Ector County Crash on US 385: A 13-Day-Old Baby and a Teenager Are Dead — What the Law Says, What the Evidence Shows, and What Families Must Do Now
If you found this page, you are likely sitting in one of two places: a waiting room at Medical Center Hospital in Odessa, or a kitchen table in Mississippi where the phone call came from Texas and the world stopped. A thirteen-day-old baby is gone. A seventeen-year-old is gone. Four other people are hurt. And the thing that will determine whether anyone is held accountable — the physical evidence, the vehicles, the data inside them — is disappearing on a clock that started the moment the crash happened. Not the two-year statute of limitations. Days. Sometimes hours.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We handle wrongful death and catastrophic injury cases in Texas. We are not your lawyers on this crash, and nothing on this page is legal advice for your specific situation. What this page is, instead, is everything we know about how a case like this is actually built — the law, the evidence, the insurance, the medicine, the timeline, and the plays the other side is already running — so that whatever you decide to do next, you do it with your eyes open. The call is free. The number is 1-888-ATTY-911. We answer it at 2 a.m.
What Happened on US Highway 385 Near the SH 158 Service Road
On a Thursday afternoon at approximately 3:50 p.m., a 2024 Chevrolet Malibu was traveling southbound on U.S. Highway 385 in Ector County. A 2022 Dodge Ram 2500 was traveling northbound in the inside lane. According to the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Malibu attempted a left turn onto the south service road of SH 158 and failed to yield the right of way. The Ram struck the passenger side of the Malibu.
According to the Texas Department of Public Safety, a 2024 Chevrolet Malibu, traveling southbound, attempted to make a left turn onto the service road and failed to yield the right of way. The Ram struck the passenger side of the Malibu.
DPS reported that the seventeen-year-old driver of the Malibu and a thirteen-day-old boy, both from Mississippi, were not wearing seat belts and were ejected from the vehicle. Both were pronounced dead at the scene. A passenger in the Malibu suffered serious injuries and was transported to Medical Center Hospital in Odessa. The driver and passenger of the Ram, both from Andrews, Texas, were wearing seat belts, sustained minor injuries, and were also taken to Medical Center Hospital.
The crash remains under investigation by DPS.
That last sentence — “the crash remains under investigation” — is where every family’s case begins. The DPS CR-3 crash report, when it is completed in the next ten to fourteen days, will carry the investigating officer’s diagram, witness statements, contributing-factor findings, and occupant-restraint status. It is the foundational liability document for every claim that follows. But it is not the only evidence, and it is not the most fragile. The most fragile evidence is sitting in two vehicles right now — and the insurance companies that own those vehicles are already making decisions about what happens to them.
The Infant Bears Zero Fault — Texas Law Is Clear About That
Before we go any further into liability or insurance or evidence, there is one fact that matters more than any other for the family of that thirteen-day-old boy: under Texas law, a newborn infant cannot bear comparative fault. Not for being unrestrained. Not for being in the vehicle. Not for anything. A thirteen-day-old child has no capacity to make decisions, no ability to buckle a seatbelt, no power to place himself in a car seat or refuse to ride. Every failure to protect that child falls on the adults who put him in that vehicle and the driver who operated it.
The supplied legal analysis from our forensics team is direct on this point: the infant, as a matter of law, cannot bear comparative fault; any failure to restrain the baby is attributable solely to the driver and any supervising adult. That means when the insurance adjuster or the defense lawyer tries to apportion percentage points of fault to the “unrestrained” occupants — a standard tactic in ejection cases — those points do not attach to the child. They attach to the people who had the legal duty to secure him.
Texas law requires children under two years of age to be secured in a rear-facing child safety seat. A thirteen-day-old infant must be in a rear-facing infant carrier, period. The infant’s ejection from the vehicle indicates either the complete absence of a child safety seat or a catastrophic failure of the restraint system. If no car seat was present, that confirms a negligent restraint theory against the driver and any adult who placed the child in that vehicle. If a car seat was present but failed, that becomes a potential products liability exhibit against the car seat manufacturer — an entirely different defendant with an entirely different insurance tower. The vehicle inspection will answer that question, but only if the vehicle is preserved before it is salvaged.
For families dealing with the loss of a child, we discuss the legal framework for child injury and wrongful death claims in detail — because the law treats these cases differently, and the differences matter.
Who Can Be Held Responsible Under Texas Law
This crash has more than one potential defendant, and identifying all of them — early — is the difference between a case that recovers and a case that recovers nothing from a deceased teenager’s estate.
The Estate of the Seventeen-Year-Old Driver. The primary at-fault party is the driver who failed to yield. DPS has already identified the failure to yield as the proximate cause. Under Texas law, this is negligence per se — a violation of the Texas Transportation Code’s right-of-way requirements for left-turning vehicles. The driver’s estate is the first target, but a deceased teenager’s estate typically has limited assets. The estate’s auto insurance policy is the primary collectible source, and its limits — whatever they are — will be the first ceiling on recovery from this defendant.
The Parents or Guardian Who Owned the 2024 Malibu. A seventeen-year-old does not typically own a 2024 vehicle. The registered owner is likely a parent or guardian, and Texas recognizes negligent entrustment as a common-law cause of action. The theory is straightforward: whoever owned that vehicle entrusted it to a minor driver who then operated it on a highway with an unrestrained thirteen-day-old infant. That is foreseeable harm. Negligent entrustment reaches the vehicle owner’s separate insurance and personal assets beyond the driver’s estate. This theory is often the sole value driver in cases where the at-fault driver is deceased and the estate has nothing.
The Ram 2500 Driver. While the Ram had the right of way, Texas follows a modified comparative negligence standard with a 51% bar. If the event data recorder (EDR) in the Ram reveals excessive speed, driver distraction, or failure to take evasive action, a percentage of fault could be apportioned to the Ram driver. This theory would be pursued by the Malibu occupants’ families — and the Ram driver’s own conduct is under investigation by DPS. The Ram occupants, who sustained minor injuries while wearing seat belts, have their own claims against the Malibu driver’s estate for injuries and vehicle damage.
The Vehicle Manufacturer — If a Restraint System Failed. If vehicle inspection reveals that the Malibu’s seat belts, door latches, or structural integrity failed below federal motor vehicle safety standards, the manufacturer may bear liability for the ejection and resulting deaths beyond the driver’s negligence. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 208 (occupant crash protection) and 214 (side impact protection) provide the regulatory baseline for any products liability theory. The 2024 Malibu is a new vehicle — if the restraint system performed as designed, this theory does not apply. If it did not, the manufacturer is a separate defendant with a far larger insurance tower than any individual driver.
For families navigating the wrongful death claim process, understanding who the real defendants are — not just the name on the police report — is the first piece of work.
The Evidence Is Disappearing Right Now
Here is what we tell every family in the first conversation: the statute of limitations gives you two years. The evidence gives you days. The gap between those two clocks is where cases are won or lost, and the insurance companies know it better than you do.
The Vehicles — Both the Malibu and the Ram. These are the single most important pieces of evidence. The Malibu tells us whether the seat belts were functional, whether the door latches held, whether a car seat was present and how it was anchored, and whether the structural integrity of the passenger compartment was maintained. The Ram tells us the approach speed, the braking input, and whether evasive action was attempted. Insurance carriers will total and auction salvage vehicles within weeks — sometimes days. A preservation demand letter to all carriers and owners must be sent immediately. Once that vehicle is crushed or sold at auction, the evidence is gone forever.
EDR / Black Box Data from Both Vehicles. Modern vehicles carry event data recorders that capture pre-crash speed, braking input, steering angle, seat belt status, airbag deployment timing, and the change in velocity at impact. The 2024 Malibu and 2022 Ram both have EDR systems. This data can be overwritten after a limited number of ignition cycles, or it can be lost entirely if the vehicle is salvaged and the module is destroyed. The EDR data from the Ram is the primary avenue to apportion comparative fault — if the Ram was speeding, that fact lives in the black box. Both vehicles must be impounded and the EDR data imaged by a qualified crash reconstructionist before either vehicle moves.
DPS CR-3 Crash Report. DPS typically completes the CR-3 within ten to fourteen days. It will carry the scene diagram, witness statements, the officer’s contributing-factor findings, and the occupant-restraint status for every person in both vehicles. This is the foundational liability document — but witness statements and officer impressions degrade if not supplemented quickly. A family should not wait for the CR-3 to take action on the physical evidence.
Cell Phone Records. For both the Malibu driver and the Ram driver, cell phone records establish or exclude distraction as a contributing factor. Wireless carriers retain data on their own schedules — some purge records within months. A preservation letter to the cellular providers must be sent within days, not after the CR-3 is completed.
Medical Records and Autopsy / Toxicology. The Ector County Medical Examiner will produce autopsy and toxicology reports for both deceased individuals. These documents establish cause of death, injury mechanisms, and whether any impairment was a factor. Autopsy results may take weeks but require formal request immediately. Medical records for the surviving passenger need HIPAA authorization from the family before they can be obtained.
The Child Safety Seat — If One Was Present. If a car seat existed in the Malibu, it is now either in the vehicle or was removed during crash processing. If it failed, it is a products liability exhibit. If it was absent, its absence confirms the negligent restraint theory. Either way, it must be specifically identified and preserved in the vehicle inspection demand — because if it is not named, it can be discarded as debris.
The preservation letter is the first thing we send. Not after the funeral. Not after the CR-3. The day a family calls us, the letter goes out — to every insurance carrier, every vehicle owner, every cellular provider — ordering them to freeze every piece of evidence before the law lets them destroy it. That letter is not a formality. It is the difference between a provable case and a stack of questions nobody can answer.
How Texas Wrongful Death Law Works for Families
Texas runs two parallel statutes after a fatal injury, and a family that walks through only one door leaves money on the table.
The Wrongful Death Action. Texas’s Wrongful Death Act allows a surviving spouse, children, or parents to recover for the losses they personally suffered — lost financial support, lost companionship, lost services, mental anguish. For the infant’s parents, this includes the complete loss of their child’s life — a loss that Texas law treats with extraordinary gravity and for which there is no statutory cap in a motor vehicle accident context. For the teen driver’s parents, this includes the loss of their daughter — though her own negligence in failing to yield will significantly reduce any recovery under Texas comparative fault principles.
The Survival Action. Texas’s Survival Statute permits the decedent’s estate to recover for the pain, suffering, and medical expenses the decedent experienced between injury and death. For individuals pronounced dead at the scene, the survival claim may be limited — but it is not automatically zero, and the facts of what happened in the moments between impact and death matter. The estate’s claim is separate from the family’s wrongful death claim, and both must be pleaded.
The Statute of Limitations. Texas imposes a two-year statute of limitations on both wrongful death and personal injury claims, running from the date of the incident. For minors, there are tolling rules that may extend the deadline — but a family should never rely on tolling without confirming the current Texas rule with counsel. Two years sounds like a long time. It is not. The evidence that decides these cases is gone in days, not years.
Modified Comparative Negligence — The 51% Bar. Texas applies a modified comparative negligence standard. A plaintiff can recover as long as they are not 51% or more at fault, but their recovery is reduced by their percentage of negligence. The infant, as a matter of law, cannot bear any fault. The teen driver’s estate will face significant fault allocation for the failure to yield and the failure to restrain passengers. The surviving passenger’s comparative fault exposure depends on whether that passenger was wearing a seat belt. The Ram occupants, who were belted and had the right of way, face minimal fault exposure.
No Statutory Damage Caps. Texas imposes no statutory caps on wrongful death or personal injury claims arising from motor vehicle accidents. That means a jury in Ector County can award the full measure of what the evidence supports — economic damages, non-economic damages, and, in cases involving gross negligence, punitive damages. For a thirteen-day-old child, the non-economic damages potential is extraordinary: the mental anguish of parents, the loss of companionship, the complete erasure of a life before it began.
Punitive Damages. Texas allows punitive damages when gross negligence is established by clear and convincing evidence. Knowingly allowing an unrestrained newborn to ride with a minor driver on a highway — if that is what the facts show — is the kind of conduct that can support a punitive damages submission to a jury. Punitive damages are not automatic, and the standard is high, but the infant’s case presents one of the stronger factual frameworks for it.
The Insurance Architecture: Where the Money Actually Lives
Liability is one thing. Collectibility is another. When the at-fault driver is a deceased teenager, the insurance architecture becomes the single most important factor in whether a family recovers — and most families do not know where to look.
The Driver’s Auto Liability Policy. The seventeen-year-old’s estate is the primary at-fault party, but whatever auto insurance covered the Malibu is the first collectible source. Texas’s legal minimum is $30,000 per person and $60,000 per incident for bodily injury — a number that a single night in a trauma center can exceed. If the policy was a standard limits policy, it will be exhausted by a two-fatality crash with a seriously injured survivor. If it was a higher-limit policy, there may be more — but the family will not know the limits until a demand is made and the policy is produced.
The Vehicle Owner’s Separate Policy. If the parents or guardian who owned the Malibu carry their own auto insurance — separate from any policy on the teen — that coverage may respond to the negligent entrustment claim. This is a different policy, with different limits, and reaching it requires pleading the entrustment theory specifically. A general “the driver was negligent” claim will not trigger the owner’s coverage for negligent entrustment.
UM/UIM Coverage — The Families’ Own Policies. This is the part most families never hear about. Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage on the victims’ own auto policies may be the primary collectible source when the at-fault driver is deceased and the estate has limited assets. The infant’s parents in Mississippi may have UM/UIM coverage on their own vehicles that applies to this crash — even though they were not in the vehicle. The surviving Malibu passenger’s family may have UM/UIM coverage. The teen driver’s family may have UM/UIM. Every policy held by every victim’s family must be identified and tendered. UM/UIM stacking — combining multiple policies — can significantly increase the available recovery. This is often the difference between a meaningful recovery and a token payment.
The Ram’s Coverage. The Ram 2500 driver’s insurance will respond to any claims brought against the Ram driver — including claims from the Malibu occupants’ families if comparative fault is apportioned to the Ram. The Ram occupants also have their own claims against the Malibu driver’s estate for their minor injuries and vehicle damage.
Excess and Umbrella Policies. If the vehicle owner carries an umbrella or excess liability policy above the primary auto coverage, that tower may provide additional recovery — but only if the negligent entrustment theory is pleaded and the underlying negligence is established. Excess policies do not respond to claims that are not properly pleaded against the correct defendant.
For families dealing with car accident claims, understanding the full insurance architecture — not just the at-fault driver’s policy — is half the value of the case. The other half is proving the liability. Both halves have to be done right.
What the Insurance Adjuster Is Already Doing
The adjuster’s playbook in a multi-fatality crash is well-established, and it begins within hours of the incident — long before the family has finished grieving. We know this playbook because Lupe Peña, our associate attorney, spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm before he came to our side of the table. He sat in the rooms where claims like yours are priced. He knows how the reserve is set, how the recorded statement is engineered, and how the quick check is designed to close the file before the real costs are known.
Play 1: The “Just Checking In” Recorded Statement Call. Within days, someone friendly will call the family to “check on how everyone is doing” and ask the family to “just tell us what happened” — on a recording. The purpose is not to help. It is to lock the family into a statement before the CR-3 is completed, before the vehicles are inspected, and before counsel can review the facts. A sentence as simple as “I think she was a careful driver” can be quoted later to undermine the negligent entrustment theory against the parents. The counter is simple: do not give a recorded statement to any insurance adjuster — yours, theirs, or anyone’s — until counsel has reviewed the full insurance architecture and the evidence. Say “I am not ready to give a statement” and hang up.
Play 2: The Fast Settlement Check. A check may arrive quickly, with a release attached, before the medical results are in, before the CR-3 is completed, and before the family understands the full scope of what happened. The release on the back of that check may waive every claim the family has — wrongful death, survival, negligent entrustment, UM/UIM — for a fraction of what the case is worth. The counter: never sign a release, never deposit a check from an insurance company, and never allow access to medical records until counsel has reviewed the full insurance picture across both Texas and Mississippi.
Play 3: The “Seat Belt Defense” Apportionment. In an ejection case, the adjuster’s first move is to apportion fault to the unrestrained occupants. For the teen driver, this is a real exposure — she was unrestrained and she failed to yield. For the infant, it is legally impossible — a thirteen-day-old cannot bear comparative fault. The adjuster will try to blur that line. The counter: the infant’s restraint failure is attributable to the driver and supervising adults, not to the child. Any attempt to apportion fault to the infant is legally impermissible and must be shut down immediately.
Play 4: The Independent Medical Examination. For the surviving passenger, the insurance company will eventually send the injured person to a doctor of the insurer’s choosing — an “independent” medical examination that is neither independent nor objective. The doctor is selected by the insurer, paid by the insurer, and produces a report that almost always minimizes the injury. The counter: the family should be treating with their own physicians, documenting every symptom, and refusing to attend an IME until counsel has reviewed the request and the examining doctor’s history with the carrier.
Play 5: The “Limited Policy” Shell Game. The adjuster may tell the family early on that “the policy limits are $30,000” — as if that is the end of the money. It is not. The vehicle owner may have separate coverage. The family may have UM/UIM. There may be an excess policy. The adjuster is counting on the family not knowing where else to look. The counter: identify every policy held by every victim’s family, in Texas and in Mississippi, and tender every UM/UIM claim. The first number the adjuster gives is almost never the last number.
Lupe learned these plays from the inside. He knows how the insurance claim process works because he used to run it. Now he uses that knowledge for injured families — in English or in Spanish, without an interpreter, because fluency is not a courtesy, it is a tool.
The Physics of This Crash: Why Everyone Was Ejected
To understand why this crash killed two people and seriously injured a third, you have to understand the physics — not in abstract terms, but in the specific forces that acted on the specific bodies in these specific vehicles.
A 2024 Chevrolet Malibu is a midsize sedan weighing approximately 3,300 pounds. A 2022 Dodge Ram 2500 is a heavy-duty pickup weighing approximately 6,500 to 7,000 pounds empty — and potentially more if it was carrying anything. That is roughly a 2:1 mass ratio. In a collision, the lighter vehicle undergoes the larger change in velocity — what crash reconstructionists call delta-V. Delta-V is the single best available predictor of occupant injury severity. The Malibu’s passenger side absorbed the Ram’s full closing momentum, and the Malibu’s occupants experienced a delta-V that was dramatically higher than what the Ram’s occupants experienced.
The Ram struck the passenger side of the Malibu. In a side-impact collision, the passenger-side door is the primary intrusion path. If the door latch failed — if the door opened during the collision rather than holding shut — the unrestrained occupants are funneled toward the opening. Without a seat belt to hold them inside the vehicle, the forces of the collision simply eject them through the open door. This is not a rare failure mode. Door latch integrity in side impacts is one of the most litigated crashworthiness issues in the automotive industry, and federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 206 governs door retention — the standard the vehicle inspection will test against.
The thirteen-day-old infant, unrestrained and without the mass or skeletal development to resist ejection forces, would have been thrown from the vehicle at whatever velocity the collision imparted. A newborn’s body is not designed to withstand any crash forces unrestrained — the skull is unfused, the cervical spine is cartilaginous, the body mass is approximately 7-9 pounds. The forces that an adult body might survive with injuries are unsurvivable for a newborn. The teen driver, also unrestrained, would have been thrown toward the passenger-side impact zone and ejected through the same failure path. The surviving passenger — who was on the side that was struck — was, by definition, in the direct path of the Ram’s impact, which is why that passenger sustained serious injuries.
The Ram occupants, by contrast, were wearing seat belts, and the Ram’s mass and structural design absorbed the impact energy on its front end. Their delta-V was a fraction of the Malibu’s, and their restraints held them inside the vehicle. That is why they walked away with minor injuries. Seat belts work. The difference between minor injuries and death in this crash was, in mechanical terms, whether the occupant was restrained.
The vehicle inspection will answer the critical crashworthiness questions: did the Malibu’s door latch hold? Did the seat belt pretensioners fire? Did the side airbags deploy? If any of these systems failed below federal standards, the manufacturer enters the case as a defendant — and the manufacturer’s insurance tower is orders of magnitude larger than any individual driver’s policy.
The Medicine: Ejection Injuries and What They Mean for Survivors
The medical consequences of this crash fall into two categories: the fatalities, which are beyond medical intervention, and the surviving passenger’s injuries, which are still being treated at Medical Center Hospital in Odessa — the Level III trauma center serving Ector County and the surrounding Permian Basin region.
Ejection and Mortality. Vehicle ejection carries one of the highest mortality rates of any crash mechanism. When a human body is thrown from a moving vehicle, it strikes the ground, another vehicle, or roadside objects at a velocity that the body’s skeletal and organ systems cannot absorb. For an adult, ejection at highway speeds typically produces catastrophic blunt force trauma — traumatic brain injury, cervical spine fracture, internal organ rupture, and massive hemorrhage. Death at the scene, as was the case for both the teen driver and the infant, indicates injuries that were not survivable even with immediate intervention.
For the infant specifically, the mechanism is even more devastating. A newborn’s body lacks the skeletal rigidity, muscle mass, and overall structural resilience to absorb crash forces of any magnitude. An unrestrained newborn in a highway-speed collision is subjected to forces that exceed the body’s tolerance by orders of magnitude. The autopsy will document the specific injury pattern — but the outcome was determined the moment the child was placed in that vehicle without a properly secured rear-facing infant carrier.
The Surviving Passenger. The Malibu passenger who was transported to Medical Center Hospital with serious injuries was seated on the side that was struck by the Ram. The injury pattern in a near-side passenger in a side-impact collision typically includes: thoracic trauma (rib fractures, pulmonary contusion, possible aortic injury), abdominal trauma (liver or splenic laceration, bowel injury), pelvic fractures, and traumatic brain injury if the head struck the intruding door structure or window. The severity of these injuries depends on the degree of intrusion into the passenger compartment, the delta-V, and whether the passenger was restrained — a fact that DPS has not yet confirmed for this individual.
If the surviving passenger sustained a traumatic brain injury, the medical picture is complicated by a reality we deal with in every TBI case: a “mild” brain injury — the kind where the patient can still answer questions in the ER — can come with a perfectly normal CT scan. More than a third of patients scored at the very top of the “mild” range on the Glasgow Coma Scale still had life-threatening bleeding inside the skull. A normal scan does not mean the brain is fine. The damage in many brain injuries is diffuse axonal injury — microscopic tearing of the brain’s white-matter tracts that a standard CT was never designed to see. If the passenger’s symptoms persist — headaches, memory gaps, personality changes, difficulty concentrating — advanced imaging and neuropsychological testing may be needed to document what the initial scan missed.
The family of the surviving passenger must be advised of the urgent need to preserve medical evidence and document the full extent of injuries before discharge from Medical Center Hospital. Once the patient is discharged and the acute medical records are completed, obtaining them requires HIPAA authorization — and the records themselves are subject to the hospital’s retention schedule, which can allow destruction after a set number of years.
What a Case Like This Is Worth in Ector County
We will not tell you what your case is worth, because we do not have the evidence yet and because every case depends on its specific facts. What we can tell you is the range that the forensic analysis supports, and the factors that drive where a case falls within that range.
The supplied case value frame for this crash runs from a low of approximately $100,000 to a high of approximately $5,000,000. That range is wide because collectibility — not liability — is the primary variable.
The Low End. The low end reflects policy limits on a minimal auto policy against a deceased teenager’s estate, with no parent assets, no negligent entrustment theory, and no UM/UIM coverage available. If the Malibu carried only Texas’s legal minimum of $30,000 per person and $60,000 per incident, and there is no other source of recovery, the total available from the at-fault driver’s insurance is $60,000 for the entire crash — split among the families of two deceased individuals and one seriously injured passenger. That is a devastating outcome for families who lost a child, and it is exactly why identifying every other source of recovery matters.
The High End. The high end reflects a negligent entrustment verdict against the vehicle-owning parents, combined with UM/UIM stacking from the victims’ families’ own policies, and the emotional weight of a newborn’s death before a West Texas jury. Ector County juries are generally conservative, but they are responsive to cases involving child victims and clear right-of-way violations. A thirteen-day-old baby who was not secured in a car seat, killed by a seventeen-year-old who failed to yield — that is a case that a West Texas jury would feel in the way that matters most. If the vehicle owner’s insurance tower is significant, if UM/UIM policies stack meaningfully, and if punitive damages are submitted, the case can reach the high end of the range.
What Drives the Value. Three factors decide where this case falls: (1) the size of the vehicle owner’s insurance tower — which the negligent entrustment theory reaches; (2) the availability and stacking of UM/UIM coverage from the victims’ families’ own policies, including any policies held by the infant’s parents in Mississippi; and (3) the emotional and evidentiary weight of the infant’s death — which is the factor most likely to move a jury and, by extension, an insurance company’s settlement posture. The liability is clear. The at-fault driver is deceased. The value lives in the insurance architecture.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. The figures above are analytical ranges, not predictions.
The First 72 Hours: A Practical Roadmap
If you are reading this in the hours or days after the crash, here is what matters most — in order.
Medical First. If you are the family of the surviving passenger, the priority is medical treatment — and not just the emergency treatment. Symptoms that do not appear in the first hours can surface in the first weeks. Traumatic brain injury, spinal injury, and internal organ damage can have delayed presentations. Follow every referral. Keep every appointment. Document every symptom. The medical record is being built right now, and it is the foundation of the injury claim.
Do Not Speak to Any Insurance Adjuster. Not the at-fault driver’s carrier, not the vehicle owner’s carrier, not your own carrier — not even your own carrier. Any statement you give can be used against you later. Say “I am not ready to give a statement” and stop talking. This is not hostility. It is self-protection.
Do Not Sign Anything. No release, no authorization, no settlement agreement, no medical records release — nothing. If an insurance company sends you a check, do not deposit it. If they send you a form, do not sign it. Everything they send you is designed to close your claim for less than it is worth.
Do Not Post on Social Media. Nothing about the crash, nothing about your grief, nothing about your family, nothing about your injuries. Insurance companies monitor social media, and a photograph of you smiling at a funeral can be presented to a jury as evidence that you are not suffering. The only safe post is no post.
Preserve Everything. Do not let anyone tow, move, repair, inspect, or dispose of any vehicle involved in the crash without a written preservation order from a lawyer. Do not let any insurance company take possession of the vehicles. Do not let the tow yard release the vehicles to the carrier. The vehicles are evidence, and they are the most fragile evidence in the case.
Identify Every Insurance Policy. Pull every auto insurance policy held by every member of the victim’s family — in Texas, in Mississippi, everywhere. Look for UM/UIM coverage, medical payments coverage, and umbrella policies. These policies may be the primary source of recovery, and most families do not know they exist.
Request the DPS CR-3. The crash report will be available in approximately ten to fourteen days. It can be requested from DPS directly. Do not wait for it — but do get it when it is ready, because it is the foundational liability document.
Call a Lawyer. Not next week. Not after the funeral. The day you are able to make a phone call. The preservation letter — the document that orders every insurance carrier, every vehicle owner, and every cellular provider to freeze every piece of evidence — is the first thing we send. Every day that letter is delayed is a day the evidence is dying. The call is free. The number is 1-888-ATTY-911. We answer it at 2 a.m.
For a broader discussion of what to do after a crash, we have guidance on what to do after a car accident that covers the steps families should take — and the mistakes they should avoid.
The Permian Basin Corridor: Why This Stretch of Highway Is Dangerous
U.S. Highway 385 near the SH 158 service road in Ector County sits in the heart of the Permian Basin oilfield corridor. This is not a quiet rural road. U.S. 385 runs north-south through Ector County as a major regional artery, carrying a mix of heavy industrial traffic — water haulers, frac sand transporters, crude oil tankers, oilfield service trucks — and passenger vehicles on a highway designed for high-speed rural travel. SH 158 is a known east-west route connecting Midland-Odessa to the oilfield towns of Garden City and Sterling City.
Left-turn conflicts at service-road intersections like this one are a well-documented crash pattern on rural Texas highways. The geometry is simple and dangerous: a southbound vehicle turning left across the northbound lanes must cross the path of oncoming traffic that may be closing at 70 miles per hour or more. The turning driver’s decision window — the time between seeing the oncoming vehicle and completing the turn — is compressed by the high approach speed. A misjudgment of two seconds at 70 mph means the oncoming vehicle has traveled approximately 205 feet. A misjudgment of four seconds means 410 feet. On a rural highway with no traffic signal, no turn lane in some configurations, and high-speed oilfield traffic, the margin for error is measured in seconds and feet — and a seventeen-year-old driver’s judgment may not be calibrated to that margin.
Medical Center Hospital in Odessa is the Level III trauma center serving Ector County and the surrounding Permian Basin region. For a crash this severe — two fatalities and a seriously injured passenger — the Level III designation means the hospital can provide initial trauma care, emergency surgery, and intensive care, but may need to transfer patients with injuries beyond its capability to a higher-level facility. The distance from the SH 158 service road intersection to Medical Center Hospital is relatively short by Ector County standards — but for the two individuals pronounced dead at the scene, no hospital could have changed the outcome. The injuries were not survivable.
Ector County juries are generally conservative — meaning they do not hand out large verdicts casually. But they are responsive to cases involving child victims and clear right-of-way violations. A thirteen-day-old infant killed because a driver failed to yield and failed to secure the child is precisely the kind of case that moves a conservative jury. The defendant’s attorneys know this. The insurance adjusters know this. And the knowledge that a West Texas jury would feel this case in their bones is leverage — leverage that exists from the day the crash happens, if the family has someone who knows how to use it.
The Shell Game: Finding Every Defendant and Every Policy
When the at-fault driver is a deceased teenager, the case does not end with the driver’s estate. It begins there. The real work is finding every entity whose decisions contributed to this crash and every insurance policy that might respond.
Who Owned the Malibu? The 2024 Chevrolet Malibu is a new vehicle. A seventeen-year-old does not typically purchase or lease a new car. The registered owner is likely a parent, guardian, or other adult family member — and that person’s decision to entrust a new vehicle to a minor driver who then operated it on a highway with an unrestrained thirteen-day-old infant is the negligent entrustment claim. The vehicle owner’s insurance is a separate policy from the driver’s, and reaching it requires pleading the entrustment theory specifically — not just “the driver was negligent” but “the owner knew or should have known that entrusting this vehicle to this driver was likely to result in harm.”
Who Is the Malibu’s Insurer? The insurance policy on the Malibu — whoever’s name it is in — will be the first source the family encounters. The adjuster for that policy will contact the family quickly. That adjuster represents the at-fault driver’s interests, not the family’s. Any statement the family gives to that adjuster can and will be used to reduce the claim. The family should not speak to that adjuster without counsel.
What Policies Do the Victims’ Families Hold? The infant’s parents in Mississippi may have auto insurance policies with UM/UIM coverage that applies to this crash — even though they were not in the vehicle. UM/UIM coverage typically follows the insured person, not just the insured vehicle, and it can apply when a family member is injured or killed by an uninsured or underinsured driver. The teen driver’s family may have UM/UIM. The surviving passenger’s family may have UM/UIM. Every policy must be identified and tendered. This is not optional. It is the difference between a meaningful recovery and a fraction of what the case is worth.
Is There a Products Liability Defendant? If the vehicle inspection reveals that the Malibu’s door latch, seat belt system, or side-structure integrity failed below federal motor vehicle safety standards, the manufacturer enters the case. General Motors — the manufacturer of the Chevrolet Malibu — is a tier-mega automaker with a substantial insurance tower and a history of crashworthiness litigation. If the restraint system failed, the manufacturer is a separate defendant whose coverage dwarfs any individual driver’s policy. But this theory only exists if the vehicle is preserved and inspected before it is destroyed. The vehicle inspection is not a fishing expedition. It is a targeted examination by a crash reconstructionist and a biomechanical engineer who know exactly what to look for — and what they find determines whether the manufacturer enters the case or does not.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the family of the 13-day-old baby sue if the at-fault driver was also killed?
Yes. The at-fault driver’s estate remains liable for the harm she caused, and the estate’s auto insurance policy is the primary collectible source. Beyond the estate, the vehicle owner — likely a parent or guardian — may be liable under a negligent entrustment theory for providing the vehicle to a minor driver. And the victims’ own families may have uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage that applies regardless of the at-fault driver’s death. The driver’s death does not end the case. It changes where the money comes from.
Does the fact that the baby was not in a car seat hurt the case?
No — it helps the infant’s case and hurts the driver’s estate. Texas law requires children under two to be in a rear-facing child safety seat. A thirteen-day-old infant cannot bear comparative fault for being unrestrained — that failure belongs entirely to the driver and any adult who placed the child in the vehicle. The absence of a car seat is evidence of negligence by the adults, not by the child. If a car seat was present but failed, it becomes a products liability exhibit against the car seat manufacturer — a different defendant with a different insurance tower.
How long does the family have to file a wrongful death claim in Texas?
Texas imposes a two-year statute of limitations on wrongful death claims, running from the date of the incident. For minors, tolling rules may extend the deadline, but a family should never rely on tolling without confirming the current rule with counsel. Two years is the legal deadline. The practical deadline for preserving evidence is measured in days, not years — because the vehicles, the EDR data, and the cell phone records that decide the case can be legally destroyed long before the statute of limitations expires.
What if the at-fault driver only had minimum insurance?
Texas’s legal minimum is $30,000 per person and $60,000 per incident for bodily injury. In a crash with two fatalities and a seriously injured survivor, that is insufficient. But the minimum policy is not the only source of recovery. The vehicle owner’s separate insurance, the victims’ families’ UM/UIM policies, and any excess or umbrella coverage may all be available. Identifying every policy is the most important work in the first weeks of the case.
Can the surviving passenger sue the teen driver’s estate?
Yes. The surviving Malibu passenger has a personal injury claim against the at-fault driver’s estate for medical expenses, future medical needs, pain and suffering, and lost wages. The passenger’s comparative fault exposure depends on whether that passenger was wearing a seat belt — a fact DPS has not yet confirmed. If the passenger was belted, the fault exposure is minimal. If the passenger was unbelted, the recovery may be reduced by the passenger’s percentage of fault, but it is not barred unless the passenger is found 51% or more at fault.
Can the teen driver’s family also bring a claim?
Potentially, yes. The teen driver’s family may pursue wrongful death and survival claims against the Ram driver if discovery surfaces speed, distraction, or failure to take evasive action — even though the Ram had the right of way. However, the teen driver’s own negligence in failing to yield and failing to restrain passengers will significantly reduce any recovery under Texas comparative fault principles. The Ram driver’s EDR data is the primary evidence on this question.
What is negligent entrustment and how does it apply here?
Negligent entrustment is a Texas common-law cause of action that holds a vehicle owner liable for providing a vehicle to a person the owner knew or should have known was likely to use it dangerously. In this case, whoever owned the 2024 Malibu entrusted it to a seventeen-year-old driver who then operated it on a highway with an unrestrained thirteen-day-old infant. That is foreseeable harm. Negligent entrustment reaches the vehicle owner’s separate insurance and personal assets — beyond the driver’s estate — and it is often the sole value driver when the at-fault driver is deceased.
What should the family do right now?
Do not speak to any insurance adjuster. Do not sign anything. Do not post on social media. Preserve every piece of evidence — do not let any vehicle be moved, repaired, or disposed of. Identify every auto insurance policy held by every family member, in Texas and in Mississippi. Request the DPS CR-3 crash report when it is available. And call a lawyer — the preservation letter that freezes the evidence should go out in days, not weeks. The call is free. The number is 1-888-ATTY-911.
Why Families Call Attorney911
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We handle wrongful death and catastrophic injury cases in Texas. We are not your lawyers on this crash, and nothing on this page is legal advice for your specific situation. What we are is a trial firm with 27-plus years of experience in courtrooms, including federal court, and a team that includes someone who knows the other side’s playbook from the inside.
Ralph Manginello is our managing partner — 27-plus years of Texas trial practice, admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, a journalist before he was a lawyer. He handles cases that go to trial, and he handles them with the preparation of someone who expects to stand in front of a jury. Every case we take is built as if it will be tried, because the cases that are tried are the ones that settle on the best terms. Ralph’s background and credentials are available for review.
Lupe Peña is our associate attorney — a former insurance-defense attorney who spent years inside a national defense firm, in the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims. He knows how the reserve is set in the first 48 hours. He knows how the recorded statement is engineered. He knows how the quick check arrives with a release printed on the back before the medical results do. He now uses that knowledge for injured families. Lupe is fluent in Spanish — he conducts full client consultations without an interpreter, because the family that prays in Spanish should be able to fight in Spanish too.
We work on contingency. That means we do not get paid unless we win your case. The fee is 33.33% before trial and 40% if the case goes to trial. The first call is free. The consultation is free. And the number — 1-888-ATTY-911 — is answered 24 hours a day, seven days a week, by live staff, not an answering service.
We serve families in English and in Spanish. Hablamos Español. We have offices in Houston and Austin, and we take cases across Texas — including Ector County and the Permian Basin. If you are at Medical Center Hospital in Odessa, or at a kitchen table in Mississippi, or anywhere else this crash has reached you — the call is the same, and it costs nothing.
The evidence in this case is disappearing. The vehicles, the black box data, the cell phone records, the scene itself — every piece of it is on a clock that started at 3:50 p.m. on a Thursday afternoon. The statute of limitations gives you two years. The evidence gives you days. The difference between a case that holds someone accountable and a case that fades into a DPS report number is whether someone sent the preservation letter before the evidence was gone.
Call 1-888-ATTY-911. Free consultation. No fee unless we win. We answer at 2 a.m.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. This page is legal information, not legal advice. Contacting the firm is free and confidential.