Midland Police Pursuit Crash: Your Family’s Legal Rights After a Fleeing Driver and a Police Pursuit Turned Fatal
If you are reading this because someone you love was killed in the June 1, 2026 pursuit crash in Midland — whether you are family to James Baker, family to Anderson Aguilar, or someone close to them trying to understand what happens next — we want you to hear the most important thing first, before anything else: the police video that shows what happened during that pursuit is on a clock. Dashcam footage, body-worn camera recordings, and radio dispatch traffic are the single most decisive evidence in any pursuit case, and the agency that holds them is also, potentially, a defendant. Standard retention cycles overwrite that footage in 30 to 90 days. The documentary examining this crash may surface information the families have not yet seen — but acting on evidence preservation cannot wait for a broadcast. The police recordings that could determine whether the pursuit was justified will be destroyed by routine policy if no one demands they be saved.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We handle wrongful-death and catastrophic-injury cases in Texas, including pursuit crashes where a fleeing driver and a pursuing law enforcement agency are both in the picture. We are writing this for one purpose: to give you the education, the governing law, the evidence clocks, and the honest case-value framework you need to make decisions while the proof still exists. We are not the counsel of record on this incident, and we do not represent its families. What follows is what we know — as the trial attorneys who handle these cases — so that you, or whoever you trust to act for your family, can walk into this fight with the same knowledge the other side has.
Who Is Responsible When a Police Pursuit Turns Fatal in Midland?
When a fleeing driver crashes and kills innocent people, two separate potential defendants emerge, and the law treats them differently. The fleeing driver — Roberto Pando III, according to public reporting — bears primary tort liability for the deaths. His decision to flee law enforcement at high speed through populated Midland streets is the direct cause of the collision that killed James Baker and Anderson Aguilar. Texas law treats this as both a criminal act (evading arrest) and a civil wrong (negligence and gross negligence). The civil case against him runs through Texas’s wrongful-death and survival statutes, which we explain below.
But a pursuit crash is not a single-actor event. The pursuing law enforcement agency — whose identity the public reporting has not yet specified, but which could be the Midland Police Department, the Midland County Sheriff’s Office, the Department of Public Safety, or a combination — made choices that are also subject to civil scrutiny. Did the agency initiate the pursuit for a serious offense or a minor one? Did a supervisor authorize it? Did anyone monitor it in real time? Did the pursuing officers follow the agency’s own written pursuit policy? Did they continue the chase through populated areas — past Loop 250, down Garfield, through the residential corridors of a city that has been expanding outward for years — when the danger to the public outweighed the need for immediate apprehension?
Those questions matter because Texas law does not give law enforcement agencies blanket immunity for the consequences of their pursuits. The Texas Tort Claims Act provides a narrow but real pathway to hold a governmental unit accountable when its officers’ use of a motor vehicle causes injury or death. That pathway requires showing that the agency’s conduct fell below the standard its own policies set — and that is why the pursuit policy, the dashcam video, and the radio communications are the three documents that decide the governmental side of this case.
A pursuit crash in Midland is not an ordinary car-wreck case. It has two defendants with different legal frameworks, different evidence, and different damages limitations. It has a criminal case running in parallel, generating sworn affidavits and police reports that can be leveraged in civil discovery. And it has an evidence clock unlike anything in a standard collision — because the most critical evidence is held by a potential defendant who is under no obligation to preserve it beyond a standard retention window unless a lawyer’s preservation letter puts them on notice.
Can You Sue the Police for a Pursuit Crash in Texas?
Yes — but the path is narrow, the deadline is shorter than the ordinary wrongful-death statute, and the standard is higher than ordinary negligence. Here is how it works.
The Texas Tort Claims Act is the statute that waives governmental immunity in specific, defined circumstances. For motor-vehicle cases, the Act waives immunity when a government employee operating a motor vehicle in the course and scope of employment acts with negligence. But for a pursuit case, the critical question is whether the pursuing officers violated the agency’s own pursuit policy — because the Act’s waiver for motor-vehicle liability is the door, and the policy deviation is the key that unlocks it.
Claims against governmental units fall under the Texas Tort Claims Act, which requires notice of claim to the governmental entity within six months of the incident — though some municipalities impose shorter charter notice deadlines, so the current Texas rule for the specific pursuing agency must be confirmed.
That notice deadline — six months from June 1, 2026 — is not a suggestion. It is a jurisdictional prerequisite. If the family does not present a formal claim to the pursuing agency within that window, the right to pursue the governmental claim can be lost permanently, regardless of how strong the facts are. And if the pursuing agency is a municipality with a charter-imposed shorter deadline, the window could be even less. This is not a step a family can afford to discover late.
To hold the pursuing agency accountable, the civil case must show that the pursuit was conducted in a way that deviated from the agency’s own written standards. Every Texas law enforcement agency maintains its own vehicle-pursuit policy, and those policies typically require balancing the severity of the offense against the risk to public safety, obtaining supervisory authorization, and terminating the pursuit when the danger to the community outweighs the need for immediate apprehension. A police-practices expert — a retired commander or trainer who knows how pursuits are supposed to be run — is the witness who compares what the agency’s policy required against what the dashcam and radio evidence show actually happened.
If the pursuing agency is found liable under the Tort Claims Act, the recovery is subject to statutory damages limitations that cap what the governmental unit must pay. Those caps are lower than what a Midland County jury might award against the fleeing driver for the same deaths — which is why the governmental claim and the individual claim against Pando are pleaded together, as separate liability narratives with separate damages calculations. The fleeing driver’s gross negligence supports exemplary damages; the governmental unit’s liability does not. The fleeing driver’s liability is uncapped (subject to his collectibility); the governmental unit’s liability is capped by statute.
The choice of how to frame the governmental claim in a conservative Permian Basin venue matters enormously. Midland County jurors tend to be supportive of law enforcement — and that is not a weakness. It is a framing challenge. The case against the pursuing agency is not “the police are bad.” The case is “the police have written rules for when to chase and when to stop, and on June 1, 2026, those rules were not followed, and two people who had nothing to do with the chase died because of it.” A jury that respects law enforcement can be a jury that holds an agency to its own standards — if the case is built on the policy, not on anti-police rhetoric.
The Evidence That Proves a Pursuit Case — and How Fast It Disappears
This is the single most important section on this page. If you read nothing else, read this.
A pursuit crash generates more perishable evidence than almost any other type of fatal collision — and the most critical evidence is held by a potential defendant. Here is every record that matters, who holds it, what it proves, and how fast it can legally die.
Police dashcam and body-worn camera footage. This is the crown jewel. Dashcam video shows the pursuit from the officer’s perspective — the speed, the maneuvers, the traffic conditions, the moment of impact. Body-worn camera footage may capture the officers’ reactions, their communications with each other, and their immediate post-crash conduct. Together, these recordings prove whether the pursuit was initiated for a serious or minor offense, whether officers followed pursuit policy, and what Pando’s driving actually looked like in the moments before the crash. Standard retention cycles for police video run 30 to 90 days. After that, unless a preservation letter or litigation hold has been placed, the footage can be overwritten by routine policy. The agency is not obligated to preserve it on its own — not because it is malicious, but because the storage systems are designed to cycle. A preservation letter from a lawyer changes that equation: once the agency is on notice that the footage is evidence in a potential civil claim, destroying it becomes a spoliation issue with legal consequences.
Police radio dispatch and communications recordings. The radio traffic is the real-time record of who authorized the pursuit, what offense triggered it, whether supervisors monitored or ordered termination, and what officers said about public risk as the pursuit unfolded. This is the audio counterpart to the dashcam video — and it is on the same 30-to-90-day retention cycle. The radio traffic is where you find the supervisor’s voice saying “continue” or “terminate” — the single most important word in a pursuit-policy case.
The pursuing agency’s pursuit policy and internal affairs records. The written pursuit policy in effect on June 1, 2026, is the standard of care against which the agency’s conduct is measured. It defines when pursuits may be initiated, when they must be terminated, what supervisory approval is required, and what factors officers must weigh. Personnel turnover and policy revisions can obscure the version that was actually in force on the date of the crash — so the policy must be obtained and locked down early. Internal affairs records of prior pursuit-related complaints or violations establish pattern and notice — proof that the agency knew its officers were not following the rules before June 1.
Vehicle event data recorder (EDR) data from all involved vehicles. The EDR — the “black box” — in every vehicle involved records pre-impact speed, braking, throttle position, and seatbelt use in the seconds before collision. For the fleeing vehicle, the EDR may show speeds that corroborate the dashcam and establish the physics of the crash. For the victims’ vehicle, the EDR shows whether they had time to react — which matters for causation and for defeating any comparative-fault argument. If the vehicles are totaled and sent to salvage, the EDR data may be permanently lost within weeks. The vehicles must not be released or destroyed until the data has been imaged.
Criminal court records and affidavits. The criminal case against Roberto Pando III generates sworn statements, police reports, probable-cause affidavits, and witness accounts that are filed records — but they should be obtained immediately to guide civil discovery strategy. These documents contain the government’s own version of events, sworn under oath, and they lock in testimony before witnesses have had time to adjust their stories. The criminal case and the civil case are separate proceedings, but the criminal case’s output is ammunition for the civil case.
Cell phone records for the fleeing driver. If Pando was on a call, texting, or otherwise using a phone during the pursuit, that evidence establishes additional negligence and distraction on top of the flight itself. Carrier retention windows vary — a preservation letter is required promptly.
Crash scene investigation and reconstruction data. Skid marks, debris patterns, point of impact, and roadway measurements establish speed, angle, and causal mechanics. Scene remediation and weather erase physical evidence within days. If responding investigators did not fully document the scene, secondary reconstruction may become impossible — which is why the crash report and any scene photographs must be obtained as soon as they are available.
Here is the one sentence that matters: the day a lawyer is hired is the day the preservation letters go out — to the pursuing agency for video and radio, to the carrier for the vehicles and EDR data, to the phone companies for cell records, and to the criminal court for the filed affidavits. Every day before that letter is on file is a day the evidence is unprotected. For a free consultation on preserving evidence in a pursuit case, call 1-888-ATTY-911 — 24 hours a day, seven days a week, live staff, not an answering service.
Texas Wrongful Death Law: What Your Family Can Recover
Texas wrongful-death and survival actions are governed by Chapter 71 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. That statute creates two separate but parallel claims after a fatal injury — and a family that walks through only one door leaves money on the table.
The wrongful-death action belongs to the surviving family — the statutory beneficiaries. Texas law defines those beneficiaries as the surviving spouse, children, and parents of the person killed. The wrongful-death claim compensates the family for what they lost: the decedent’s earning capacity, care, maintenance, support, services, advice, counsel, and reasonable funeral expenses. It also compensates for the human losses — loss of companionship and society, and mental anguish. Each category of statutory beneficiary has their own claim, and those claims are separate from each other.
The survival action belongs to the decedent’s estate. It carries forward the claim the deceased person would have had — the pain, suffering, and mental anguish they experienced between the injury and death, plus any medical expenses incurred before death. If either James Baker or Anderson Aguilar survived even briefly after the impact — minutes, hours, days — the estate may recover for pre-death pain, mental anguish, and the fear of impending death. That is a separate damages stream from the wrongful-death claim, and it requires its own proof.
The statute of limitations for both claims is two years from the date of death — in this case, two years from June 1, 2026. But the governmental claim under the Texas Tort Claims Act has a separate and shorter deadline: the notice of claim must be presented to the pursuing agency within six months of the incident. That means the governmental notice deadline could arrive before the two-year wrongful-death deadline — and missing it can extinguish the governmental claim while the claim against Pando survives. This is one of the easiest ways a strong pursuit case loses half its value: the family waits, the six-month notice window closes, and the pursuing agency walks.
Texas applies modified comparative responsibility with a 51% bar. That means a plaintiff cannot recover if they are found 51% or more at fault. But for innocent third parties killed by a fleeing driver — people who had nothing to do with the pursuit, who were simply on the road when a high-speed chase came through their intersection — comparative fault is typically not a factor. The defense may try to assign some percentage of fault to the victims, but the facts of a pursuit crash usually make that argument a thin one. The people who died in this crash were not fleeing, not pursuing, not part of the decision to chase. They were in the wrong place because someone else put them there.
Exemplary damages — punitive damages — are available against non-governmental defendants upon a showing of gross negligence. High-speed flight from police through populated Midland streets is the textbook definition of gross negligence: conscious indifference to a known, extreme risk. The fleeing driver who chose to run chose to create the exact danger that killed two people. Exemplary damages against Pando are warranted by the conduct — though collectibility depends on his asset profile and insurance coverage, which we address below. Exemplary damages are NOT available against a governmental entity under the Tort Claims Act. That is one of the key structural differences between the two defendant tracks.
For a deeper look at how wrongful-death claims work in Texas — the beneficiary hierarchy, the damages categories, and the process — visit our wrongful death claim practice page.
The Fleeing Driver: Civil Liability Against Roberto Pando III
The civil case against the fleeing driver is built on two theories that work together.
Negligence per se. Pando’s flight from law enforcement violates Texas Penal Code provisions on evading arrest with a vehicle and Texas Transportation Code reckless-driving statutes. When a defendant violates a criminal statute designed to protect the public, and the violation causes the type of harm the statute was designed to prevent, Texas law allows the jury to treat the violation as evidence of negligence — or, in some applications, as negligence per se. The civil case does not need to re-prove what the criminal case is already proving. The criminal conviction, if it comes, is powerful evidence in the civil case; even the filed affidavits and police reports from the criminal case lock in the government’s version of events.
Gross negligence. This is the theory that supports exemplary damages. Gross negligence in Texas means an act or omission involving an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others, of which the actor has actual, subjective awareness, but proceeds with conscious indifference. A driver who accelerates away from police through populated Midland streets — past the intersections on Loop 250, down the straightaways where oilfield trucks mix with family sedans, through a city of 140,000 people — is not just negligent. That driver has actual awareness that high-speed flight through a populated area creates an extreme risk of death to anyone in the path, and proceeds anyway. That is the definition the Texas courts use, and it is the definition a Midland County jury will be asked to apply.
The gross-negligence finding matters for two reasons. First, it unlocks exemplary damages — damages meant to punish, not just compensate. Second, in Texas, a finding of gross negligence against the fleeing driver defeats any comparative-responsibility reduction that might otherwise shrink the family’s recovery. If the jury finds Pando grossly negligent, his percentage of fault is not reduced by any fault assigned to other parties for comparative purposes.
The practical question with Pando is not liability — the liability is strong. The practical question is collectibility. Does he carry auto insurance, and how much? Does he have assets? Is the vehicle owned by someone else who could be liable under a negligent-entrustment theory? If the vehicle Pando was driving belonged to a family member or friend who knew or should have known of his unfitness to drive — a prior record, a known habit of reckless behavior, a suspended license — the owner may be separately liable under Texas’s negligent-entrustment doctrine. Identifying the vehicle owner, the insurance policy, and the asset profile of every potential defendant is foundational work that begins on the day the case opens.
The Pursuing Agency: Governmental Liability Under the Texas Tort Claims Act
The governmental claim is the harder case — and in many pursuit crashes, it is the more valuable case, because the agency has deeper pockets than an individual fleeing driver. But it is also the case with the shorter deadline and the higher proof standard.
The Texas Tort Claims Act waives governmental immunity for personal injury and death caused by the negligence of a government employee operating a motor vehicle in the course and scope of employment. For a pursuit case, that waiver is the door. But the standard for what constitutes negligence in the pursuit context is not ordinary reasonable care — it is closer to a reckless-disregard or policy-deviation standard. The plaintiff must show that the pursuing officers’ conduct fell below the standard set by the agency’s own pursuit policy and created a foreseeable risk to the public.
That is where the police-practices expert comes in. A retired law enforcement commander, trainer, or consultant who has reviewed pursuit policies and investigated pursuit-related incidents is the witness who can testify: “This agency’s policy requires supervisory authorization before initiating a pursuit. The radio traffic shows no supervisor authorized it.” Or: “This policy requires termination when the pursuit enters a school zone or high-pedestrian area. The dashcam shows the pursuit continued through the Garfield Street corridor at speeds exceeding the policy’s threshold.” Those opinions — grounded in the agency’s own written rules and the video and radio evidence — are what convert the governmental claim from a theory into a jury question.
The Midland County venue is a critical strategic consideration. This is a conservative Permian Basin community where law enforcement is respected. That respect is not an obstacle — it is the framing. The case against the pursuing agency is not “the police are reckless.” The case is “the police have rules, and on June 1, 2026, those rules were not followed, and two people who had nothing to do with the chase are dead.” A jury that respects law enforcement can be the jury that holds an agency to its own written standards — if the case is presented as a policy-compliance case, not an anti-police case. Voir dire in Midland County should explore juror attitudes about police pursuits and fleeing suspects directly and honestly, because the jurors who will be most receptive to a policy-violation framing are often the same jurors who support law enforcement generally.
For more on how governmental liability works in Texas — including the Tort Claims Act, notice requirements, and claims against police and emergency vehicles — visit our Texas government vehicle accident and TTCA practice page.
What a Pursuit-Wrongful-Death Case Is Worth in Midland County
We believe in honest case valuation. Inflated promises do not help families — they set up disappointment and erode trust. Here is the honest framework.
Two wrongful deaths generate separate damage claims for each decedent’s statutory beneficiaries. The damages in each claim include: lost earning capacity discounted to present value, lost care and support, loss of companionship and society, mental anguish, and funeral expenses. If either decedent survived briefly after impact, the estate may also claim pre-death pain and suffering and fear of imminent death in a survival action.
The earning-capacity calculation is particularly significant in the Permian Basin. Oil-industry wages in this region are among the highest in Texas for blue-collar and skilled-trade workers — a young man working in the oilfield can earn six figures, and a forensic economist projecting that earning stream over a normal worklife expectancy can produce a substantial present-value figure. Age, occupation, earning history, and life expectancy are the inputs, and every one of them matters. A 25-year-old oilfield worker earning $90,000 per year with 35 years of expected worklife produces a very different number than a 55-year-old earning $50,000 with 10 years remaining — and both are different from a retired person whose earning-capacity loss is minimal but whose loss of companionship to a surviving spouse is substantial.
The case-value range for a dual wrongful-death pursuit crash in Midland County, based on our analysis, runs from approximately $750,000 on the low end to $5,000,000 on the high end. Here is what drives each end.
The low end reflects the scenario where Pando has minimal insurance and no collectible assets, and the governmental claim is either barred by immunity or fails on policy-compliance facts. In that scenario, the recovery is limited to whatever insurance Pando carries — which could be Texas’s legal minimum of $30,000 per person / $60,000 per occurrence for bodily injury liability — plus any underinsured-motorist coverage the victims’ own policies provide. A case with strong liability but minimal coverage and no governmental recovery produces a modest result because the money simply is not there.
The high end reflects the scenario where the pursuing agency deviated from its pursuit policy, the Tort Claims Act liability is established for both deaths, Pando carries meaningful coverage, and a Midland County jury awards full economic and non-economic damages plus exemplary damages against the fleeing driver. In that scenario, the total recovery across both defendant tracks — Pando’s insurance, the governmental unit’s statutory liability, and any UM/UIM coverage — reaches into the millions.
The single most important factor is not the severity of the liability — the liability is strong. The single most important factor is collectibility. Who has money, who has insurance, and what policies are available to pay? That question is answered through investigation, not assumption — and it is the first question a competent pursuit-case attorney asks.
The Insurance Reality: Following the Money When the Defendant Was Fleeing
The insurance landscape in a pursuit case is a ladder with several rungs, and some of them may be missing.
Pando’s auto liability coverage. If Pando carried insurance, his policy’s bodily-injury liability limits are the first source of recovery. But fleeing drivers frequently carry minimal coverage — or no coverage at all. Many auto policies contain exclusions for criminal acts or intentional conduct, and the insurer may argue that evading arrest triggers such an exclusion, denying coverage entirely. That denial is not the end of the road — it is the beginning of a coverage fight — but it means the first rung may be weaker than it appears.
The vehicle owner’s insurance. If Pando was driving a vehicle owned by someone else — a family member, a friend — the owner’s insurance may provide additional coverage. Texas law imposes statutory liability on the owner of a motor vehicle for the negligence of anyone driving it with the owner’s permission. If the owner knew or should have known that Pando was unfit to drive, a negligent-entrustment claim may reach the owner’s policy separately.
The victims’ own uninsured/underinsured-motorist coverage. If Pando was uninsured or underinsured, the victims’ own auto policies — or the policy of a family member in their household — may provide UM/UIM coverage that stacks on top of whatever liability coverage exists. UM/UIM is the safety net that catches families when the at-fault driver has nothing. But UM/UIM carriers are not generous — they treat the claim as their own money and defend it accordingly, which is why having a lawyer who understands the carrier’s playbook matters.
The governmental unit’s coverage. Under the Tort Claims Act, the governmental unit’s liability is capped by statute. The specific caps depend on the type of governmental unit and the claim — and those caps are lower than what a jury might award against Pando for the same deaths. That is why the governmental claim and the individual claim are pleaded as separate tracks with separate damages narratives.
When the first offer arrives — and it will arrive fast, from Pando’s insurer if he has one — it will be a fraction of the case’s real value. The adjuster’s job is to close the file for the smallest number possible, before the family has a lawyer, before the medical records are fully reviewed, before the earning-capacity analysis is done, and before the governmental claim is even developed. That first offer is not a settlement. It is a test of whether the family knows what the case is worth.
How a Pursuit Case Is Actually Built: The Proof Story
Here is how a pursuit-wrongful-death case is built, from the first day to the final resolution. This is the process — not a promise, but the roadmap.
Week one: preservation. The day the family calls, preservation letters go out. To the pursuing agency: preserve all dashcam, body-worn camera, and radio dispatch recordings from June 1, 2026, from the initiation of the pursuit through the post-crash investigation. To the towing company or impound lot: do not release, alter, or destroy any vehicle involved in the crash. To Pando’s insurer: preserve the vehicle, the policy file, and all recorded statements. To the cell phone carriers: preserve call and text records for Pando’s number. To the criminal court: produce all filed affidavits, probable-cause statements, and police reports. Every letter is sent in writing, by a lawyer, with a deadline. The evidence is now on notice — and if it disappears after that, the law provides remedies.
Weeks two through four: the criminal-case parallel track. While the civil case is being built, the criminal case against Pando is generating its own evidence. Every filed affidavit, every police report, every witness statement in the criminal file is a public record that can be obtained and used to guide civil discovery. The criminal case locks in the government’s version of events — sworn under oath, before any civil depositions — and that version is hard to walk back later.
Months one through three: the records and the experts. The police reports, the crash reconstruction data, the EDR downloads, the pursuit policy, the internal affairs file, the criminal affidavits — all of it comes together. A police-practices expert reviews the pursuit policy against the video and radio evidence. A crash reconstructionist analyzes the EDR data, the scene measurements, and the vehicle damage to establish speed, angle, and causation. A forensic economist begins the earning-capacity analysis, pulling the decedents’ employment records, tax returns, and industry wage data to build the economic-loss projection.
Months three through six: depositions. The pursuing officers are deposed about their training, their understanding of the pursuit policy, the decisions they made on June 1, and the communications they had with supervisors. The supervisors are deposed about authorization, monitoring, and termination decisions. Witnesses to the crash are deposed about what they saw. Pando, if he is available, is deposed about his decisions, his state of mind, and his driving conduct.
Months six through twelve: the demand and the governmental claim. Once the liability evidence is compiled, a Stowers demand is issued to Pando’s insurer — a formal settlement offer that, if the insurer rejects and a later verdict exceeds the policy limits, can expose the insurer to liability beyond the policy. The governmental claim under the Tort Claims Act is presented with the full damages analysis, triggering the agency’s response period. Mediation may follow — but only after the criminal case has resolved and full civil discovery is complete, because settling before the criminal case locks in the facts leaves the civil case vulnerable to changing narratives.
Resolution. Most civil cases settle. Some go to trial. The ones that go to trial in Midland County are decided by twelve people from the community — people who drive the same roads, who know the oilfield traffic, who understand what a high-speed pursuit through their city means. The number at the end is built from all of it: the preserved video, the locked-in criminal affidavits, the policy analysis, the reconstruction, the economist’s projections, and the testimony of the people who were there.
The First 72 Hours: What to Do, What Not to Do, What to Sign
If you are in the first days after losing someone in this crash, here is the practical roadmap — the things that protect the case and the things that destroy it.
Do obtain the death certificate. The death certificate is the legal document that triggers the wrongful-death and survival claims. It also confirms the cause and manner of death, which may matter for the causation analysis.
Do identify the personal representative. Before any wrongful-death lawsuit is filed, a court appoints a personal representative — the person Texas law authorizes to bring the family’s case. If the decedent had a will, the executor may serve. If not, a family member petitions the probate court for appointment. This is a procedural step, but it is the gatekeeper to the entire case.
Do not give a recorded statement to any insurance company. Within days of the crash, someone may call — representing themselves as from “the insurance company” or “the claims department” — and ask the family to “just tell us what happened” on a recording. That recording is built to be quoted against the family later. A grieving family member who says “I think he was on his way home from work” may be contradicting evidence that places the decedent somewhere else — and the defense will use that contradiction to attack credibility. No recorded statement should be given without counsel.
Do not sign anything from an insurance company without having a lawyer read it. A check may arrive fast, with a release printed on the back or enclosed with it. Signing that release may extinguish the family’s right to pursue the case entirely — for a amount that is a fraction of what the case is worth. The first check is never the real value. It is the insurer’s test of whether the family knows what they have.
Do not post about the crash on social media. Insurance adjusters and defense investigators monitor social media. A post about the crash, about the decedent, about the family’s emotional state, or about the pursuit can be screen-captured and used later. The safest rule is: nothing about the crash, the decedent, or the case goes online until the case is resolved.
Do preserve everything. The decedent’s phone, their employment records, their tax returns, their medical records, their vehicle (if it can be located and secured), any photographs or videos they took on June 1 before the crash — all of it is evidence. Do not delete, discard, or alter anything. If you are not sure whether something matters, keep it.
Do call a lawyer. Not because lawyers are pushy — because the evidence clock is running, the insurance company is already working, and the governmental notice deadline is six months from the crash. A free consultation costs nothing and commits you to nothing. It is a conversation in which a lawyer tells you, honestly, what the case looks like, what the deadlines are, and what the next steps should be. If the lawyer is not the right fit, the family walks away with information that costs them nothing. If the lawyer is the right fit, the preservation letters go out that day.
The Adjuster’s Playbook: What the Insurance Company Will Try
Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm before he came to our side of the table. He sat in the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue people exactly like the families reading this page. He knows the plays because he used to run them. Here are three the families of pursuit-crash victims should expect — and the counter to each.
Play one: the friendly “just checking in” call. Within days of the crash, an adjuster calls the family. The tone is warm, sympathetic, almost pastoral. “I’m so sorry for your loss. I just need to ask a few questions to get the claim set up. Can you tell me what you know about what happened?” The call is recorded. Every answer the family gives is being measured for admissions that can be used later — a tentative timeline that turns into a locked-in statement, a guess about the decedent’s route that becomes a “fact” the defense can contradict with physical evidence. The counter is simple: do not take the call without a lawyer. If the adjuster reaches you, say “I am not ready to discuss this” and hang up. The adjuster is not your friend. The adjuster is a professional whose job is to close the file for the smallest number possible.
Play two: the fast settlement check with a release. A check arrives — sometimes within weeks of the crash. It may look substantial to a family that is suddenly facing funeral expenses and lost income. But it comes with a release — a document that, once signed, extinguishes the family’s right to pursue any further claim. The amount on that check is a fraction of what the case is worth, and the insurer knows it. The counter is: never sign a release without a lawyer reviewing it. The release is the insurer’s exit strategy. Once it is signed, the case is over — regardless of what the family later discovers about the pursuit, the policy violations, or the full extent of the damages.
Play three: the “comparative fault” argument. In some pursuit cases, the defense tries to assign a percentage of fault to the victims — arguing that they should have seen the pursuit coming, should have pulled over, should have avoided the fleeing vehicle. For innocent third parties killed in a pursuit crash, this argument is usually thin — but the adjuster will float it anyway, because every percentage point of fault assigned to the victim reduces the recovery. The counter is: the victims had no duty to anticipate a high-speed pursuit coming through their intersection. They were lawfully on the road. The fleeing driver and the pursuing agency created the danger — not the people who happened to be in its path. In Texas, if the fleeing driver is found grossly negligent, comparative fault does not reduce the recovery against him at all.
For a deeper look at how insurance companies value claims and what to expect, our car accident practice page walks through the process in more detail. And if you want to understand what not to say to an adjuster, our video on what to do after a car accident covers the basics — though a pursuit case is far more complex than an ordinary collision.
Why Midland Is Different: The Permian Basin Venue
Midland is not a generic Texas city, and a pursuit crash here is not a generic pursuit case. The place shapes the case in ways a lawyer who does not know the Permian Basin will miss.
Midland sits at the heart of the Permian Basin, connected to Odessa by Interstate 20 and State Highway 191 — corridors that carry some of the heaviest oilfield commercial traffic in the United States. The Midland Police Department and the Midland County Sheriff’s Office are the primary law enforcement agencies serving the city, with the Department of Public Safety patrolling the interstate. The roads here are long, straight, and fast — the kind of straightaways that invite high speeds and that make pursuits especially dangerous when they enter the intersections along Loop 250 and the Garfield Street corridors, where oilfield trucks, family vehicles, and high-speed law enforcement maneuvers collide.
The economic engine of the basin shapes the damages. Oil-industry wages inflate earning-capacity projections in ways that a lawyer working from a generic national average will miss. A 30-year-old oilfield worker in Midland may earn twice what a 30-year-old worker in a non-oilfield city earns — and the forensic economist’s projection must reflect that reality, not a national median. The life-care plan, the lost-earnings calculation, and the vocational assessment all change when the victim’s career is in the oilfield.
The venue shapes the trial strategy. Midland County is a conservative community. Jurors here tend to support law enforcement, tend to be skeptical of large verdicts, and tend to view fleeing suspects with justified anger. That is not a problem for the civil case — it is an advantage, if the case is framed correctly. The fleeing driver is not a sympathetic figure in a Midland courtroom. The pursuing agency is not an enemy — it is an institution the jurors respect, and the case against it is built on the agency’s own failure to follow its own rules. The jurors who will be most receptive to a policy-violation case against the pursuing agency are often the same jurors who support law enforcement generally — because respecting the police and expecting the police to follow their own rules are the same value, not opposing ones.
A lawyer who tries a Midland pursuit case like it is a Harris County or Travis County case will misread the room. The venue is different. The economy is different. The jurors are different. The case must be built for the people who will decide it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue the police for a pursuit crash in Texas?
Yes, but the path is narrow. The Texas Tort Claims Act waives governmental immunity for motor-vehicle negligence by government employees, but you must show the pursuing officers deviated from the agency’s own pursuit policy — and you must present a formal claim to the agency within six months of the crash. That six-month deadline is shorter than the two-year wrongful-death statute of limitations, and missing it can extinguish the governmental claim entirely. The case is built on the pursuit policy, the dashcam video, and the radio communications — and it requires a police-practices expert to compare what the policy required against what actually happened.
How long do I have to file a wrongful death claim in Texas?
The statute of limitations for wrongful-death and survival actions in Texas is two years from the date of death — in this case, two years from June 1, 2026. However, if you are pursuing a claim against a governmental unit (the pursuing law enforcement agency), the Texas Tort Claims Act requires a formal notice of claim within six months of the incident — and some municipalities impose even shorter charter deadlines. The governmental notice deadline can arrive long before the two-year wrongful-death deadline, which is why the first six months are critical.
What happens to police dashcam footage after a pursuit crash?
Police dashcam and body-worn camera footage is typically retained on a 30-to-90-day cycle, depending on the agency’s storage policy. After that, unless a preservation letter or litigation hold has been placed, the footage can be overwritten automatically. The agency is not obligated to preserve it indefinitely on its own. A lawyer’s preservation letter — sent to the agency in writing, demanding that the footage be saved as evidence in a potential civil claim — changes the agency’s obligation. Once the agency is on notice, destroying the footage becomes a spoliation issue with legal consequences. This is why the preservation letter is the first thing that goes out when a family calls.
Can I file a civil claim while the criminal case against the fleeing driver is still going?
Yes. The civil case and the criminal case are separate proceedings with separate burdens of proof, separate timelines, and separate rules. The criminal case against Roberto Pando III does not pause or prevent the civil wrongful-death case. In fact, the criminal case generates evidence — sworn affidavits, police reports, witness statements — that can be obtained and used to guide civil discovery. The criminal case locks in the government’s version of events under oath, before civil depositions begin. That locked-in testimony is ammunition for the civil case. The civil case can proceed in parallel, though settlement may wait until the criminal case resolves to avoid shifting narratives.
What if the fleeing driver has no insurance?
If Roberto Pando III carried no insurance or only minimal coverage, the families’ recovery may depend on other sources. If the victims carried uninsured/underinsured-motorist coverage on their own auto policies — or if a family member in their household did — that UM/UIM coverage can compensate the family when the at-fault driver has nothing. UM/UIM carriers are not generous with their own money, and a coverage fight is common — but UM/UIM is the safety net that catches families when the at-fault driver is judgment-proof. The vehicle owner’s insurance, if Pando was driving someone else’s car, is another potential source. And the governmental claim against the pursuing agency is a separate track that does not depend on Pando’s insurance at all.
How much is a wrongful death case worth in Midland?
No honest lawyer can give a specific number without knowing the decedents’ ages, occupations, earning histories, family circumstances, and the full liability picture. Based on our analysis of this incident — two wrongful deaths, a fleeing-driver defendant, and a potential governmental claim — the case-value range runs from approximately $750,000 on the low end (minimal insurance, no governmental recovery) to $5,000,000 on the high end (policy deviation established, TTCA liability for both deaths, meaningful insurance coverage, and a Midland County jury award). The primary factor is not liability severity — it is collectibility. Who has insurance, who has assets, and what policies are available to pay. That question is answered through investigation, not assumption. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
Does the documentary about the crash affect my legal case?
The documentary may surface information the families have not yet seen — interviews, court records, affidavits, and family perspectives on unanswered questions. That information can be valuable, but it does not change the legal deadlines or the evidence-preservation urgency. The statute of limitations runs from the date of death, not from the broadcast date. The police video retention clock runs from the date of the crash, not from the documentary. The most important thing is not to wait for the documentary to air before acting on evidence preservation. The proof that could determine whether the pursuit was justified will be destroyed by routine retention policy if not preserved — regardless of what the documentary reveals.
Can both families sue the same defendants?
Yes. The families of James Baker and Anderson Aguilar each have separate wrongful-death and survival claims, and they may pursue those claims against the same defendants — Roberto Pando III, the pursuing agency, and any vehicle owner. The cases may be pursued separately or, in some circumstances, consolidated for certain purposes. Each family’s damages are calculated separately based on their own decedent’s age, occupation, earning history, and family circumstances. The two families are not competitors — they are separate claimants with separate damages, pursuing the same defendants for the same event.
What is the Texas Tort Claims Act and why does it matter?
The Texas Tort Claims Act is the statute that waives governmental immunity — the legal doctrine that protects government entities from being sued — in specific, defined circumstances. For motor-vehicle cases, the Act allows suits against governmental units when a government employee’s negligent operation of a vehicle causes injury or death. In a pursuit case, the Act is the legal pathway to hold the pursuing law enforcement agency accountable — but it requires showing the officers’ conduct fell below the agency’s own standards, and it imposes a six-month notice deadline that is shorter than the ordinary wrongful-death statute of limitations. The Act also caps the damages a governmental unit must pay, which means the recovery against the agency may be lower than the recovery against the fleeing driver for the same deaths. That is why both claims are pursued in parallel.
What if my family member was a passenger, not a driver?
A passenger killed in a pursuit crash is the clearest possible innocent third party. There is no comparative-fault argument available to the defense — a passenger cannot be blamed for the pursuit, for the fleeing driver’s choices, or for the pursuing agency’s decisions. The passenger’s family has the same wrongful-death and survival claims as any other victim, with the added advantage that fault is not a contested issue as to the passenger. The only questions are causation (which driver or agency caused the crash) and collectibility (which defendant has the money to pay).
Why Attorney911: The Lawyers Who Take Texas Pursuit Cases
Ralph Manginello has spent 27+ years in Texas courtrooms, including federal court. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer — which means he reads documents the way a reporter reads a story, looking for the sentence that does not fit, the timeline that breaks, the admission buried on page 47. He is the managing partner of this firm, he is admitted to the State Bar of Texas (Bar #24007597, licensed November 6, 1998) and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and he is currently lead counsel in an active $10 million hazing lawsuit in Harris County. He is Italian-American, he was raised in Houston, and he does not like losing. You can read more about him on his attorney bio page.
Lupe Peña 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 sat with the carriers. He knows how Colossus values a claim, how reserves are set in the first 48 hours, how IME doctors are selected, and how the recorded-statement call is engineered to get the family to say “I’m feeling okay” before the full medical picture is known. Now he sits on your side of the table. He is admitted to the State Bar of Texas (Bar #24084332, licensed December 6, 2012) and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. He is a third-generation Texan with family roots to the King Ranch, he lives in Sugar Land, and he conducts full client consultations in fluent Spanish without an interpreter. You can read more about him on his attorney bio page.
We work on contingency. That means we do not get paid unless we win your case — 33.33% before trial, 40% if the case goes to trial. The consultation is free. The preservation letters go out the day you call. We have live staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week — not an answering service, not a robot, not a paralegal who will call you back next week. A person answers the phone, and that person can connect you to a lawyer who handles pursuit cases in Texas.
We have recovered $50,000,000+ in aggregate for our clients — a marketing figure that represents decades of work across many cases, not a guarantee of any outcome. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. What we can guarantee is this: when you call, you will talk to a lawyer who knows what a pursuit case is, who knows the Texas Tort Claims Act, who knows the evidence clock, and who will tell you the truth about what your family’s case looks like.
Hablamos Español. Lupe conducts full consultations in Spanish, and our staff is bilingual. If your family communicates in Spanish, you will not need an interpreter to understand your own case.
Your Next Step
The documentary airs June 25, 2026. The evidence clock started June 1. The police video that shows what happened during that pursuit — the speed, the maneuvers, the supervisor’s voice on the radio, the moment of impact — is on a 30-to-90-day retention cycle. The six-month Tort Claims Act notice deadline is ticking. The fleeing driver’s insurance company is already working. The pursuing agency’s report is already being written.
The most protective thing you can do — for your family, for the evidence, and for the case — is to talk to a lawyer who handles pursuit cases in Texas. Not next month. Not after the documentary. Now.
Call 1-888-ATTY-911. The consultation is free. The call is confidential. And if we are not the right fit for your family, we will tell you — and point you to someone who is.
This page is legal information, not legal advice. Every case depends on its own facts, and the information here is general guidance for families affected by pursuit crashes in Texas, not a specific recommendation for any individual case. Contacting the firm is free and confidential. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.