" of the accident. It was not his fault, nor his company's. End of case. End of story.
But how did it get there? And why didn't the outcome from this 2014 accident arrive years earlier, before stacks of money were spent on defense and appeals?
Facts of the Case
The facts are pretty straightforward. The plaintiffs were occupants of an F-350 pickup truck on I-20 near Odessa. The conditions were icy, and there was a warning for freezing rain.
Ultimately, the F-350 pickup left its lane, crossed a 42-foot median, and travelled into the path of a tractor-trailer, which was travelling under the speed limit in its proper lane. Experts for both parties testified at trial that there was nothing more the truck driver could have done to react to avoid the oncoming pickup.
Plaintiffs presented evidence of the importance of the icy conditions—trucks pulled off the road, and other accidents passed by the truck. Neither the truck driver nor the trainer who was with him had checked the weather before leaving, and neither had any knowledge of a weather advisory of freezing rain.
Evidence at trial also included the lack of an outside thermometer on or CB radio in the truck. Plaintiffs faulted the company for not having a weather center to warn and reroute its trucks. They argued that the company needed to learn a lesson that was denied to its safety department because the needed information was hidden behind the "black curtain" of the legal department.
The injuries to the occupants of the F-350 were horrific: One was killed, and another was rendered a quadriplegic. Two others suffered traumatic brain and physical injuries.
The verdicts totaled almost $90 million before interest was applied. Liability was apportioned 16 percent to the F-350 driver, 14 percent to the truck driver, and 70 percent to other trucking company employees.
Legal Principles
A lengthy appeal process occurred, culminating in this decision by the Texas Supreme Court reversing the verdict. It held that any negligence on the part of the truck driver was not the "proximate cause" of the accident. The sole "proximate cause" was the F-350's loss of control, crossing the median, and careening into the path of the truck.
The outcome of this case was determined by the legal concept of "proximate cause." A basic concept, it is an inviolate requirement for legal liability for negligence. However, it was all but ignored or misapplied in this case by lower courts until recognized in the ultimate appeal.
"Proximate cause" is pretty straightforward. In this case, the court noted that "proximate cause" is a practical test—the test of common experience—used to evaluate human conduct when determining legal rights and liability. But in the hands of lawyers, "cause" can be a malleable concept; a concept strained to seek to impose liability based on "butterfly wing" theories with a distant and tenuous nexus to the resultant accident.
It is axiomatic that "mere happening of an accident is not proof of negligence." While there are some areas of law that apply "strict liability" from the happening of the occurrence—such as product cases—claims founded on negligence require more. That's where "proximate cause" comes in.
The court stated that "proximate cause" is not established merely by proof that the injury would not have happened if not for the defendant's negligence. Instead, it requires the presence of two elements.
First, the accident and resultant injuries would not have occurred "but for" the defendant's conduct. Such as "but for" the truck being on that road at that place at that time, this accident would not have happened.
Second, and crucially, "proximate cause" requires proof that the defendant's negligence was a "substantial factor" in causing the injury. The court in this case noted that "substantial factor" incorporates "the idea of responsibility" into the question of causation. "Substantial factor" requires a view from a practical perspective in light of common-sense experience.
The court held that just because a defendant is part of the chain of events that led to the injury, the defendant is not liable if his involvement was a mere "happenstance of time and place." In other words, just being present on that "road/place/time" is not determinative; it's simply not enough.
"Substantial factor" means only a party whose significant role in bringing about the injury is such that he is "actually responsible for the ultimate harm." If the defendant's conduct merely creates the condition that makes the harm possible, it is not a substantial factor in causing the harm as a matter of law. "Happenstance of time and place" is not enough to constitute a "substantial factor."
The court provided an analogy: In a head-on collision, both vehicles would meet the "but for" requirement—it would not have happened "but for" the presence of both vehicles at the same time and at the same place. However, the vehicle driving properly in its lane is not a "substantial factor." That lies solely with the violative vehicle whose improper conduct caused the collision.
Applying Principles to this Case
In this case, the defendant's presence on the highway, combined with his speed, furnished the condition that made the injuries possible. "But for" those elements, there would not have been contact between the vehicles. But it was not the "proximate cause" of the injuries.
The sole cause—sole "substantial factor"—"was the sudden, unexpected hurtling of the victims' vehicle into oncoming traffic, for which the defendants bore no responsibility." Compared to the pickup careening across the wide median, anything the defendant did or didn't do "is too attenuated to qualify the substantial factor for proximate causation."
The Texas Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that, if the truck driver had been driving more slowly, the pickup would not have collided. Sure, but as the court noted, if the truck had been traveling 100 mph, the pickup would not have collided with it either. Alternatively, if there had been no vehicles in the pickup's path, the occupants would not have been injured. Or, to the contrary, the court further noted that, had it been a small car rather than a tractor-trailer, the F-350 could have killed or severely injured the occupants of the car.
Corporate Negligence
The court then held that the corporate negligence, even if proven, could not have been a "proximate cause" of the plaintiffs' injuries because the truck driver was not the "proximate cause" of the accident. If his driving was not the "proximate cause" of the accident, there can be no derivative negligence of his employer for its failure to adequately train or supervise him.
Many jurisdictions will apply a similar concept. If vicarious liability for the acts of the driver is conceded by the corporate employer and there is no claim for punitive damages, many jurisdictions will eliminate the corporate claims.
Think about it: The damages are what they are. They are not increased by corporate claims. If the driver is at fault, the claimant is entitled to the damages. Conversely, if the driver is not at fault, the plaintiff cannot recover. The corporate claims are moot.
In this case, the corporate claims failed for the same reason as the claims against its driver—the pickup driver's loss of control was the sole cause of the accident.
Takeaways
Legal cases turn on fundamental legal principles. In a world of courtroom technology and expert opinions, we need to focus on the oft-overlooked basics that are determinative of the presence—or absence—of liability, such as "proximate cause" and its required element of "substantial factor."
Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.