Trucking groups and others are making a renewed push for tort reform in Texas

The creation of the Lone Star Economic Alliance (LSEA) has created a new tool to effect changes in the bill. Its launch was spearheaded by Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR), which is not a new organization but created the LSEA specifically to pursue tort reform through changes to HB 19, with trucking as its fulcrum in her efforts.

Those assigned by the LSEA to speak to the media about their efforts not only include trucking executives, but they feature prominently. That list included John Esparza, CEO of the Texas Trucking Association; Jerry Maldonado, president of the Laredo Motor Carriers Association and director of Warren Transport’s Mexico and Laredo operations; and Adam Blanchard, co-owner of Double Diamond Transport.

LSEA’s launch presentation doesn’t even mention freight, except in the biographies of board members with a connection to the new group.

So far, previous changes have not helped

But sources close to the group, who requested anonymity, make it clear that the continued threat of nuclear verdicts in the state, which would have to be reduced as a result of HB 19, brought trucking back into the fray as the main focus of the effort from LSEA.

Conversations with these trucking executives and a review of online commentary on the original attorney-written formulation of HB 19 focused on the “bifurcation” of the original legislation as the key to protecting trucking companies and other defendants from huge jury verdicts .

The split involves a concept known as the ‘admission rule’. It’s described as a long-standing part of Texas common law, but as one lawyer said, Texas judges have ignored it in recent years.

“It basically says that if I as an employer agree to accept responsibility for the actions of my employees that may have caused the harm, this should simplify the process,” Lee Parsley, general counsel for TLR, told FreightWaves in its description of the case. admission rule. By admitting this, the company being sued is saying, “I’m in jail for these damages,” Parsley said.

Admitting things helps, doesn’t hurt

While it may seem strange that such an upfront admission would be viewed positively by potential defendants, Parsley said it means that “you don’t have to go down the rabbit hole of figuring out things like negligent hiring and negligent training.” It should simplify it so that during the process you are only focused on who actually caused the accident and what the damage is at that time.

In an online commentary about the bill after it passed, the law firm Doyle & Seelbach quoted the lead author of HB 19, state Rep. Jeff Leach, as saying it would “protect commercial vehicle operators from unjust and excessive lawsuits.”

Although the interpretation of the law is complex, it amounts to the assumption that the eligibility rule would place a trucking company at risk for damages related to the actual injuries suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the accident that gave rise to the lawsuit, as long as the transport company had admitted.

Even if the confession is made, there may still be a second part of the trial to determine damages, hence the term “split.” But under the rules of HB 19, the trucking company’s admission in the early part of the trial limits much of the discussion about its practices during the criminal portion of the trial, which could limit the amount of damages awarded.

How would this have affected Werner’s big verdict?

No discussion of nuclear sentences in Texas goes far without including the Werner case. The truck carrier is challenging a judgment dating back to 2019 that originally amounted to just under $90 million but now totals well over $100 million with interest. (The Werner case is on appeal to the state Supreme Court, which accepted the case for review.)

The Werner case was decided well before HB 19 was passed, so the law had no impact on the course of the trial. But Doyle & Seelbach discuss how differently the case would have played out if HB 19 had been in effect.

“A primary reason for the huge verdict was likely that the court allowed plaintiffs to submit company-wide evidence about practices spanning more than a decade, including the company’s high employee turnover and extensive hiring of new and inexperienced drivers,” wrote the law firm. “Had HB 19 been in effect, the jury likely would not have heard this evidence during the initial trial phase.”

Given that the accident at issue in the Werner case involved a personal vehicle crossing the median and colliding head-on with a Werner truck during an ice storm, the fact that Werner could have relied on the eligibility rule would have distorted some of that testimony about Werner practices have not been taken into account. the courtroom, according to Doyle & Seelbach. According to the company, the purpose of the law appears to be “to limit the evidence to those violations that have a reasonable connection with the accident in question.”

But according to attorneys associated with the LSEA, last-minute changes to the bill created a “Frankenstein monster” that made HB 19 so complicated that, as Parsley said, “defense attorneys don’t know how to use it.” As a result, he said, “they’re not using it and it hasn’t made the difference it should have.”

So the LSEA’s goal is to get into the Texas Legislature and remove some of those amendments it considers problematic. Many concern the inclusion of federal truck regulations in the bill, and Parsley said the changes would have negatively impacted the eligibility rule increase in HB 19.

On the other side of the divide could be the Texas Trial Lawyers Association.

Asked to comment on the LSEA’s efforts to amend HB 19, a spokesperson noted that the group has not yet seen specific legislation that would take such a step and that comment would be “premature.”

“Regardless, we believe that the safety of drivers in Texas should be paramount as lawmakers consider any proposed changes to the current law,” the spokesperson said in an email to FreightWaves. “Our members routinely help Texans who have experienced horrific wrecks involving commercial vehicles. So we look forward to working with members of the House of Representatives and the Senate to ensure that Texas drivers are protected from bad actors operating unsafely on our roadways.

More articles from John Kingston

Another nuclear verdict in freight transport: a $160 million reward to Daimler

Missouri court upholds nuclear verdict and slams airline safety practices

NFI’s Brown is seeking dismissal of the New Jersey case, citing a minor role in the dispute