Fort Pierce FedEx Box Truck Crash on East Midway Road: What Happened, What the Evidence Shows, and What a Grieving Family Needs to Know
The phone call, the text from a neighbor, the sirens you could hear from your kitchen — however you learned what happened on East Midway Road on Monday afternoon, those are the seconds that split your life into before and after. A 9-year-old boy is gone. A 12-year-old is in a hospital bed. And the community that gathered within 24 hours to light candles and hold each other already knows something the official investigation will take weeks to put on paper: this stretch of road has been shared by neighborhood children and commercial trucks for a long time, and everyone who lives here knew it.
We are the trial team at Attorney911, and this page is not a news recap. It is what we wish every family could read in the first hours after a commercial truck takes a child — because the decisions made in the next 72 hours will determine whether the evidence of what happened survives, and whether the people responsible for that truck are held to account. Right now, the most urgent thing is not a lawsuit. It is making sure the truth does not disappear before anyone can preserve it. The FedEx box truck that was on East Midway Road at 3:07 p.m. on Monday carries electronic systems that recorded speed, braking, steering, and possibly the collision itself — and that data can be overwritten the moment the truck goes back into service. That clock is running right now.
You are not alone in this. What follows is everything we know about how these cases work — the law, the evidence, the corporate structure behind that truck, the insurance reality, and the playbook the company’s representatives are already running against families who are still in shock. We are writing this so you have the information before anyone from the other side calls you. If you are reading this at 2 a.m. with a folder of funeral arrangements on your table, we see you. Call us when you are ready. The consultation is free, and we do not get paid unless we win your case. 1-888-ATTY-911.
What Happened on East Midway Road: The Collision and the Community That Already Knew
On Monday afternoon at approximately 3:07 p.m., a dirt bike carrying two children — a 9-year-old boy and a 12-year-old — collided with a FedEx box truck in the 600 block of East Midway Road in Fort Pierce, St. Lucie County, Florida. The 9-year-old was pronounced dead at the scene. The 12-year-old was transported to a local hospital in stable condition. The Florida Highway Patrol is actively investigating the cause of the collision. Less than 24 hours later, the community gathered for a vigil.
East Midway Road is an east-west corridor in St. Lucie County on Florida’s Treasure Coast — a stretch where residential development meets semi-rural open road segments, where families have driveways and children have bicycles and dirt bikes, and where the volume of commercial delivery traffic has grown with the county’s population. Fort Pierce and greater St. Lucie County have seen significant growth, and that growth has pushed more commercial delivery vehicles onto roads that were not originally engineered for heavy truck volumes. The 600 block sits in a stretch where residential access points and open road create mixed-traffic conditions — passenger vehicles, commercial delivery trucks, and off-highway vehicles like dirt bikes sharing the same asphalt.
Here is what makes this corridor legally significant: neighbors have reported, publicly and within hours of the crash, that the area is commonly used by children and others for riding bicycles and dirt bikes. That is not a footnote. It is the foundation of the foreseeability argument that we will build later in this page — the legal principle that a commercial driver operating a route through a corridor known for child activity owes a heightened duty of vigilance, particularly at 3:07 p.m. on a Monday afternoon, when children are likely to be present. The community knew. The question is whether the truck driver and the company that dispatched that truck to this corridor knew, or should have known, too.
The FedEx Ground Corporate Structure: Why “That Truck Is Not Ours” Is the First Fight
The truck on East Midway Road bore the FedEx name, the FedEx colors, and the FedEx branding that every resident of Fort Pierce recognizes on sight. But when a crash like this happens, the first thing FedEx’s lawyers will tell you is that the truck “belongs to” an Independent Service Provider — a small business entity you have never heard of — and that FedEx Ground is not responsible for the driver’s actions. This is the single most important corporate defense in the case, and it is the fight that determines whether the family has access to FedEx Ground’s resources or is left pursuing a small ISP contractor with a fraction of the coverage.
Here is how the structure actually works. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. operates under what is called the Independent Service Provider, or ISP, model. Under this model, route operators own or lease their vehicles, employ their own drivers, and execute deliveries under FedEx Ground’s extensive safety specifications, vehicle standards, route protocols, and branding requirements. The ISP is technically a separate business. The driver is technically the ISP’s employee, not FedEx Ground’s. FedEx Ground’s lawyers will argue that this separation shields the parent company from liability.
We do not concede that argument. Here is why.
FedEx Ground exercises substantial control over virtually every meaningful aspect of the ISP’s operation: the appearance of the driver, the specifications of the vehicle, the delivery timelines, the route assignments, the safety protocols, the training requirements, and the cameras and telematics systems installed in the truck. The public sees a FedEx truck, driven by a person in a FedEx uniform, executing a FedEx delivery route, on a schedule set by FedEx Ground. That creates what the law calls apparent agency — the public reasonably believes the driver is acting on FedEx’s behalf because FedEx has presented the driver as its own agent through branding, uniforms, and operational control. It also creates what the law calls actual agency — FedEx Ground’s extensive control over the ISP’s safety standards, vehicle specifications, route protocols, and driver conduct requirements supports a finding that the ISP is, in substance if not in label, FedEx Ground’s agent.
This is not an academic distinction. It is the difference between a case worth $2.5 million and a case worth $15 million. The ISP may carry insurance, but FedEx Ground is the deep-pocket entity with the resources to fully compensate a family for the catastrophic loss of a child. The ISP agreement between FedEx Ground and the route operator — a document that will be at the center of discovery — will reveal exactly how much control FedEx Ground exercises over vehicle safety standards, driver training, and operational protocols. That document is the key to piercing the independent contractor shield.
The potentially liable parties in a case like this include FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (under apparent and actual agency theories), the Independent Service Provider operating the FedEx Ground route (as the direct employer of the truck driver and owner or operator of the vehicle), the truck driver (for direct negligence in the operation of the commercial vehicle), and potentially the manufacturer of the dirt bike (if a mechanical defect or design hazard contributed to loss of control or failed braking, an issue to be assessed through vehicle inspection). The 12-year-old co-rider’s household may also be drawn into the case if FedEx’s lawyers pursue a contribution claim alleging negligent operation of the dirt bike — though a child is held to a child’s standard of care, not an adult’s, and is not a primary defendant in the wrongful death claim.
For families dealing with the aftermath of a commercial truck crash, our wrongful death practice page provides additional information about how these cases are structured.
The Truck Driver’s Heightened Duty in a Known Child-Activity Corridor
Florida law recognizes a principle that is directly relevant to what happened on East Midway Road — and it is a principle FedEx’s lawyers will work hard to keep out of the jury’s consideration. The Florida Supreme Court established the foreseeability framework in a case called McCain v. Florida Power Corp., and the holding is the backbone of the argument that the truck driver owed a heightened duty of care in this corridor:
“Where a defendant’s conduct creates a foreseeable zone of risk, the law generally will recognize a duty placed upon defendant either to lessen the risk or see that sufficient precautions are taken to protect others from the harm that the risk poses.”
In plain English: when a person or company’s conduct creates a foreseeable risk of harm to others, the law imposes a duty to lessen that risk or take sufficient precautions to protect people from the harm. And the court’s accompanying principle — that “as the risk grows greater, so does the duty, because the risk to be perceived defines the duty that must be undertaken” — means that the more foreseeable the danger, the higher the standard of care.
Apply that to East Midway Road. Neighbors have reported that children commonly ride bicycles and dirt bikes in this area. The corridor’s character — residential development mixed with semi-rural open stretches — makes child activity a visible, recurring pattern of use. The crash happened at 3:07 p.m. on a Monday afternoon — a time when children are out of school and likely to be present in a residential corridor. A commercial driver operating a delivery route through this area should have anticipated child activity and exercised correspondingly heightened care. That is not our argument. That is the law of foreseeable risk as the Florida Supreme Court articulated it.
On top of the common-law foreseeability duty, the truck driver was operating a commercial motor vehicle subject to federal regulation. Under 49 CFR 392.2, every commercial motor vehicle “must be operated in accordance with the laws, ordinances, and regulations of the jurisdiction in which it is being operated.” Florida’s traffic laws apply to all vehicles on public roadways — including speed restrictions, right-of-way requirements, and reckless driving prohibitions. A commercial driver is not just another driver on the road; that person is a professional operator subject to a professional standard of care, including the duty to maintain proper lookout, control speed for conditions, and exercise vigilance appropriate to the environment.
The defense will argue that the dirt bike should not have been on a public road and that the children’s presence was the unforeseeable cause of the collision. The neighbors’ reports — establishing that children commonly ride in this corridor — are the factual answer to that legal argument. This was not an unforeseeable intrusion. It was a known pattern of use in a corridor where commercial delivery trucks and neighborhood children share the same road.
Florida’s Modified Comparative Negligence: The 50% Bar and Your Child’s Standard of Care
This is the single most important legal battleground in the case, and it is the one where the defense will pour its resources. Here is what every family needs to understand.
Florida’s comparative negligence framework was fundamentally changed in 2023. Chapter 2023-15 (HB 837), effective March 24, 2023, added Section 768.81(6), Florida Statutes, which provides:
“In a negligence action to which this section applies, any party found to be greater than 50 percent at fault for his or her own harm may not recover any damages.”
Before this reform, Florida followed a pure comparative negligence rule — meaning even if a plaintiff was 90% at fault, they could still recover 10% of their damages. Now, if the plaintiff is found to be greater than 50% at fault, recovery is completely barred. This is modified comparative negligence, and it changes the strategic landscape of every personal injury and wrongful death case in Florida.
The defense in a case like this will argue that the dirt bike’s presence on a public road, the operation of an off-highway vehicle by children, and the decision to carry two riders on a single dirt bike constitute significant contributory negligence that should exceed the 50% bar. If they succeed in that argument, the family recovers nothing. That is the stakes.
Here is our answer, and it has several layers.
First, the 9-year-old boy was almost certainly a passenger on the dirt bike, not the operator. A passenger’s comparative fault is fundamentally different from an operator’s — a passenger does not control the vehicle’s speed, direction, or decision to enter the roadway. The 9-year-old’s status as a passenger dramatically minimizes his comparative fault exposure.
Second, Florida law recognizes that a child’s standard of care in negligence is adjusted for age, intelligence, and experience, rather than measured by an adult standard. A 9-year-old child does not possess the judgment, risk-assessment capacity, or decision-making maturity of an adult. The law does not hold a 9-year-old to an adult’s standard of care. The defense will try to do exactly that — to measure this child’s conduct by adult standards and then argue the child was more than 50% at fault. That is a fight we are prepared for.
Third, the truck driver’s professional duty of care — heightened by the foreseeability of child activity in this corridor — means that the responsibility to avoid this collision rested heavily on the commercial operator. The defense will try to shift focus from the truck driver’s choices (speed, attention, evasive action) to the children’s presence on the road. The law does not permit a commercial driver to ignore a foreseeable risk simply because the risk involves a child on a dirt bike. The duty to exercise heightened vigilance in a known child-activity corridor does not disappear because the child is on an off-highway vehicle.
The critical variable in this case is whether the 9-year-old’s comparative fault, if any, remains below the 50% threshold. If it does, the family’s recovery is reduced by the child’s percentage of fault but not eliminated. If it exceeds 50%, recovery is barred. Every decision in the case — from evidence preservation through expert witness selection through voir dire — is aimed at keeping that number below the line.
The 12-year-old co-rider, who was transported to the hospital in stable condition, has a separate personal injury claim. Under Florida law, that child may recover economic damages (medical expenses) and non-economic damages (pain and suffering), subject to comparative fault principles, and future medical treatment needs. The 12-year-old’s claim is distinct from the wrongful death claim of the 9-year-old’s family, though both arise from the same collision.
The Evidence Clock: What the FedEx Truck Recorded and How Fast It Can Legally Disappear
This is the section we wish every family could read in the first 48 hours, because the evidence that determines the outcome of this case is dying on a clock right now. Not metaphorically. Literally.
FedEx Ground vehicles typically carry telematics systems, forward-facing cameras, and in-cab cameras. The truck that was on East Midway Road at 3:07 p.m. on Monday may have captured the collision sequence, the driver’s attentiveness in the seconds before impact, the children’s position and visibility, and the truck’s speed and braking. That evidence is the difference between a case the defense can argue was the children’s fault and a case where the truck’s own data proves what the driver did and did not do.
Here is every evidence source, what it captures, who holds it, and how fast it can die.
The truck’s Event Data Recorder (EDR / black box). The EDR captures pre-collision speed, braking input, steering angle, throttle position, and seatbelt status. This data establishes whether the driver took evasive action — and at what speed the truck was traveling when the collision occurred. This is the single most important piece of physical evidence in the case. It is also volatile: EDR data can be overwritten when the vehicle is returned to service and operated. If the truck goes back on its delivery route, the data from the crash can be overwritten by new driving data. The preservation letter must issue within days — not weeks, days.
The truck’s dashcam and in-cab camera footage. Forward-facing cameras capture the real-time visual of the collision sequence — the children’s position, the truck’s trajectory, and the moment of impact. In-cab cameras capture the driver’s attentiveness — whether the driver was looking at the road, at a phone, at a delivery scanner, or away from the windshield. This footage corroborates or refutes the driver’s account of what happened. Camera systems typically overwrite on 30-to-60-day cycles. A preservation demand must issue immediately, because the overwrite window is finite and unforgiving.
GPS and telematics data from the FedEx vehicle. The truck’s telematics system establishes vehicle speed history, route compliance, hard-braking events, and location tracking leading to the point of collision. This data also identifies whether the driver was on schedule — and whether schedule pressure may have contributed to excessive speed or rushed driving. Retention varies by system and carrier policy. A preservation letter is required within days.
The driver’s cell phone records. Distracted driving is a leading cause of commercial truck crashes. Federal regulation 49 CFR 392.80 prohibits texting while driving a commercial motor vehicle. Federal regulation 49 CFR 392.82 prohibits the use of a hand-held mobile telephone while driving a commercial motor vehicle. The driver’s cell phone records will reveal whether the driver was texting, calling, or using an app in the moments before the collision. Carrier retention policies vary, and these records must be obtained through subpoena or preservation demand before they are purged.
The driver’s Hours of Service logs and Electronic Logging Device (ELD) records. Fatigue from Hours of Service violations is a documented contributor to commercial truck crashes. Under federal regulation 49 CFR 395.8(k)(1), a motor carrier must retain ELD records of duty status and supporting documents for each driver for not less than six months from the date of receipt. Under 49 CFR 395.22(i)(1), the carrier must retain a back-up copy of the ELD records for six months on a separate device. Under 49 CFR 395.30(f), the carrier must not alter or erase, or permit or require alteration or erasure of, the original information collected concerning the driver’s hours of service. Six months sounds like a long time. It is not. Falsified logs are a common FMCSA enforcement finding, and the data must be preserved and secured before it can be modified or lost.
The driver’s qualification file and training records. This file reveals the driver’s background, prior violations, training completion, medical certification, and whether the ISP or FedEx Ground properly screened and supervised the driver. Was this driver qualified to operate a commercial vehicle on this route? Did the driver’s record reveal prior safety issues? Was the training adequate for a route through a residential corridor known for child activity? These records are maintained as business records, but personnel turnover and file reorganization can cause loss.
Vehicle maintenance and inspection records. These records establish whether brake failure, tire degradation, or deferred maintenance contributed to the collision or prevented evasive action. If the truck’s brakes were not maintained, or if a required inspection was skipped, the collision may have been preventable — and the ISP and FedEx Ground may be liable for the maintenance failure. These records are maintained as business records, but the vehicle itself may be repaired and returned to service, destroying physical evidence.
Scene evidence. Skid marks, debris field patterns, road conditions, signage, and sight lines. An accident reconstructionist needs this physical evidence to determine speed, point of impact, reaction time, and whether the children were visible to the truck driver. Scene evidence degrades rapidly — weather erases skid marks, traffic wears away debris patterns, and road maintenance can alter the physical conditions. The scene should be documented within 24 to 48 hours.
Witness statements from neighbors and community members. The people who live on and near East Midway Road know this corridor. They know that children ride here. They may have seen the crash. They may have seen prior near-miss incidents involving commercial vehicles. Their statements establish the foreseeability of child activity, the visibility of the children, the truck’s speed, and the history of dangerous interactions on this road. Memory fades within days. Independent statement collection should begin immediately — not after the FHP report is completed, not after the funeral, not after the insurance company calls. Immediately.
The FedEx Ground ISP agreement and safety protocol documentation. This is the document that establishes the degree of control FedEx Ground exercises over the ISP’s vehicle standards, driver training, safety requirements, and operational protocols. It is central to the agency liability battle. It is maintained as a business record, but production requires formal discovery — meaning it comes out only after a lawsuit is filed and discovery demands are served.
The dirt bike itself. Physical inspection of the dirt bike reveals its mechanical condition, any modifications, brake functionality, and collision damage patterns. This informs accident reconstruction and causation analysis. If a mechanical defect or design hazard contributed to loss of control or failed braking, the manufacturer may share liability. The dirt bike must be secured and stored before it is released, repaired, or destroyed. For more information about how products liability applies, the concept of a “products liability action” under Florida law includes civil actions for damages caused by the manufacture, construction, or design of a product, and a manufacturer is strictly liable when a product is in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer.
The FHP crash investigation report. The Florida Highway Patrol’s investigation will produce the official law enforcement determination of cause, contributing factors, witness statements, and any citations issued. This is the foundational document for the case. It typically takes weeks to months to complete, but follow-up with the investigating trooper should begin immediately.
The preservation letter — the legal demand that freezes all of this evidence before it can be destroyed — is the first thing we send. It goes to FedEx Ground, to the ISP, to the carrier’s insurer, and to every third-party data vendor that holds a piece of the electronic record. The day you call is the day that letter goes out. Not the day after the funeral. Not the day after the insurance company calls. That day. Because the truck’s EDR data does not wait for grief. The dashcam footage does not wait for the FHP report. The six-month ELD retention clock is already running, and the 30-to-60-day camera overwrite cycle is already counting down.
When a defendant lets required evidence die after receiving a preservation notice, the law responds. An adverse-inference instruction permits the jury to assume the lost record was as damaging as the plaintiff says it was. Sanctions are available. In some cases, a separate claim for the destruction itself may be pursued. The leverage begins the moment the preservation letter is on file — but only if it was sent in time.
For broader information about commercial truck crash litigation, our 18-wheeler accident practice page covers the full scope of commercial vehicle cases.
Federal Regulations That Govern the FedEx Box Truck
The FedEx box truck on East Midway Road was not just another vehicle on the road. If it was operating in interstate commerce and exceeded 10,001 pounds gross vehicle weight rating, it was a commercial motor vehicle subject to the full federal regulatory regime under 49 CFR Parts 390-399. That regime includes Hours of Service limitations under Part 395, driver qualification standards under Part 391, vehicle inspection, repair, and maintenance requirements under Part 396, and electronic logging device mandates.
Under 49 CFR 392.2, every commercial motor vehicle “must be operated in accordance with the laws, ordinances, and regulations of the jurisdiction in which it is being operated.” If an FMCSA regulation imposes a higher standard of care than state or local law, the FMCSA regulation controls. That means the truck driver on East Midway Road was subject to both Florida traffic laws and the federal commercial motor vehicle regulations — and the higher standard applied.
The distracted-driving prohibitions are explicit. Federal regulation 49 CFR 392.80(a) provides: “No driver shall engage in texting while driving.” Federal regulation 49 CFR 392.82(a)(1) prohibits a driver from using a hand-held mobile telephone while driving a commercial motor vehicle. These are not suggestions. They are federal regulations enforceable under Florida law, with civil penalties under Fla. Stat. § 316.3025(6)(a) carrying $500 for a first offense, $1,000 and a 60-day CDL disqualification for a second offense, and $2,750 and a 120-day CDL disqualification for a third or subsequent offense.
Florida law also imposes specific traffic requirements. Under Fla. Stat. § 316.072(1) and (2), the provisions of Florida’s traffic code apply to the operation of vehicles upon all state-maintained highways, county-maintained highways, and municipal streets and alleys and wherever vehicles have the right to travel — including speed restrictions under § 316.183, right-of-way requirements under § 316.121, and reckless driving prohibitions under § 316.192.
Under Florida law, all owners and drivers of commercial motor vehicles operated on public highways while engaged in interstate commerce are subject to the rules and regulations contained in 49 CFR Parts 382-386 and 390-397. The ISP, as the owner and operator of the commercial motor vehicle, bears a nondelegable duty under 49 CFR 390.11 to require observance of all driver duties and prohibitions, driver qualification requirements under 49 CFR 391.11, and vehicle inspection, repair, and maintenance requirements under 49 CFR Part 396.
The financial responsibility requirements are significant. No motor carrier shall operate a motor vehicle in interstate commerce until it has obtained minimum levels of financial responsibility set forth in 49 CFR 387.9 — including $750,000 for for-hire carriers of nonhazardous property with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,001 or more pounds. The MCS-90 endorsement, required under 49 CFR 387.15, provides guaranteed coverage for public liability resulting from negligence in the operation, maintenance, or use of motor vehicles subject to the financial responsibility requirements of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 — regardless of whether or not each motor vehicle is specifically described in the policy. This means the insurer cannot escape coverage by arguing the specific truck was not listed on the policy.
Negligence Per Se: When a Regulatory Violation Becomes Presumptive Negligence
Florida law treats regulatory violations differently depending on the type of regulation violated. Under Dejesus v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 281 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1973), and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Forbes, 783 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), violation of a statute or regulation that establishes a duty to take precautions to protect a particular class of persons from a particular type of injury constitutes negligence per se — meaning the violation itself establishes the breach of duty, and the plaintiff does not need to separately prove that the defendant’s conduct was unreasonable.
Violation of any other statute or regulation — including general traffic regulations — constitutes prima facie evidence of negligence, for which proximate cause and the other elements of actionable negligence must still be proven independently. This is reflected in Florida Standard Jury Instruction 401.9.
FMCSA regulations are incorporated into Florida law by Fla. Stat. § 316.3025. That means a violation of an FMCSA regulation — such as the texting prohibition under 49 CFR 392.80, the hand-held phone prohibition under 49 CFR 392.82, the Hours of Service limitations under Part 395, or the vehicle maintenance requirements under Part 396 — is not just a regulatory infraction. It is evidence of negligence under Florida law. If the truck driver was texting at 3:07 p.m. on East Midway Road, that violation is presumptive evidence of negligence. If the driver had been on duty beyond the legal Hours of Service limits, the fatigue from that violation is evidence of negligence. If the truck’s brakes were not maintained as required, the maintenance failure is evidence of negligence.
This is why the EDR data, the cell phone records, the ELD records, and the maintenance file are not just documents — they are the proof of regulatory violations that establish presumptive negligence under Florida law. The evidence clock is ticking because the proof of the violation is inside the data that can be erased.
Florida’s Wrongful Death Act: What Parents of a Deceased Minor Child Can Recover
Florida’s Wrongful Death Act is the statute that governs the family’s claim. It is specific about who can recover and what they can recover, and getting this right matters more than any other single piece of legal information on this page.
Under Florida law, the parents of a deceased minor child are statutory survivors. Florida Statutes 768.18(1) defines the survivors who are entitled to recover, and Florida Statutes 768.18(2) defines “minor children” as children under 25 years of age — meaning the parents of the 9-year-old boy qualify as statutory survivors.
Pursuant to Florida Statutes 768.21(4), each parent of a deceased minor child may recover for mental pain and suffering from the date of injury. This is the core non-economic damage category available to the parents — the mental anguish, the grief, the devastation of losing a child. It is important to understand what this statute provides and what it does not. The statute grants parents of a deceased minor child the right to recover for mental pain and suffering. The categories of “loss of companionship” and “loss of guidance and protection” that sometimes appear in general discussions of wrongful death damages are available under Florida Statutes 768.21(3) to children of the decedent — not to parents. What the parents of this 9-year-old boy can recover is mental pain and suffering from the date of injury, and that category is substantial.
The wrongful death action must be brought by the decedent’s personal representative, who recovers for the benefit of the survivors and the estate under Florida Statutes 768.20. This means the court will appoint a personal representative — typically a parent or close family member — who is the person authorized by law to bring the family’s claim. We handle that appointment as part of the case.
The estate may recover medical expenses (emergency response costs and any treatment provided prior to pronouncement of death), funeral and burial costs, and net accumulations to the estate. For a 9-year-old child, net accumulations would be limited — the child had not yet begun earning income — but the funeral and burial costs and any medical expenses are recoverable.
Florida does not impose statutory caps on non-economic damages in general negligence or commercial trucking cases. The caps that exist in Florida law apply to medical negligence actions, not to commercial vehicle crashes. This means the jury’s assessment of the parents’ mental pain and suffering is not artificially limited by a statutory ceiling. The value of that suffering — the loss of a 9-year-old child, killed violently on a road in his own neighborhood — is determined by the jury, not by a cap.
For additional resources, our parents’ guide to child injury lawsuits provides more information about the legal rights of families with injured children.
Punitive Damages: When Negligence Becomes Gross Negligence
Under Florida law, punitive damages are not automatically available in every negligence case. They require a specific showing. Under Florida Statutes 768.72(1), no claim for punitive damages is permitted unless the claimant makes a reasonable showing by evidence in the record or proffered providing a reasonable basis for recovery. A defendant may be held liable for punitive damages only if the trier of fact, based on clear and convincing evidence, finds the defendant was personally guilty of gross negligence — which the statute defines as conduct “so reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a conscious disregard or indifference to the life, safety, or rights of persons exposed to such conduct” under § 768.72(2)(b). At trial, the plaintiff must establish entitlement to punitive damages by clear and convincing evidence under § 768.725, Florida Statutes.
What could elevate this case from negligence to gross negligence? Discovery may reveal several possibilities. If the truck driver was texting or using a hand-held phone in the moments before impact — after operating through a corridor known for child activity — that conduct may constitute a conscious disregard for the safety of persons the driver should have anticipated being present. If the driver was operating beyond Hours of Service limits and fatigue contributed to the failure to take evasive action, the falsification of logs and the decision to drive while impaired by fatigue may rise to gross negligence. If the ISP or FedEx Ground knew of prior safety issues with this driver and failed to act, the decision to continue allowing the driver to operate through residential corridors may constitute a conscious disregard for the safety of the community.
Punitive damages are not a given. They require evidence and a judicial determination that the statutory threshold is met. But the possibility is real, and it is part of why the evidence preservation effort must be immediate — the data that proves gross negligence is the same data that can be overwritten within days.
The Insurance Reality: Coverage Layers and the MCS-90 Endorsement
The insurance landscape in a FedEx Ground case is layered, and understanding the layers is half the value of the case.
The ISP — the Independent Service Provider that owned the truck and employed the driver — carries its own commercial vehicle insurance. The federal minimum financial responsibility requirement for a for-hire carrier of nonhazardous property with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,001 or more pounds is $750,000 under 49 CFR 387.9. That is the floor. The ISP may carry more, but the policy limits and the identity of the carrier must be discovered.
The MCS-90 endorsement — required under 49 CFR 387.15 — provides that the insurer must pay, within the limits of liability described in the endorsement, any final judgment recovered against the insured for public liability resulting from negligence in the operation, maintenance, or use of motor vehicles subject to the financial responsibility requirements of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, regardless of whether or not each motor vehicle is specifically described in the policy. This means the insurer cannot deny coverage by arguing that the specific truck involved in the crash was not listed on the policy. The MCS-90 endorsement guarantees coverage for public liability.
FedEx Ground may carry its own insurance or self-insured retention layer above the ISP’s policy. The corporate structure — with FedEx Ground exercising control over safety standards and operational protocols while the ISP technically owns the vehicle and employs the driver — creates a contested insurance landscape. FedEx Ground’s insurers will argue that the ISP’s policy is the primary coverage and that FedEx Ground’s coverage does not apply because the driver was not its employee. We contest that argument through the agency theories discussed above.
Florida also recognizes a bad-faith framework that can expose an insurer to liability exceeding policy limits. Under Florida Statutes 624.155(1)(b)1., an insurer commits a civil wrong by “[n]ot attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.” Under § 624.155(11), recoverable damages may include an award or judgment in an amount that exceeds the policy limits. The common-law duty of good faith in settlement was recognized by the Florida Supreme Court in Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, 386 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1980).
Where liability is clear and a judgment in excess of policy limits is likely, the insurer has an affirmative duty to initiate settlement negotiations. Under Florida law, as the Florida Supreme Court held in Harvey v. GEICO General Insurance Co., 259 So. 3d 1, 7 (Fla. 2018), an insurer’s failure to settle when it could and should have done so exposes it to bad-faith liability. Under § 624.155(4)(a), no bad-faith action lies if the insurer tenders the lesser of the policy limits or the amount demanded within 90 days after receiving actual notice of a claim accompanied by sufficient evidence to support the amount of the claim. A demand structured to provide the insurer with such actual notice and sufficient evidence starts the 90-day clock. If the carrier fails to tender within that period, it exposes itself to bad-faith liability with damages that may exceed the policy limits.
This is the leverage structure. A well-crafted settlement demand — supported by the evidence we preserve in the first weeks — creates a choice for the insurer: settle within policy limits, or face a bad-faith claim that exposes the full judgment amount. In a case involving the death of a 9-year-old child, the exposure is catastrophic, and the insurer knows it.
The Insurance Adjuster’s Playbook: What FedEx’s Representatives Will Try — and How to Counter Each Play
Within days of the crash — sometimes within hours — the family will hear from representatives of the trucking company’s insurer. These contacts will be friendly, sympathetic, and designed to extract information that limits the company’s liability. Here are the plays, in the order they typically appear, and the counter to each.
Play 1: The “Just Checking On You” Recorded Statement Call. An adjuster will call and express concern for the family. The conversation will feel warm and human. Then the adjuster will ask the family to “just tell us what happened” — on a recording. Everything said on that recording will be transcribed, analyzed, and potentially used to reduce or deny the claim. The adjuster is trained to ask questions that elicit answers minimizing the truck driver’s role — “Did you see the truck swerve?” (implying the truck tried to avoid the crash), “How fast was the dirt bike going?” (shifting focus to the children), “Were the children wearing helmets?” (building a comparative fault argument). The counter: do not give a recorded statement to anyone representing the trucking company or its insurer. Not now, not later, not ever without your attorney present. Everything you say will be used against this family. Say, “I am not giving a statement at this time. Please contact my attorney.”
Play 2: The Fast Check With a Release Attached. A check may arrive quickly — sometimes before the funeral, sometimes before the medical bills are tallied. The check will come with a release document that, once signed, extinguishes the family’s right to pursue any further compensation. The amount will seem substantial in the moment — $10,000, $25,000, even $50,000 — but it is a fraction of what the case is worth, and the release is permanent. The counter: do not sign any document from the carrier, the ISP, or their insurance representatives. Do not accept any check. Do not cash any check — cashing a check with a release printed on it can constitute acceptance of the release terms. Every document that arrives should go to your attorney unread and unsigned.
Play 3: The “You Assumed the Risk” and “The Children Were at Fault” Defense. The defense will argue that the dirt bike should not have been on a public road, that the children were operating an off-highway vehicle negligently, and that the children’s own conduct was the primary cause of the collision. This argument is designed to push the 9-year-old’s comparative fault above the 50% threshold under § 768.81(6), Florida Statutes, which would bar the family’s recovery entirely. The counter: the 9-year-old was a passenger, not the operator — his comparative fault is minimal. A child is held to a child’s standard of care, not an adult’s. The truck driver’s professional duty of care in a known child-activity corridor was heightened by the foreseeability of child activity. The defense will try to make this case about the dirt bike. We make it about the truck — the speed, the attention, the evasive action the driver did or did not take, and the data that proves it.
Play 4: Social Media Monitoring. The insurance company will monitor the family’s social media accounts — Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X. Posts about the vigil, photos of the family at community events, statements about the crash, even photos of family members smiling at a gathering will be screenshotted and potentially used to argue that the family’s grief is not as severe as claimed. The counter: do not post about the crash, the legal process, the trucking company, or the children on social media. Set all accounts to private. Tell family members and friends not to post about the crash. Assume everything posted will be read by the defense.
Play 5: The Independent Medical Examination (IME). For the 12-year-old co-rider’s personal injury claim, the insurance company may demand an “independent” medical examination — which is not independent at all. The doctor is selected and paid by the insurance company, and the examination is designed to minimize the child’s injuries. The counter: the 12-year-old’s medical treatment should be directed by the family’s own physicians, not the insurance company’s doctor. Any IME demand should be handled through counsel.
Play 6: The Delay Aimed at the Statute of Limitations. The insurer may delay negotiations, request additional documentation, offer to “continue discussions,” and otherwise run out the clock toward the statute of limitations. In Florida, the wrongful death statute of limitations runs two years from the date of death, and the general negligence statute of limitations is two years for causes of action accruing after March 24, 2023, under Fla. Stat. § 95.11(5)(a). The counter: the statute of limitations is a hard deadline, but the evidence clock is the more urgent one. The case must be filed before the SOL expires, but the evidence must be preserved within days — not months. Do not let the insurer’s delays lull you into missing either deadline.
Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Training: The ISP’s Direct Liability
Beyond the truck driver’s direct negligence and FedEx Ground’s vicarious liability through agency, the ISP and potentially FedEx Ground face direct negligence claims for their own corporate failures.
Under Florida law, an employer may be liable for negligent hiring if it failed to make an appropriate investigation that would have revealed the driver’s unsuitability, and it was unreasonable to hire the driver in light of what was known or knowable. This principle was established in Garcia v. Duffy, 492 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). An employer may be liable for negligent supervision if, during employment, it became aware or should have become aware of problems indicating the driver’s unfitness and unreasonably failed to investigate, discharge, reassign, or otherwise respond — also established in Garcia v. Duffy and reinforced in Hardy, 907 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). An employer may be liable for negligent training if it knew or should have known the driver’s training was inadequate for his duties and that inadequacy was a proximate cause of the injury, as held in Texas Skaggs, Inc. v. Joannides, 372 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
A qualifying background investigation under Florida Statutes 768.096 creates a presumption against negligent hiring for an employee’s later intentional tort — but that presumption does not shield the employer from claims arising from ordinary negligence in the operation of a vehicle. The question in this case is whether the ISP properly screened, trained, and supervised the truck driver — particularly for a route that runs through a residential corridor known for child activity.
A direct-negligence claim against a corporate employer generally requires that the employee’s tortious act was committed outside the course and scope of employment, as the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal recently addressed in Gabor, 413 So. 3d 261 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025). This is a nuanced area, and the pleadings must be structured carefully to preserve both the vicarious liability claims (through agency) and the direct negligence claims (through the corporate defendants’ own failures).
How a Case Like This Is Actually Built: The Proof Story
Here is the chronological walk of how a case like this moves from the day of the crash to resolution. This is not a summary. It is the actual sequence, told by people who have lived it.
Week one. The preservation letter goes out — to FedEx Ground, to the ISP, to the carrier’s insurer, and to every third-party data vendor that holds electronic evidence. The letter demands preservation of the EDR data, the dashcam and in-cab camera footage, the GPS and telematics data, the driver’s cell phone records, the Hours of Service logs and ELD records, the driver qualification file, the vehicle maintenance records, and the FedEx Ground ISP agreement. The letter puts every recipient on notice that destruction of this evidence will result in adverse-inference instructions and sanctions. The scene is independently documented — photographs, measurements, witness identification. The dirt bike is secured and stored. The personal representative is appointed by the court.
Weeks two through eight. The FHP crash investigation report is requested and monitored. Supplemental witness statements are collected while memories are fresh. The truck’s EDR is downloaded — before the vehicle can be returned to service and the data overwritten. The cell phone records are subpoenaed. The ELD records are obtained. The maintenance file is produced. The driver qualification file is reviewed. Expert witnesses are retained — an accident reconstructionist to determine speed, point of impact, reaction time, and sight lines; a trucking safety expert to evaluate FMCSA compliance, FedEx Ground safety protocols, and industry standards for operating in residential corridors; and a forensic economist to calculate the economic losses.
Months two through six. The lawsuit is filed in St. Lucie County Circuit Court — where the jury will be drawn from the community that knew these children, that knew this corridor, and that gathered to mourn within 24 hours of the crash. The FedEx Ground ISP agreement is produced in discovery, revealing the degree of control FedEx Ground exercises over vehicle standards, driver training, safety requirements, and operational protocols. Depositions are conducted — the truck driver, the ISP’s safety director, FedEx Ground’s corporate representatives. The depositions are where the corporate choices are exposed under oath: what the company knew about this corridor, what training the driver received, what safety standards were imposed, and whether they were followed.
Months six through twelve. Expert reports are exchanged. The accident reconstructionist’s findings are compared against the EDR data and the dashcam footage. The trucking safety expert’s analysis of FMCSA compliance is tested against the driver’s logs and the maintenance records. The forensic economist’s calculation of the economic losses — funeral costs, medical expenses, net accumulations to the estate — is finalized. The settlement demand is structured to create bad-faith leverage: it provides the insurer with actual notice of the claim and sufficient evidence to support the amount demanded, starting the 90-day clock under § 624.155(4)(a).
Mediation and resolution. Most commercial trucking wrongful death cases resolve through mediation before trial. The leverage is the evidence — the data that proves what the truck driver did and did not do, the corporate records that establish control and liability, and the bad-faith exposure if the insurer declines to settle within policy limits when liability and damages warrant it. The catastrophic nature of a child’s death — and the community’s knowledge of this corridor’s danger — creates a settlement environment where the full value of the case can be realized without the uncertainty of trial.
If the case does proceed to trial, the jury is twelve people from St. Lucie County. They know East Midway Road. They may know children who ride there. They will hear the evidence — the speed data, the camera footage, the driver’s logs, the corporate structure — and they will decide what a 9-year-old child’s life was worth to the family that lost him. In Florida, that determination is not capped by statute in a commercial trucking case. The jury’s assessment stands.
For more information about how commercial truck crash cases work, our definitive guide to commercial truck accidents covers the full landscape.
The First 72 Hours: What to Do and What Never to Do
This is the practical roadmap for the family in the hours and days after the crash. Every item on this list is something we have seen families do — or not do — in the aftermath of a commercial truck collision, and every item matters.
Do seek medical attention for everyone involved. The 12-year-old is in the hospital, but family members who witnessed the crash, who arrived at the scene, or who are experiencing acute grief should also be evaluated. The physical and psychological effects of a sudden, violent loss are real, and documentation matters.
Do not give a recorded statement to anyone representing the trucking company, the ISP, or their insurer. Not now, not later. Say, “I am not giving a statement. Please contact my attorney.”
Do not sign any document from the carrier, the ISP, or their insurance representatives. This includes checks, releases, authorizations, or any form presented as “routine paperwork.” Every document should go to your attorney unread and unsigned.
Do not discuss the crash on social media. Do not post about the collision, the legal process, the trucking company, or the children. Set all accounts to private. Tell family members and friends not to post about the crash. Assume everything posted will be read by the defense.
Do preserve physical evidence. If there are photographs, videos, or physical items from the scene, secure them. The dirt bike must be stored — not released, not repaired, not destroyed.
Do begin independent witness identification. Neighbors who saw the crash, who know the corridor’s history of child activity, or who have witnessed prior near-miss incidents involving commercial vehicles should be identified while their memories are fresh. Statements should be collected promptly.
Do understand the personal representative appointment. The wrongful death action must be brought by the decedent’s personal representative. This is a court appointment, and it is the first legal step in the case. We handle this as part of the representation.
Do call us. The preservation letter goes out the day you call. The evidence clock is running, and every day that passes is a day the truck’s data, the camera footage, and the driver’s logs are one day closer to being legally erased. The consultation is free. We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week — live staff, not an answering service. 1-888-ATTY-911.
How Much Is a Case Like This Worth?
We answer this honestly because the family needs to know what is at stake and because honesty about value is the foundation of trust.
Based on the facts as reported and the forensic analysis, the case value range for this collision is estimated at $2,500,000 on the low end to $15,000,000 on the high end. This range is wide because the case involves a contested causation battleground — the dirt bike on a public road, two children on one vehicle — and the critical variable of whether the 9-year-old’s comparative fault, if any, remains below the 50% modified comparative negligence threshold under Florida’s tort reform framework.
The low end assumes significant comparative fault allocation reducing recovery, a negotiated settlement before trial, and uncertainty in FedEx’s ISP agency findings. If the defense succeeds in arguing that the children’s presence on the dirt bike was more than 50% of the fault, recovery could be barred entirely — which is why every effort is directed at keeping the 9-year-old’s comparative fault below the threshold.
The high end assumes strong liability against the truck driver, FedEx Ground held liable under apparent or actual agency, full non-economic damages for the catastrophic loss of a child, and potential punitive damages if discovery reveals gross negligence or regulatory violations. The high end also assumes the EDR data, the dashcam footage, and the driver’s logs prove that the truck driver failed to exercise the heightened vigilance required in a known child-activity corridor.
No attorney can guarantee a specific result. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. The value of this case will be determined by the evidence — and the evidence is what we work to preserve from the first day.
The Foreseeability Framework: Why the Neighbors’ Reports Are the Heart of the Case
The neighbors’ reports that children commonly ride bicycles and dirt bikes on East Midway Road are not background color. They are the factual foundation of the foreseeability argument that defines the truck driver’s duty of care. The McCain v. Florida Power Corp. foreseeability framework — that “as the risk grows greater, so does the duty, because the risk to be perceived defines the duty that must be undertaken” — transforms the community’s knowledge into the commercial driver’s legal obligation.
A commercial driver who operates a delivery route through a corridor where children are known to ride owes a heightened duty to anticipate child activity and to exercise correspondingly heightened care. The 3:07 p.m. timing — a Monday afternoon, after-school hours — makes the foreseeability argument stronger. The residential character of the corridor makes it stronger still. The neighbors’ public statements, given within hours of the crash, are admissible evidence of the corridor’s known pattern of use.
The defense will try to make this case about the dirt bike. We make it about the corridor — the road the community knows, the time of day the crash occurred, and the professional duty of a commercial driver operating a large truck through a neighborhood where children ride. The generalist misses this. The generalist files a complaint that names the driver’s negligence without anchoring it to the foreseeability framework that defines the heightened duty. The generalist does not collect the neighbors’ statements about the corridor’s history of child activity, does not retain a trucking safety expert to testify about the standard of care for operating in residential corridors, and does not build the foreseeability argument into every phase of the case — from the preservation demand through voir dire through closing argument. The foreseeability framework is the spine of this case, and it is the thing the other side was counting on the family never learning about.
The FedEx Ground ISP Agreement: The Central Discovery Battleground
The FedEx Ground ISP agreement is the single most important document in the corporate liability battle. It is the document that establishes the degree of control FedEx Ground exercises over the ISP’s vehicle standards, driver training, safety requirements, and operational protocols — and it is the document that determines whether FedEx Ground can be held liable under actual agency theory despite the independent contractor label.
The ISP agreement will reveal what FedEx Ground requires of its route operators: the vehicle specifications the ISP must meet, the safety inspections FedEx Ground mandates, the driver training requirements FedEx Ground imposes, the delivery timelines FedEx Ground sets, the cameras and telematics systems FedEx Ground requires to be installed in the vehicles, and the branding and uniform requirements that create the public appearance of FedEx control. Every one of these requirements is evidence of actual agency — evidence that FedEx Ground controls the work, not just the outcome.
The apparent agency case does not depend on the ISP agreement. It depends on what the public sees: a FedEx-branded truck, a FedEx-uniformed driver, a FedEx delivery route, and the public’s reasonable expectation that the driver is acting on FedEx’s behalf. The community of Fort Pierce sees a FedEx truck on East Midway Road and believes FedEx is responsible for that truck’s operation. That belief — reasonable, widely held, and cultivated by FedEx’s branding — is the foundation of apparent agency liability.
The ISP agreement is maintained as a business record, but it is not voluntarily produced. It comes out only through formal discovery — after the lawsuit is filed and discovery demands are served. This is another reason the case must be filed promptly: the ISP agreement is not something we can request before filing. It is something we compel through litigation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the family sue FedEx if the truck was operated by an independent contractor?
Yes — and this is the central legal battle. FedEx Ground operates through the Independent Service Provider model, where route operators own vehicles and employ drivers. FedEx Ground’s lawyers will argue that the ISP is an independent contractor and that FedEx Ground is not responsible. We counter through two theories: apparent agency (FedEx’s branding, uniforms, and public representation create a reasonable belief that the driver is FedEx’s agent) and actual agency (FedEx Ground’s extensive control over vehicle standards, safety protocols, route specifications, and driver training requirements establishes that the ISP is, in substance, FedEx Ground’s agent). The FedEx Ground ISP agreement — produced through discovery — is the key document in this fight.
How long does the family have to file a wrongful death claim in Florida?
Florida’s wrongful death statute of limitations runs two years from the date of death. Florida’s general negligence statute of limitations was reduced to two years for causes of action accruing after March 24, 2023, under Fla. Stat. § 95.11(5)(a). The two-year deadline is a hard bar — if the claim is not filed within that period, it is permanently lost. But the more urgent deadline is the evidence clock: the truck’s electronic data, camera footage, and driver logs can be legally erased within weeks, not years. The preservation letter must issue within days, not months.
Will the fact that the child was on a dirt bike prevent the family from recovering?
Not automatically. Florida follows a modified comparative negligence rule under § 768.81(6), Fla. Stat. — recovery is barred only if the plaintiff is found to be greater than 50% at fault. The defense will argue that the dirt bike’s presence on a public road and the children’s operation of an off-highway vehicle constitutes significant contributory negligence. We counter with three arguments: the 9-year-old was likely a passenger, not the operator, minimizing his comparative fault; a child is held to a child’s standard of care, not an adult’s; and the truck driver’s heightened professional duty in a known child-activity corridor means the primary responsibility to avoid this collision rested on the commercial operator. The critical variable is keeping the 9-year-old’s comparative fault below the 50% threshold.
What evidence from the FedEx truck can prove what happened?
The FedEx box truck may carry an Event Data Recorder (EDR) that captured pre-collision speed, braking input, steering angle, and throttle position; forward-facing and in-cab cameras that captured the collision sequence, the driver’s attentiveness, and the children’s visibility; GPS and telematics systems that recorded vehicle speed history, route compliance, and hard-braking events; and Electronic Logging Device (ELD) records that document the driver’s Hours of Service. The driver’s cell phone records can reveal distracted driving. The vehicle maintenance records can reveal brake or tire failures. All of this evidence is perishable — EDR data can be overwritten when the truck returns to service, camera footage overwrites on 30-to-60-day cycles, and ELD records must be retained for six months under federal regulation. A preservation letter must issue within days to freeze this evidence before it disappears.
What can the parents of a 9-year-old recover under Florida’s Wrongful Death Act?
Under Florida Statutes 768.21(4), each parent of a deceased minor child may recover for mental pain and suffering from the date of injury. This is the core non-economic damage category available to the parents. The estate may recover medical expenses (emergency response and any treatment prior to death), funeral and burial costs, and net accumulations to the estate. Florida does not impose statutory caps on non-economic damages in general negligence or commercial trucking cases. The wrongful death action is brought by the decedent’s personal representative, who recovers for the benefit of the survivors and the estate under Florida Statutes 768.20.
Can the 12-year-old co-rider file a separate injury claim?
Yes. The 12-year-old sustained personal injuries and has a separate claim for medical expenses as economic damages, pain and suffering as non-economic damages subject to comparative fault, and future medical treatment needs. The 12-year-old’s claim is distinct from the 9-year-old’s family’s wrongful death claim, though both arise from the same collision. If the 12-year-old was operating the dirt bike, FedEx’s lawyers may pursue a contribution claim alleging negligent operation — but a child is held to a child’s standard of care, not an adult’s, and the 12-year-old is not a primary defendant in the wrongful death claim.
What if the truck driver was texting or on the phone when the crash happened?
Under federal regulation 49 CFR 392.80, no driver shall engage in texting while driving a commercial motor vehicle. Under 49 CFR 392.82, no driver shall use a hand-held mobile telephone while driving a commercial motor vehicle. These are federal regulations enforceable under Florida law. Under the Dejesus v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. framework, a violation of these regulations constitutes prima facie evidence of negligence under Florida law. If the driver’s cell phone records show texting or phone use in the moments before impact, that evidence is presumptive proof of negligence — and it may also support a punitive damages claim if the conduct rises to gross negligence.
Should the family accept the insurance company’s first settlement offer?
No. The first offer from a commercial trucking insurer is designed to close the case before the family understands its full value — and before the evidence that proves the truck driver’s negligence is preserved. A quick check with a release attached, arriving before the funeral or before the medical bills are tallied, is a strategy, not generosity. The family should not sign any document, accept any check, or give any recorded statement without speaking to an attorney first. The consultation is free. The cost of accepting a lowball offer is permanent.
How long does a FedEx truck accident wrongful death case take?
Every case is different, but commercial trucking wrongful death cases typically take between twelve and twenty-four months from filing to resolution — longer if the case goes to trial. The timeline includes evidence preservation (weeks), filing and discovery (months), depositions (months), expert analysis (months), and mediation or trial preparation (months). The evidence preservation effort begins the day you call — not the day the lawsuit is filed — because the electronic data that proves the case can be erased within days of the crash.
Does Attorney911 charge a fee for the consultation?
No. The consultation is free, and we work on contingency — we do not get paid unless we win your case. Our fee is 33.33% of the recovery if the case settles before trial, and 40% if the case goes to trial. You pay nothing out of pocket. We advance the costs of the case — the preservation letters, the expert witnesses, the filing fees, the discovery — and those costs are recovered from the settlement or judgment. If we do not win, you owe us nothing.
Why Families Trust Attorney911 with Their Most Devastating Cases
We are The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC — known as Attorney911. We are a trial firm that takes Florida cases, working with local counsel and pro hac vice admission where required. We have been in practice since 2001, and we have recovered more than $50 million for our clients, including $2.5 million in a truck crash case and millions in trucking wrongful death matters. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
Ralph Manginello is our Managing Partner, with 27+ years of trial practice, admitted to the Texas Bar in 1998 and to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas — including federal court. He is a member of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association and the Houston Bar Association. Before he was a lawyer, he was a journalist, and that training shows in how he builds a case: every fact verified, every claim sourced, every argument grounded in evidence. He is lead counsel in the active $10 million Bermudez v. Pi Kappa Phi / University of Houston hazing lawsuit in Harris County. You can read more about Ralph on his attorney profile page.
Lupe Peña is our associate attorney, admitted to the Texas Bar in 2012 and to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Before joining our firm, Lupe spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm — 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 valuation software discounts pain it cannot see, and where the insurer’s tactics cross the line into statutory bad faith. He now sits on your side of the table. Lupe is fluent in Spanish and conducts full client consultations in Spanish without an interpreter. You can read more about Lupe on his attorney profile page.
What we bring to a case like this is not just legal knowledge. It is the insider’s understanding of how the other side operates — the plays, the tactics, the pressure points — and the trial experience to use that understanding for the family. We know that the truck’s EDR data can be overwritten. We know that the camera footage overwrites on a 30-to-60-day cycle. We know that the ELD records are only retained for six months. We know that the ISP agreement is the key to piercing FedEx Ground’s independent contractor shield. We know that the foreseeability framework — McCain v. Florida Power Corp. — transforms the neighbors’ knowledge of this corridor into the truck driver’s legal duty. And we know that the bad-faith framework under § 624.155 creates leverage that can force a settlement well above policy limits when the insurer refuses to do what is right.
The first call costs nothing. The consultation is free. We do not get paid unless we win your case. If we are not the right fit for your family, we will tell you — and we will help you find the firm that is. But if you are reading this page at 2 a.m. with a folder of funeral arrangements and a grief you cannot describe, know this: the evidence of what happened on East Midway Road is dying on a clock right now, and the only reliable way to freeze it is a preservation letter from counsel. The day you call is the day that clock starts working for you instead of against you.
Call us. 1-888-ATTY-911. Free consultation. No fee unless we win. Hablamos Español.
We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. When you call, you will speak with a live person — not an answering service, not a voicemail, not a chatbot. We understand what you are going through. We know what is at stake. And we know what to do. Contact us or learn more about our practice areas.
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.