Werner argues nuclear verdict case before Texas Supreme Court -

The Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a controversial nuclear verdict case involving Werner Enterprises that has a wide range of stakeholders calling for tort reform.

On Tuesday, Dec. 3, attorneys for Werner, a truck driver and victims of a fatal crash stated their case in front of the Texas Supreme Court. Last year, the 14th Court of Appeals in Texas affirmed a lower court’s nine-figure verdict finding the trucking company and its driver liable for a 2014 crash.

Werner’s case has left trucking and legal stakeholders scratching their heads. Despite all the facts suggesting the truck driver did nothing wrong, plaintiffs’ attorneys convinced a jury otherwise. At the center of oral arguments on Tuesday was the level of duty a truck driver owes to motorists traveling on the other direction of a divided highway.

Attorneys also argued whether a legal doctrine known as the Admission Rule should be formally adopted in Texas. That rule could prevent a trucking company’s practices, policies and overarching operations and culture from being used in certain crash lawsuits.

2014 crash

The Texas Supreme Court case stems from a lawsuit filed by the family of Zachary Blake and Brianna Blake. Zachary, who was 7 years old, was killed in the crash with a Werner truck. Brianna, who was 12, was rendered a quadriplegic.

On Dec. 30, 2014, the Blakes were traveling east on Interstate 20 in Texas in a pickup truck driven by Zaragoza “Trey” Salinas. Weather conditions were icy at the time. Salinas lost control of the vehicle going 50-60 mph and careened across a grass median, entering the westbound lanes.

At this time, Shiraz Ali was driving a truck for Werner going west on I-20. He was driving below the speed limit when the pickup truck began to spin. Also present in the Werner truck was Jeff Ackerman, a Werner driver-trainer. According to the appellate brief, Ali reacted within half a second, hitting the brakes.

Even the Blakes’ expert witness conceded that Ali’s reaction was “very quick” and “appropriate to the conditions.”

In addition to Salinas making statements suggesting guilt and responsibility, a Texas Department of Public Safety trooper defended Ali’s actions. Trooper Villareal, a 17-year veteran who investigated the accident, concluded “this is truly an accident,” Ali “didn’t do anything wrong” and there was nothing Ali “could have done to avoid the collision.” A higher-ranking trooper who approved the report concurred.

More details of the crash can be found here.

Werner on the hook for more than $100M

During the trial, plaintiffs were allowed to present evidence that had no direct proximate effect on the crash in order to persuade the jury that Werner’s culture and policy had caused it.

This evidence included:

Details about Werner’s training and supervision of Ali
Werner’s lack of a “command center” for weather monitoring
Werner’s handling of crash investigations
Claims of Werner’s driving school director being unqualified
Werner’s failure to require a CB radio
Werner’s failure to require an outside temperature gauge

Werner argued, however, that this evidence had nothing to do with the crash in question and that relevant evidence insufficiently supported a finding of negligence.

In 2018, a jury found Werner 70% liable, Ali 14% liable and Salinas 16% liable. After calculating all damages, the jury award for the plaintiffs was in excess of $100 million. In May 2023, a state appellate court affirmed the ruling.

Duty of care

A question critical to the case in front of the Texas Supreme Court is where to draw the line when determining a truck driver’s duty of care to other road users.

Representing Werner and Ali, attorney Thomas Wright argued that drivers should not have to anticipate someone coming into their lane from the opposite side of an interstate with a 30-plus-foot median between them. Although motorists can foresee another vehicle encroaching into their lane in icy conditions when going the same direction, it is unreasonable to believe a car coming from the other direction is also foreseeable.

Wright conceded that a trucker owes a duty of care to react appropriately once a wayward vehicle enters his or her lane. In this case, both sides acknowledged that Ali reacted quickly and safely.

Representing the Blakes, attorney Darrin Walker argued that a cross-median crash was foreseeable considering the weather conditions. Supporting that argument, Walker pointed to the CDL manual, which states that drivers should slow down to about 15 mph during inclement weather. Ali was traveling at about 43 mph.

“The purpose of this rule is mainly to protect other motorists, because passenger vehicles are even more likely than an 18-wheeler to lose control on icy road conditions, and we don’t want an 18-wheeler going highway speeds on icy roads when another motorist loses control in front of it,” Walker said.

Admission rule

Werner is asking the Texas Supreme Court to adopt what is called the Admission Rule, which could determine the fate of nuclear verdicts like Werner’s.

The company has argued that since it accepted responsibility by admitting Ali was in the course and scope of employment, plaintiffs cannot pursue “derivative theories of negligence.” Under the Admission Rule, once an employer establishes liability, “evidence of the employer’s hiring, training or supervision practices becomes inadmissible as irrelevant and likely to prejudice the jury,” according to the law firm Lewis Brisbois.

In this case, the appellate and district courts rejected the Admission Rule by allowing a variety of evidence dealing with Werner’s companywide policies and training. This in turn allowed plaintiff attorneys to use a tactic known as reptile theory, which evokes emotions of fear and anger in jurors to encourage nuclear verdicts. As Lewis Brisbois put it, “This company was so terrible you should punish them, regardless of whether any of our evidence showed the company or its driver’s actions actually caused the subject crash.”

The Admission Rule has been adopted in several states. In Texas, courts are split on the rule, with some adopting it and others – like the 14th Court of Appeals – rejecting it.

Werner is asking the Texas Supreme Court to cement the Admission Rule into state legal precedent.

During oral arguments, Werner said that a trucker’s entire day is on trial. Rather than focusing on what a driver did immediately before and during a crash, juries are considering irrelevant information about the company.

(H3) What should have been a quick trial turned into a six-week circus dissecting every decision made by Werner.

“We wanted to make this case about everything except for the three-second accident sequence,” Wright said. “It was all about trying the company.”

Walker argued that the Admission Rule disincentivizes employers from training and supervising their employees. He said that the negligence of the employer and the negligence of the employee both contribute to an injury.

“I think it’s unfair to hide that from the jury and then foist liability that would ordinarily fall on the employer onto the untrained employee,” Walker said.

The following groups have filed amicus briefs in the case, all of them supporting Werner’s bid for the Texas Supreme Court to adopt the Admission Rule: