Ector County, Texas: When a Newborn Dies on a Permian Basin Highway — Legal Rights After the US 385 and SH 158 Fatal Crashes
If you are reading this page, someone you love is gone. Maybe it is the child — thirteen days old, brought into this world and taken out of it on a highway in West Texas, in a crash you never saw coming. Maybe it is the teenager who was behind the wheel, a young person you raised and trusted with a car and who made one turn that can never be undone. Maybe it is the woman who crossed the centerline on SH 158 at six in the morning, or the passenger fighting to recover at Medical Center Hospital, or the man in the Ford pickup who walked away with injuries that seemed minor and may not be. Whoever you are, you are reading this in the hours or days after something that does not make sense yet, and you are looking for someone who can tell you the truth about what happens now.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm. We are trial attorneys who take Texas wrongful death and catastrophic injury cases, and this page is the most complete explanation we can give you of what the law does when a crash like this takes a life in Ector County. Nothing here is legal advice for your specific case — that requires a conversation. But everything here is the truth about the law, the evidence, the insurance, and the fight ahead, written by people who have spent decades inside this system. The call is free. The number is 1-888-ATTY-911. You do not pay us anything unless we win your case.
What Happened — The Two Crashes on Ector County Highways
Three people died in two separate crashes in Ector County in recent days, according to the Texas Department of Public Safety. The facts below come from the public DPS reporting on these incidents.
Crash one — US 385 and the SH 158 service road. A 17-year-old girl was driving south on US Highway 385 and turned left onto the service road of State Highway 158. She failed to yield the right-of-way. Her Chevrolet Malibu was struck by a Dodge Ram 2500 traveling north on US 385, operated by a 36-year-old Odessa woman. The 17-year-old driver and a 13-day-old baby boy from Boonesville, Mississippi, were both thrown from the Chevrolet and killed. A 35-year-old woman in the Chevrolet was not wearing a seat belt and was taken to Medical Center Hospital with serious injuries. The Dodge Ram’s driver and her two passengers — a 17-year-old girl and a 40-year-old woman, both from Andrews — sustained minor injuries and were also taken to Medical Center Hospital. All three in the Dodge Ram were properly restrained.
Crash two — SH 158 head-on. A 20-year-old Midland woman was driving a Hyundai Elantra west on State Highway 158 when she crossed the center line and struck a Ford F250 head-on around 6 a.m. She was not wearing a seat belt and was pronounced dead at the scene. The driver of the Ford, a 51-year-old Midland man, was wearing a seat belt and was taken to Medical Center Hospital with minor injuries.
Both crashes remain under investigation by DPS.
US Highway 385 is a major north-south arterial through the Permian Basin, carrying a heavy mix of passenger vehicles, commercial trucks, and oilfield service traffic. The intersection of US 385 with the SH 158 service road is a rural high-speed junction where through-traffic at highway speeds meets turning movements — a configuration that creates inherent left-turn conflict zones. State Highway 158 runs east-west through the Midland-Odessa corridor and carries the same oilfield-related traffic volume. These are not quiet country roads. They are industrial corridors dressed as highways, and the crash data for Ector County’s rural highway network reflects a documented pattern of serious and fatal crashes at exactly these kinds of high-speed intersections.
The Answer Core — Your First Questions, Answered Directly
Can the family of the baby sue?
Yes. Under Texas law, the parents of a child killed in a motor-vehicle crash have a statutory wrongful death claim. They can recover for mental anguish, loss of companionship, and funeral and burial expenses. The child’s estate may also have a separate survival action. These are two distinct legal claims and should be pleaded independently.
How long does the family have to file?
Texas applies a two-year statute of limitations for wrongful death claims, running from the date of death. For the surviving passenger’s personal injury claim, the two-year clock runs from the date of injury. Two years sounds like a long time when you are standing in a hospital hallway or a funeral home. It is not. Evidence disappears in weeks. Insurance adjusters start building their defense file in days. The day you call a lawyer is the day the clock starts working for you instead of against you.
What if the at-fault driver was a teenager with no real insurance?
This is the question that keeps families up at night, and the answer is more hopeful than you might expect. The at-fault driver’s auto insurance may carry modest limits — potentially minimum statutory limits or a moderate family policy. But there are multiple other avenues: a negligent entrustment claim against whoever owned the Chevrolet Malibu and permitted a young, inexperienced driver to operate it on a high-speed rural highway; uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage through the victims’ own auto policy (the infant’s family is from Mississippi, so Mississippi UM/UIM law would govern their policy — and Mississippi UM/UIM law differs from Texas in ways that could be favorable); and any umbrella or excess policy that may sit above the at-fault driver’s primary coverage. Without meaningful UM/UIM coverage or an umbrella policy, practical recovery from a young at-fault driver may be limited — but the full investigation must happen before anyone can know what is actually available.
Was the child restraint issue the family’s fault?
No. The sole proximate cause of this collision was the at-fault driver’s failure to yield the right-of-way to oncoming traffic before executing a left turn. Texas law requires a left-turning vehicle to yield to oncoming traffic that is close enough to constitute a hazard. That rule was broken, and the collision that followed — the ejection, the deaths, the injuries — flows from that single failure. The defense may attempt to argue that proper child restraint would have prevented or mitigated the infant’s fatal injuries, and that argument will be met with pediatric biomechanics expert testimony. But the collision itself was caused by one person’s failure to yield, and that is where the legal responsibility begins and ends. The family should never hear anything from anyone — including us — that sounds like their child’s death was partially their fault.
Can the Ford F250 driver in the second crash sue?
Yes. The driver who crossed the centerline on SH 158 and struck the Ford head-on was at fault, and the Ford driver has a personal injury claim against that driver’s estate and auto insurance. The Ford driver’s injuries were reported as minor, but minor injuries can prove more serious than initially reported, and the claim should be evaluated carefully before any settlement is considered.
Texas Wrongful Death Law — What the Family of a Child Can Recover
Texas treats the death of a child as two separate legal claims, each with its own purpose and its own beneficiaries.
The wrongful death action belongs to the surviving family — the parents, and in some circumstances the spouse or children of the decedent. For a newborn, the beneficiaries are the parents. This claim compensates the family for what they lost: the mental anguish of losing their child, the loss of love and companionship, the loss of the child’s society, and funeral and burial expenses. Texas juries in Permian Basin venues have historically awarded substantial mental anguish damages for the death of a child. There are no statutory caps on non-economic damages in motor vehicle wrongful death cases in Texas — which means a jury is free to value the loss according to its conscience, not a number written by the legislature.
The survival action belongs to the estate of the deceased. It carries forward the claim the child would have had if they had survived — any pain and suffering experienced between the collision and death, and medical expenses incurred prior to death. For an infant who was ejected and killed in a high-speed collision, the survival action may be limited in its factual scope, but it is a separate claim that must be pleaded independently and pursued alongside the wrongful death action.
The distinction matters because these claims can have different beneficiaries, different damages, and different procedural requirements. A generalist might file one claim and miss the other. Both must be filed within Texas’s two-year statute of limitations.
Texas law requires a left-turning vehicle to yield the right-of-way to oncoming traffic that is close enough to constitute a hazard. The failure to yield before turning left onto the SH 158 service road from southbound US 385 is the violation that set the entire causal chain in motion — and it is the foundation of the liability case.
Texas also follows a modified comparative negligence system with a 51% bar. This means that if the plaintiff is found to be more than 50% at fault, they cannot recover. If they are 50% or less at fault, their recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault. In this crash, the at-fault driver’s failure to yield is the clear and primary cause. The defense may attempt to attribute some fault to the adult passenger for the child restraint issue, but Texas’s seat belt defense is generally not recognized to reduce an adult plaintiff’s recovery in the way the defense would like — and the child restraint question is a causation battleground that requires expert testimony, not a simple admission.
Punitive damages are available in Texas upon a showing of gross negligence, subject to statutory caps. If the investigation reveals that the at-fault driver was distracted by a cell phone at the time of the crash, that evidence would support a punitive damages theory and would defeat any comparative fault argument. The cell phone records are a discovery target from day one.
Who Is Legally Responsible When a Young Driver Causes a Fatal Crash
The at-fault driver’s failure to yield establishes negligence per se — a violation of Texas’s right-of-way rules that creates a presumption of negligence. But the at-fault driver was 17 years old, and her insurance limits are likely modest. The real question is who else is on the hook.
The at-fault driver’s estate and auto insurance. The driver’s liability insurance — whether a family policy or a separate policy — is the first layer. Texas’s minimum statutory liability limits are modest, and one night in a trauma center can exceed them. The policy limits must be identified immediately through discovery.
The vehicle owner — negligent entrustment. If the Chevrolet Malibu was owned by a parent or guardian of the 17-year-old — someone who permitted an inexperienced minor driver to operate a vehicle on a high-speed rural highway — a claim for negligent entrustment may lie against that owner. The theory is straightforward: you should not have handed the keys to this person for this drive, and the crash that resulted was a foreseeable consequence of that decision. Negligent entrustment is a separate claim from respondeat superior, and it can reach a defendant with deeper assets than the young driver herself. The vehicle’s registration and title records must be pulled to identify the owner.
The at-fault driver’s family auto policy — umbrella or excess coverage. Some family auto policies include an umbrella or excess liability layer that sits above the primary limits. This is the coverage that turns a modest case into a meaningful recovery, and it is the first thing a competent attorney demands in discovery. Its existence — or absence — shapes the entire case strategy.
UM/UIM coverage through the victims’ own policy. The infant’s family is from Boonesville, Mississippi. Their own auto insurance policy may carry uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage that applies when the at-fault driver’s limits are insufficient to compensate for the loss. Because the family’s policy was issued in Mississippi, Mississippi UM/UIM law would govern the policy’s terms — and Mississippi UM/UIM law differs from Texas law in ways that could affect the recovery, including potentially permitting stacking of coverage across multiple vehicles on the policy. The Mississippi family’s UM/UIM declarations page must be examined immediately. This is the single most commonly missed recovery source in cases where the at-fault driver has limited insurance, and most grieving families do not know it exists until a lawyer tells them.
For the second crash on SH 158, the liability analysis is simpler. The driver who crossed the centerline was at fault, and her estate and auto insurance are the targets. The Ford F250 driver’s injuries were reported as minor, but any injury claim should be evaluated after the full medical picture is clear — not based on initial reports from the scene. For more on how we approach auto-acc injury cases, see our car accident practice page.
The Child Safety Seat Question — Why It Matters and Why It Is Not the Family’s Fault
Texas law requires that a 13-day-old infant be secured in a federally approved, rear-facing child safety seat. DPS reported that neither the teenage driver nor the infant were properly restrained. The 35-year-old woman in the vehicle was also not wearing a seat belt.
Here is what the defense will do with this information, and here is how we answer it.
The defense will argue that the absence of a proper child restraint was the proximate cause of the infant’s death — that even if the collision occurred, a properly secured rear-facing infant carrier would have prevented the ejection and the fatal injuries. This argument is designed to shift blame away from the at-fault driver and toward the adult passengers.
The answer is twofold. First, the collision was caused entirely by the at-fault driver’s failure to yield. Without that failure, there is no crash, no ejection, and no death. The at-fault driver’s negligence initiated the causal chain, and in Texas, the at-fault party takes the victim as they find them. Second, the question of whether a properly secured infant carrier would have prevented the fatal injuries in a collision of this magnitude is a biomechanics question that requires expert analysis — not a lay assumption. A pediatric biomechanics expert may establish that the collision forces exceeded what even a properly secured infant carrier could withstand, particularly when a heavy-duty Dodge Ram 2500 strikes a Chevrolet Malibu at highway speed. The mass disparity alone — a 6,000-plus-pound truck versus a 3,200-pound sedan — means the Chevrolet absorbed forces that may have exceeded any restraint system’s protective capacity.
The child safety seat itself — its presence, its condition, its installation — is central to this causation dispute. Which is exactly why it must be preserved before it is disposed of with the wreckage.
The Evidence Clock — What Exists, Who Holds It, and How Fast It Dies
Every piece of evidence in this case is on a timer. Some of it dies in days. Some in weeks. The job of the preservation letter — sent the day you call — is to freeze every clock before the evidence is legally destroyed.
DPS crash report and reconstruction findings. The official DPS report will contain the investigating trooper’s findings on contributing factors, point of impact, vehicle positions, and witness statements. A preliminary report is typically available within 10 to 14 days. A full reconstruction may take 30 to 60 days. This report frames the official liability analysis, but it is not the final word — an independent reconstruction expert may reach different conclusions from the same physical evidence. DPS is the lead investigative agency for rural highway fatality crashes in Ector County.
Vehicle EDR / black box data. Modern vehicles — including the Chevrolet Malibu and the Dodge Ram 2500 — carry Event Data Recorders that capture pre-crash speed, braking inputs, steering angle, and seat belt status for all seating positions. Federal regulations (49 CFR Part 563) require these recorders to capture a defined set of data elements in the seconds before and during a crash. For the Chevrolet Malibu, the EDR data will show the vehicle’s speed before impact, whether the brakes were applied, the delta-V (change in velocity) during the collision, and the seat belt status for each seating position. For the Dodge Ram, the EDR data will show the approaching speed and whether the driver attempted to avoid the collision. This data is the single most critical evidence in both the liability and the child-restraint causation battle. Vehicles may be salvaged or destroyed within 30 to 60 days of the crash. Once the vehicle is scrapped, the EDR data is lost. The preservation letter must go to all insurance carriers and vehicle storage facilities immediately.
The child safety seat or infant carrier. Whether a rear-facing infant seat was present in the vehicle, whether it was properly installed, and whether it was entirely absent — these facts determine the causation dispute over ejection. The seat may be disposed of with the vehicle within 30 to 60 days if no spoliation letter is sent. The seat must be located, photographed in place, and preserved as evidence before it disappears.
Cell phone records for the at-fault driver. Distracted driving evidence — texting, app usage, or phone calls in the moments before the crash — would support punitive damages and defeat any comparative fault argument against the Dodge Ram driver. Cell phone carrier retention periods vary, but data can be overwritten in 30 to 90 days. A preservation letter to the carrier and a discovery demand for the at-fault driver’s phone records should go out immediately.
Toxicology and blood draw results. DPS may have performed routine blood draws on all drivers. Any impairment finding would dramatically affect liability and punitive exposure. These results are available through the DPS report and should be requested immediately.
Medical records from Medical Center Hospital. The 35-year-old passenger’s serious injuries must be fully documented — the hospitalization, any surgical intervention, the treatment plan, and the prognosis. For the infant, any medical intervention prior to death must also be documented. Medical Center Hospital in Odessa is the region’s primary Level II trauma center serving Ector County and the surrounding Permian Basin. HIPAA authorizations from the patients or next of kin are required to obtain these records.
Scene evidence. Skid marks, debris field, final rest positions of the vehicles, and sight lines at the US 385 / SH 158 service road intersection — all of this physical evidence degrades within days. Tire marks fade. Debris is cleared. The scene should be photographed and measured as soon as possible by a reconstruction expert.
The preservation letter is the single most important thing that happens in the first week. It goes to every insurance carrier, every vehicle storage facility, and every cell phone carrier. It demands that they preserve — and not destroy — the vehicles, the EDR data, the child seat, the phone records, and any other evidence in their possession. Once that letter is on file, any subsequent destruction of evidence becomes a spoliation issue, and a judge can tell the jury to assume the lost evidence was unfavorable to the party who destroyed it.
For a broader discussion of how we handle the insurance-claim process, see our insurance claim practice page.
The Insurance Reality — Following the Money When the At-Fault Driver Was Young
In a case where the at-fault driver was a 17-year-old, the liability analysis is clear. The collectibility analysis is the fight. Here is the insurance ladder, rung by rung.
Rung one — the at-fault driver’s liability policy. This is the first layer. It may be a family auto policy with modest limits, or it may be at Texas’s statutory minimum. The policy limits must be identified through a formal demand under Texas’s insurance code. One night in a trauma center can exhaust minimum limits. This is the floor, not the ceiling.
Rung two — umbrella or excess liability coverage. Some family auto policies include a personal umbrella policy that sits above the primary liability limits — often $1 million or more. This is the coverage that turns a modest case into a meaningful recovery. Its existence or absence dominates the entire valuation. The policy declarations must be produced in discovery.
Rung three — UM/UIM coverage through the victims’ own policy. The infant’s family is from Mississippi. Their own auto policy may carry uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage that activates when the at-fault driver’s limits are insufficient to fully compensate the loss. Because the family’s policy was issued in Mississippi, Mississippi UM/UIM law governs the policy — and Mississippi’s UM/UIM framework differs from Texas’s in ways that can be significant, including the potential for stacking coverage across multiple vehicles insured under the same policy. The Mississippi family’s UM/UIM declarations page is a critical document that must be examined immediately. Most families do not know this coverage exists until a lawyer tells them. For more on how UM/UIM works, our firm has produced a video explanation of uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage that walks through the basics in plain language.
Rung four — the vehicle owner’s separate assets. If a negligent entrustment claim is established against the vehicle owner — the parent or guardian who owned the Chevrolet Malibu and permitted the young driver to operate it — the owner’s personal assets may be reachable beyond insurance, though this depends on the owner’s financial situation and is typically a secondary recovery source.
Rung five — the Dodge Ram 2500’s commercial coverage (if applicable). The article does not indicate the Dodge Ram was being operated commercially at the time of the crash, but in the Permian Basin, heavy-duty pickups are commonly used for oilfield-related work. Whether the Dodge Ram was being used for work-related purposes at the time is a discovery target that could materially alter the insurance coverage analysis. If the truck was on a commercial policy, the coverage landscape changes entirely — though the Dodge Ram driver was not at fault, so her coverage is not a liability target. The point is that the insurance picture in a Permian Basin crash is never as simple as two personal auto policies.
The honest case-value range for the wrongful death of the newborn, assuming all recovery sources are identified and developed, runs from approximately $100,000 at the low end to $3,500,000 at the high end. The catastrophic death of a newborn and the serious injuries to an adult passenger command significant damages in Texas venues, particularly for mental anguish and loss of companionship. But the primary at-fault driver was a teenager whose insurance limits are unknown and likely modest, creating a severe collectibility constraint that dominates the valuation. Without meaningful UM/UIM coverage or an umbrella policy, practical recovery may be limited to low six figures despite catastrophic damages. With adequate UM/UIM and an umbrella, the recovery can be substantially higher. The 35-year-old passenger’s serious injuries warrant separate recovery for hospitalization, treatment, potential surgical intervention, future medical care, pain and suffering, lost wages, and any permanent impairment.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
The Insurance Adjuster’s Playbook — What They Do in the First Weeks
The insurance adjuster assigned to this claim is not your friend, and the first call you get from them is not a wellness check. Here is what the playbook looks like, and here is how each play is countered.
Play one — the recorded statement. Within days, someone friendly will call to “check on you” and ask you to “just tell us what happened” — on a recording engineered to be quoted against you later. Every word you say will be transcribed, taken out of context, and used to minimize your claim. The counter is simple: do not give a recorded statement without counsel. You have no legal obligation to be recorded by the other driver’s insurance company. Your own insurer may require a statement under your policy’s cooperation clause, but even that should be done with counsel present.
Play two — the fast settlement check. A check may arrive quickly, with a release buried in the paperwork, before the medical results are in and before the full scope of the injuries or the loss is understood. The release, once signed, extinguishes all claims — including the UM/UIM claim you may not even know you have. The counter is: do not sign anything from any insurance company without having a lawyer read it first. The first offer is designed to close the file, not to compensate the loss. For more on what not to say to an adjuster, we have produced a video on what you should never tell an insurance adjuster.
Play three — the medical authorization. The adjuster will ask you to sign a broad medical authorization that allows them to pull your entire medical history — not just the records related to this crash. They are looking for pre-existing conditions they can blame for your injuries. The counter is: sign nothing. Your lawyer controls the medical records production and sends only the records that are relevant to this crash.
Play four — the “you weren’t wearing a seat belt” argument. In the first crash, the defense will lean hard on the unrestrained status of the ejected occupants. The adjuster will frame this as shared fault. The counter is that the sole proximate cause was the at-fault driver’s failure to yield, and the child restraint question is a biomechanics issue for expert testimony — not a basis for reducing the family’s recovery.
Play five — delay. The adjuster may say “we need more time to investigate” — a tactic aimed at running out the statute of limitations or wearing the family down until they accept a low offer. The counter is a Texas Stowers-style policy-limit demand at the earliest defensible moment, which creates bad-faith leverage for excess recovery. Under the Stowers doctrine, if an insurer refuses a reasonable settlement offer within policy limits and the case later results in a verdict exceeding those limits, the insurer may be liable for the excess. This is one of the most powerful tools in Texas insurance law, and it is why a well-timed policy-limit demand can change the entire posture of a case.
The Medicine — Ejection Injuries and What They Mean for the Case
When a human body is ejected from a vehicle at highway speed, the injuries are catastrophic by definition. The body strikes the roadway, the surrounding terrain, or other vehicles with forces that the human frame was never designed to absorb.
For the 13-day-old infant, an ejection at highway collision forces is almost universally fatal. A newborn’s body — the skull, the cervical spine, the chest wall, the abdominal organs — lacks the structural integrity to survive the deceleration forces of an ejection from a vehicle involved in a highway-speed collision with a heavy-duty truck. The mass disparity between the Chevrolet Malibu and the Dodge Ram 2500 amplifies the forces transferred to the Malibu’s occupants. The Dodge Ram, at 6,000-plus pounds, carries roughly twice the mass of the Chevrolet. In a collision, the lighter vehicle undergoes a far greater change in velocity — the delta-V that crash-injury scientists use as the single best predictor of occupant injury severity. The people in the Chevrolet absorbed the worst of the physics.
For the 35-year-old passenger who was seriously injured and transported to Medical Center Hospital, the medical picture will unfold over weeks. Serious injuries from an ejection or unrestrained collision can include traumatic brain injury, spinal fractures, internal organ rupture, pelvic and long-bone fractures, and degloving injuries. The full scope of her injuries — and the lifetime cost of treating them — will not be known until she reaches maximum medical improvement, which may take months. A life-care planner may be needed to project the future medical costs, and a forensic economist to reduce those costs to present value for a jury.
The proof problem the defense exploits with ejection injuries is the argument that proper restraint would have prevented the ejection and therefore the injuries. This is where a pediatric biomechanics expert and an accident reconstruction expert work together — the reconstructionist establishes the collision forces (speed, delta-V, direction of impact), and the biomechanics expert testifies whether those forces exceeded the protective capacity of a properly used child restraint system. In some cases, the expert can establish that even a properly secured infant carrier would not have prevented the fatal injuries at the forces involved. In other cases, the absence of any carrier in the vehicle is the decisive fact. Either way, the answer comes from the evidence — the EDR data, the vehicle damage analysis, and the physical inspection of the child seat (or its absence) — not from assumption.
The Second Crash — SH 158 Head-On and the Ford Driver’s Rights
The second crash on SH 158 is a separate case with its own liability analysis. The at-fault driver crossed the centerline and struck the Ford F250 head-on. She was not wearing a seat belt and was pronounced dead at the scene. The Ford driver was wearing a seat belt and was taken to Medical Center Hospital with minor injuries.
The Ford driver has a personal injury claim against the at-fault driver’s estate and auto insurance. His injuries were reported as minor, but “minor injuries” from a head-on collision at highway speed should never be accepted at face value. Symptoms of traumatic brain injury, spinal injury, and internal organ damage can appear days or weeks after the initial impact. The Ford driver should undergo a complete medical evaluation before considering any settlement, and his claim should be evaluated by counsel before he signs anything from the at-fault driver’s insurance company.
The at-fault driver’s estate in this crash faces the same kind of liability as the at-fault driver’s estate in the first crash — the auto insurance is the primary recovery source, and the Ford driver’s own UM/UIM coverage may provide a secondary source if the at-fault driver’s limits are insufficient.
How a Case Like This Is Actually Built — The Proof Story
Here is how a wrongful death case arising from a crash like the one on US 385 is actually built, from the day you call to the day the number is reached.
Week one — the preservation letter goes out. Letters go to every insurance carrier, every vehicle storage facility, and every cell phone carrier. The letters demand preservation of the vehicles, the EDR data, the child safety seat, the phone records, and all crash-related evidence. Once the letters are on file, any subsequent destruction of evidence becomes a spoliation issue with potential adverse-inference consequences.
Weeks two through four — the DPS report arrives and the vehicles are inspected. The preliminary DPS report is obtained and analyzed. The vehicles — both the Chevrolet Malibu and the Dodge Ram 2500 — are inspected by an accident reconstruction expert. The EDR data is downloaded from both vehicles using the proper forensic tools (the Bosch CDR tool for passenger vehicles, manufacturer-specific tools for heavy-duty trucks). The child safety seat is located, photographed, and preserved — or, if no seat is present in the vehicle, that absence is documented.
Weeks four through eight — the insurance discovery. Formal demands go out for the at-fault driver’s family auto policy limits, declarations page, and any umbrella or excess coverage. The vehicle title and registration are pulled to identify the owner and support the negligent entrustment theory. The Mississippi family’s UM/UIM policy is examined, and the coverage available under Mississippi law is analyzed. The Dodge Ram 2500’s insurance and any commercial use are investigated.
Months two through six — the expert work. An accident reconstruction expert analyzes impact speeds, sight distances at the US 385 / SH 158 service road intersection, and whether the Dodge Ram driver had any realistic avoidance opportunity. A pediatric biomechanics expert addresses the child-restraint causation defense — establishing whether the collision forces exceeded what even a properly secured infant carrier could withstand, or whether the absence of any carrier was the decisive factor. If the 35-year-old passenger’s injuries are catastrophic, a life-care planner builds the future-cost projection and a forensic economist reduces it to present value.
Months six through twelve — the depositions. The at-fault driver’s family members are deposed about who owned the vehicle, who permitted the 17-year-old to drive it, and what they knew about her driving experience. The Dodge Ram driver is deposed about her approach speed and avoidance efforts. Witnesses are located and deposed. The DPS trooper who investigated the crash is deposed about the scene findings.
The Stowers demand. At the earliest defensible moment — once the liability is clear and the damages are documented — a policy-limit demand is sent to the at-fault driver’s carrier. If the carrier refuses and the case later results in a verdict exceeding the policy limits, the carrier may be liable for the excess under the Stowers doctrine. This is how a case with modest policy limits can become a case with meaningful recovery.
Mediation. Mediation should be timed after the 35-year-old passenger reaches maximum medical improvement and the DPS reconstruction is complete. By that point, the full scope of the damages is known, the liability is established, and the insurance carriers have enough information to evaluate the case realistically.
For a deeper look at how we evaluate and handle wrongful death claims, see our wrongful death practice page.
The First 72 Hours — What Families Should Do Now
Medical first. If you are the 35-year-old passenger or the Ford F250 driver, your first priority is your medical treatment. Symptoms of serious injury — traumatic brain injury, internal bleeding, spinal damage — can appear hours or days after the initial impact. Do not refuse treatment. Do not skip follow-up appointments. Do not tell anyone — including your own insurance company — that you are “feeling fine.” The words “I’m okay” can be transcribed and used against you. Let the doctors do their work, and let the medical record document what happened to your body.
Do not sign anything. If an insurance adjuster sends you a release, a medical authorization, or any other document — do not sign it. Bring it to a lawyer first. The first documents an insurance company sends are designed to close your claim quickly and cheaply, not to compensate you fairly.
Do not give a recorded statement. You have no obligation to be recorded by the other driver’s insurance company. If they call, take their name and number and tell them you will have your attorney call them back. Then call us.
Do not post on social media. Nothing about the crash, nothing about your injuries, nothing about your grief. Insurance adjusters and defense investigators monitor social media, and a photograph of you smiling at a funeral — taken out of context — can become “evidence” that you are not really suffering.
Preserve the evidence. If you have access to the vehicle, the child safety seat, or any personal effects from the crash, do not let anyone dispose of them. The vehicle and its contents are evidence. The preservation letter from your lawyer is the formal mechanism that freezes this evidence in place, but until that letter goes out, you are the evidence’s only protector.
Call a lawyer. The call is free. The consultation is free. You pay nothing unless we win your case. The number is 1-888-ATTY-911. We answer 24 hours a day, seven days a week — live staff, not an answering service. We can also be reached through our contact page.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue if the at-fault driver was a minor?
Yes. A minor driver’s negligence is judged by the standard of what a reasonably prudent person of that age and experience would do under the circumstances — though in Texas, many courts apply an adult standard of care to minors operating motor vehicles. The at-fault driver’s estate and her auto insurance are the primary targets. If a parent or guardian owned the vehicle and permitted her to drive it, a negligent entrustment claim may reach that owner separately. The minor’s status does not shield the family from liability — it may actually expand it through the negligent entrustment theory.
What if the at-fault driver’s insurance limits are very low?
This is the most common situation in cases involving young at-fault drivers, and it is why UM/UIM coverage is so critical. If the at-fault driver’s limits are insufficient to compensate the loss, the victims’ own auto policy may provide additional coverage through the uninsured/underinsured motorist provision. Because the infant’s family is from Mississippi, their Mississippi-issued policy’s UM/UIM coverage would be governed by Mississippi law, which may differ from Texas law in ways that affect the recovery — including potentially permitting the stacking of coverage across multiple vehicles. An umbtrella or excess liability policy above the at-fault driver’s primary limits is another potential source. Without any of these secondary sources, practical recovery may be limited — but the full investigation must happen before anyone can know what is available.
How long do I have to file a wrongful death claim in Texas?
Texas applies a two-year statute of limitations for wrongful death claims, running from the date of death. For personal injury claims (such as the 35-year-old passenger’s claim), the two-year clock runs from the date of injury. Do not wait. Evidence disappears, witnesses’ memories fade, and insurance companies build their defense file from day one. The day you call a lawyer is the day the preservation letter goes out and the clock starts working for you instead of against you.
Will the fact that the baby was not properly restrained hurt the case?
The defense will try to use this fact to reduce or eliminate the family’s recovery. But the at-fault driver’s failure to yield was the sole proximate cause of the collision. The child restraint question is a causation issue that requires expert biomechanics testimony — not a simple admission that the family is partially at fault. A pediatric biomechanics expert may establish that the collision forces exceeded what even a properly secured infant carrier could withstand. The child safety seat itself must be preserved and inspected to determine whether it was present in the vehicle and whether it was properly installed. The family should never hear anything that sounds like their child’s death was partially their fault.
What is a survival action and how is it different from wrongful death?
A wrongful death action belongs to the surviving family members and compensates them for their losses — mental anguish, loss of companionship, funeral expenses. A survival action belongs to the estate of the deceased and carries forward the claim the deceased would have had — pain and suffering experienced before death, and medical expenses incurred prior to death. In Texas, these are separate statutory remedies and should be pleaded independently. Both must be filed within the two-year statute of limitations.
Can we pursue a claim against the parents of the 17-year-old driver?
Potentially, yes — through a negligent entrustment theory. If a parent or guardian owned the Chevrolet Malibu and permitted the 17-year-old to operate it on a high-speed rural highway, the owner may be separately liable for negligently entrusting the vehicle to an inexperienced driver. The vehicle’s title and registration records must be pulled to identify the owner, and the owner’s relationship to the driver and knowledge of her driving experience must be developed in discovery. Negligent entrustment is a distinct claim from respondeat superior and can reach a defendant with deeper assets than the young driver herself.
What if the Dodge Ram 2500 was being used for oilfield work?
In the Permian Basin, heavy-duty pickups like the Dodge Ram 2500 and Ford F250 are commonly used for oilfield-related work. If either vehicle was being operated in the course of employment or under a commercial policy at the time of the crash, the insurance coverage analysis changes materially — though in the first crash, the Dodge Ram driver was not at fault, so her commercial coverage is not a liability target. In the second crash, if the at-fault driver’s Hyundai Elantra was being used for work purposes, a commercial policy could provide additional coverage. Whether any vehicle was being used for work-related purposes at the time is a discovery target that should be investigated early.
How much is a case like this worth?
The honest answer is that case value depends on the facts — the severity of the injuries, the available insurance coverage, the venue, and the strength of the liability evidence. The catastrophic wrongful death of a newborn and the serious injuries to an adult passenger command significant damages in Texas venues, particularly for mental anguish and loss of companionship. However, the primary at-fault driver was a 17-year-old whose insurance limits are unknown and likely modest, creating a severe collectibility constraint. The case-value range, assuming all recovery sources are identified, runs from approximately $100,000 at the low end to $3,500,000 at the high end. The practical recovery depends on identifying UM/UIM coverage, umbrella policies, and any negligent entrustment defendants with deeper assets. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
Should I talk to the insurance company?
Not without a lawyer. The at-fault driver’s insurance adjuster is not your friend, and the first call you receive is not a wellness check. It is an evidence-gathering operation designed to minimize your claim. Do not give a recorded statement. Do not sign a medical authorization. Do not accept a settlement check. Take the adjuster’s name and number and tell them your attorney will call them back. Then call us at 1-888-ATTY-911.
What should I do right now?
If you are injured, keep your medical appointments and follow your doctors’ instructions. Do not sign anything from any insurance company. Do not post about the crash on social media. Preserve any evidence you have access to. And call a lawyer — today, not next week. The preservation letter that freezes the evidence before it is destroyed is the most time-sensitive step in the entire case, and it goes out the day you call.
Why Attorney911 — The Firm Behind This Page
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We are a Houston-based trial firm that takes Texas wrongful death and catastrophic injury cases, and we have been doing this work since 2001.
Ralph Manginello is our Managing Partner — 27+ years licensed in Texas, admitted November 6, 1998 (Texas Bar #24007597), and admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer, which means he writes and argues with a reporter’s instinct for the fact that wins the case. He is a member of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, the Houston Bar Association, and the Trial Lawyers Achievement Association — Million Dollar Member. Ralph leads the active $10M+ hazing lawsuit against Pi Kappa Phi and the University of Houston (Harris County, November 2025). You can read more about Ralph on his attorney bio page.
Lupe Peña is our Associate Attorney — 13+ years licensed in Texas (Texas Bar #24084332, admitted December 6, 2012), admitted to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas. Lupe is a former insurance-defense attorney. He spent years inside a national defense firm — in the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims exactly like yours. He knows how the reserve is set in the first 48 hours, how the recorded-statement call is engineered, how the IME doctor is selected, and how the quick check with the release printed on the back arrives before the MRI results do. Now he uses that knowledge for injured clients. Lupe is fluent in Spanish — he conducts full client consultations in Spanish without an interpreter. You can read more about Lupe on his attorney bio page.
The firm has recovered $50,000,000+ in aggregate (a firm marketing figure). We do not get paid unless we win your case. Our fee is 33.33% before trial and 40% if the case goes to trial. The consultation is free. We answer 24 hours a day, seven days a week — live staff, not an answering service. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
Hablamos Español
We serve your family fully in Spanish. Lupe Peña conducts complete consultations in Spanish without an interpreter, and our bilingual staff is available every step of the way. If Spanish is the language you think in, pray in, and grieve in — that is the language we will speak with you. Hablamos Español. Llámenos al 1-888-ATTY-911.
The Call Is Free — The Cost of Waiting Is Not
The evidence in this case is on a timer. The vehicles can be salvaged. The EDR data can be lost. The child safety seat can be disposed of. The cell phone records can be overwritten. The DPS reconstruction is still ongoing, and the insurance adjusters are already building their defense file. Every day that passes without a preservation letter is a day the evidence is one step closer to being legally destroyed.
The call costs nothing. The consultation costs nothing. You pay us nothing unless we win your case. The number is 1-888-ATTY-911. We answer 24 hours a day.
This page is legal information, not legal advice, for your specific case. Contacting the firm is free and confidential. Every case is different. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
If you are the family of the child who was killed on US 385, or the passenger who was injured, or the driver of the Ford F250 on SH 158 — call us. Not next week. Today. The preservation letter goes out the day you call, and that letter is the difference between a case built on evidence and a case built on memory. We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm. Legal Emergency Lawyers. We are here.