Gaines County U.S. 385 Rollover Crash: What Happened and What Your Family Can Do
If you are reading this because someone you love was in that Dodge Ram on U.S. 385 on July 2, 2026, we want you to hear something before anything else: your first priority is the child at University Medical Center in Lubbock and the people around you who are hurting. The legal work can happen in parallel, quietly, without adding to what you are already carrying. You do not have to understand any of this tonight. You just need to know that the clock on evidence has already started, and that there are people who can freeze it for you while you grieve.
A 30-year-old woman from Ropesville lost her life on a stretch of U.S. Highway 385 near mile marker 260 in Gaines County, Texas. A 13-year-old girl was flown or driven roughly 80 to 90 miles north to the nearest Level I trauma center in Lubbock with serious injuries. Three other children — ages 11, 12, and 7 — were inside the same vehicle. The Texas Department of Public Safety is still investigating why the Dodge left its lane and collided with a Toyota Tacoma before rolling over. We are going to walk you through what the law says your family can do, what evidence is already disappearing, what the insurance company is already doing, and what this kind of case is worth — honestly, with no sugarcoating.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We handle wrongful death and catastrophic car accident cases across Texas, including the Permian Basin corridor that runs through Gaines County. Ralph Manginello has spent 27-plus years in courtrooms, including federal court. 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 — and now sits on your side of the table. We work in English or in Spanish. The call is free. The consultation is free. And we do not get paid unless we win your case.
What Happened on U.S. 385: The Crash Sequence
Here is what the preliminary DPS report tells us, in plain language.
A 2025 Toyota Tacoma was traveling north on U.S. 385 in the right lane. A 2013 Dodge Ram 1500 was traveling north in the left lane. For reasons that remain under investigation, the Dodge veered into the right lane and collided with the Toyota. The collision caused the Dodge to leave the roadway and roll over. The driver and a 13-year-old front-seat passenger were not wearing seat belts and were ejected from the vehicle. The 13-year-old was transported to University Medical Center in Lubbock and treated for serious injuries. Three additional children — an 11-year-old, a 12-year-old, and a 7-year-old — were also in the Dodge.
Preliminary information from the DPS report indicated a 2025 Toyota Tacoma was northbound on U.S. 385 in the right lane. A 2013 Dodge Ram 1500 was traveling north on U.S. 385 in the left lane. For reasons that remain under investigation, the Dodge veered into the right lane and collided with the Toyota.
That sentence — “for reasons that remain under investigation” — is the most important phrase in the entire preliminary report. It means DPS has not yet concluded why the Dodge changed lanes. Was the driver distracted? Fatigued? Did a tire fail? Did another vehicle force the lane change? Was there a road-surface defect at mile marker 260? The answer to that question determines who is legally responsible, what insurance policies apply, and how much recovery exists for this family. Until the DPS CR-3 crash report is completed — typically within 10 to 14 days of the crash — the driver identity and the contributing factors are not confirmed.
What we know for certain is this: a vehicle left its lane and hit a lawfully traveling vehicle in the right lane. Under Texas traffic law, a driver has a duty to maintain their lane. A lane departure without justification — without a hazard, without an emergency, without a mechanical failure — constitutes prima facie negligence. That is the starting point, and it is a strong one.
U.S. 385 in the Permian Basin: Why This Highway Is Dangerous
U.S. Highway 385 runs north-south through the heart of the Permian Basin oilfield region. Near mile marker 260 in Gaines County, it is a rural two-lane highway carrying a heavy mix of passenger vehicles and commercial oilfield truck traffic at speeds that are typically posted at 70 to 75 miles per hour. The nearest Level I trauma center — University Medical Center in Lubbock — is approximately 80 to 90 miles north. That distance matters. In a rollover with ejection, crash survivability depends heavily on extraction time and EMS transport distance. The 13-year-old who was seriously injured had to be moved nearly the length of a marathon to reach a trauma surgeon.
This stretch of highway is not just any road. It is an oilfield corridor that locals know carries a different kind of danger than a city street. The long, open straightaways invite fatigue and inattention. A driver who has been on the road for hours, who glances at a phone for three seconds at 75 miles per hour, covers roughly 330 feet in that moment — more than the length of a football field — without looking at the road. On a highway where the right lane and the left lane are separated by a painted line and nothing else, three seconds of inattention is the difference between staying in your lane and killing someone.
Gaines County’s jury pool is drawn from a predominantly rural, oil-industry workforce. These are people who drive these roads, who know what 75 miles per hour on U.S. 385 looks like, and who have likely seen the aftermath of a rollover before. They are generally conservative but deeply familiar with the consequences of highway crashes. A jury in Seminole — the county seat — will understand what it means for a vehicle to leave its lane at highway speed. They will not need to be taught that the result is catastrophic.
Texas Wrongful Death Law: Who Can File and What They Can Recover
Texas has a Wrongful Death Act that governs who may bring a claim when someone is killed by the negligence of another. The law is specific about who counts as a statutory beneficiary.
Who may bring a wrongful death claim in Texas:
The surviving spouse, the children, and the parents of the deceased. These are the only people the statute authorizes to bring a wrongful death claim. If none of these beneficiaries file within three months of the death, the executor or administrator of the estate may file on their behalf — but the beneficiaries can still step in and take over the claim. Unmarried partners, stepchildren, and grandparents generally do not have standing to bring a wrongful death claim, no matter how close their relationship was to the person who died.
What a wrongful death claim compensates:
A wrongful death claim in Texas compensates the surviving family members for what they lost — not just the financial support the deceased would have provided, but the companionship, the guidance, the society, and the emotional bond that was taken from them. Damages include:
- Loss of earning capacity — the income the deceased would have earned over their remaining working life
- Loss of companionship and society — the relationship, the comfort, the guidance that was lost
- Mental anguish — the grief, the emotional suffering of the surviving family
- Loss of inheritance — what the deceased would have left to their family
- Funeral and burial expenses
Survival claims — a separate case the estate brings:
Texas law also recognizes a survival claim, which is distinct from the wrongful death claim. The survival claim belongs to the estate of the deceased and captures what the deceased person could have recovered had they survived — the conscious pain and suffering they experienced between the injury and death, plus any medical expenses incurred before death. When a person is ejected from a vehicle and pronounced dead at the scene, the survival claim may be limited — but it is a separate claim that must be pleaded alongside the wrongful death action.
No statutory damage caps for motor-vehicle wrongful death:
Texas imposes no statutory cap on damages in a motor-vehicle wrongful death or personal injury claim. There is no ceiling on what a jury can award. This matters because a 30-year-old woman had decades of working life ahead of her, and the financial loss to her family — to her children, to her parents — is measured across those decades.
Seat Belt Non-Use and Comparative Negligence: How It Affects Your Case
This is the hardest part of this case, and we are going to tell you the truth about it because that is what we do.
The DPS report says the driver and the 13-year-old front-seat passenger were not wearing seat belts. In Texas, evidence of seat belt non-use is admissible as comparative negligence. That means the defense will argue that the ejected occupants’ failure to wear seat belts contributed to the severity of their injuries, and the jury will be asked to assign a percentage of fault to the ejected occupants.
Texas follows a modified comparative negligence standard with a 51% bar. What that means in plain language: a person injured or killed in a crash can recover damages as long as they are not found to be 51% or more at fault. Their recovery is reduced by their assigned percentage of responsibility. If the jury finds the ejected front-seat passenger was 25% at fault for not wearing a seat belt, the passenger’s recovery is reduced by 25%.
We estimate that seat belt non-use by ejected occupants in a Texas rollover case can reduce the net recovery by approximately 20% to 40% depending on the facts. That is a significant deflator, and the insurance company knows it. But it does not erase the claim. A person who was not wearing a seat belt can still recover in Texas as long as the other driver’s negligence was the greater cause of the crash. The lane departure — the act of veering from the left lane into the right lane and striking a lawfully traveling vehicle — is the primary negligent act that started the entire chain of events. Seat belt non-use affected the severity of the injuries. It did not cause the collision.
For the child passengers:
Texas requires child restraint systems for children under 8 years old, unless the child is taller than 4 feet 9 inches. The 7-year-old in this vehicle was legally required to be in a child safety seat. The 11-year-old and 12-year-old were required to wear seat belts. The driver had a legal duty to ensure all minor passengers were properly restrained. The failure to do so is a separate act of negligence that runs to the child passengers — but it also complicates the recovery picture because the person who failed to ensure the children were belted may be the same person whose estate is the primary source of liability insurance.
For the 13-year-old front-seat passenger:
A 13-year-old is old enough that the law does not require a child safety seat, but a seat belt was legally required. The 13-year-old’s claim for serious injuries — potentially including traumatic brain injury, spinal fractures, internal organ damage, or significant scarring — will be subject to comparative fault reduction for the seat belt non-use. But the 13-year-old was a passenger. The decision not to wear a seat belt may not rest entirely on the child — and Texas law treats the driver as responsible for ensuring passengers under 17 are belted. This is a critical distinction that affects how the fault is apportioned.
For the children who were belted or whose status is unknown:
The three additional child passengers — the 11-year-old, the 12-year-old, and the 7-year-old — were in the vehicle but were not reported as ejected. Their injury status was not detailed in the preliminary DPS report. Every child in that vehicle needs a medical evaluation, even if they appeared uninjured at the scene. Internal injuries, concussions, and spinal injuries can present hours or days after a crash. Each child has an independent claim.
Who Is Liable: Mapping the Defendants
The first question the DPS CR-3 report will answer is who was driving. Until that report is complete, the liability map has branches. Here is how it breaks down:
If the deceased was the driver of the Dodge:
The estate of the deceased becomes the primary defendant for the injured passengers. Texas does not bar claims by a child against a parent’s estate for auto negligence. The estate’s liability insurance — whatever auto policy covered the Dodge — is the primary recovery source for the injured children. If the deceased carried only standard Texas auto liability limits (the state minimum is $30,000 per person / $60,000 per incident, though many drivers carry more), recovery is severely constrained unless other coverage sources exist. This is where uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, PIP, and umbrella policies across household policies for each child passenger become critical. A full insurance coverage audit must trace every applicable policy.
If someone else was driving the Dodge:
That person bears direct negligence liability for the lane departure, the failure to ensure passengers were belted, and the resulting death and injuries. The driver’s liability insurance is the first layer. The vehicle owner’s insurance (if different from the driver) may also apply. And if the vehicle owner knowingly entrusted the Dodge to an unsafe driver, a negligent entrustment theory opens another pocket.
The Toyota Tacoma driver:
The Tacoma was traveling lawfully in the right lane. The Dodge veered into it. Unless the DPS investigation reveals the Tacoma contributed to the collision (which the preliminary report does not suggest), the Tacoma driver is likely a witness, not a defendant. But the Tacoma’s EDR data and any dashcam footage are critical evidence that corroborates the lane-departure sequence.
The vehicle manufacturer — FCA US LLC / Stellantis (maker of the 2013 Dodge Ram 1500):
A products liability theory based on vehicle crashworthiness is worth investigating. The 2013 Ram 1500’s rollover and dual ejection event warrants examination of the seat belt system, the door latch performance, and the roof structure. If a biomechanical engineer and accident reconstructionist find that a belt system or door latch failed — that the belt was actually being worn but released during the rollover, or that the door latch failed to keep the door closed — the manufacturer could face liability for enhanced injuries. However, the confirmed non-use of belts by both ejected occupants is a major obstacle to this theory. We investigate it, but we are honest about the difficulty.
TxDOT — speculative, pending investigation:
If the DPS investigation identifies a road design, signage, or surface condition hazard at mile marker 260 that contributed to the lane departure — a pothole, a drop-off, a missing or obscured sign — a claim against TxDOT is theoretically possible under the Texas Tort Claims Act. But governmental immunity severely limits such claims, and the notice requirements are unforgiving. This theory only emerges from the facts the DPS investigation produces.
Evidence Preservation: What Exists and How Fast It Disappears
This is the section that matters most in the first 72 hours. Evidence in a rural rollover crash is perishable, and some of it is already being destroyed by the normal passage of time.
The 2013 Dodge Ram 1500 — the most critical piece of physical evidence:
The vehicle itself contains an Event Data Recorder — a black box — that stores pre-crash data: speed, braking, steering input, throttle position, and seat belt status for the seconds before impact. This data is the single most important piece of evidence in the case. It tells us exactly what the vehicle was doing in the moments before the lane departure. Was the driver braking? Was the steering input consistent with a deliberate lane change or a sudden correction? Was the speed at or above the posted limit?
The physical vehicle also tells the story of the rollover and ejection. A biomechanical engineer can examine the seat belt systems, the door latches, the roof structure, and the deformation pattern to determine exactly how each occupant was ejected and whether any safety system failed. But the vehicle may already be in a salvage yard. It can be crushed, auctioned, or stripped within 30 to 60 days of the crash. The EDR data is preserved in the module, but the physical inspection window closes quickly. A preservation demand letter — sent to the salvage yard, the insurance company, and anyone else with custody of the vehicle — is the first thing that goes out. The day you call is the day that letter is drafted.
The 2025 Toyota Tacoma — the corroborating witness:
The Tacoma’s EDR data and any OEM or aftermarket dashcam footage will show the Dodge’s angle and speed of intrusion into the right lane. A 2025 model may have advanced event recording — potentially including forward-facing camera footage that captured the lane departure in real time. The Tacoma may be repaired or sold quickly; secure its data before that happens.
The DPS CR-3 crash report — the foundational document:
The official crash report will contain the investigating officer’s contributing-factor findings, a unit diagram showing the positions and trajectories of both vehicles, witness statements, road conditions, and the coded contributing factors. This is typically available within 10 to 14 days of the crash. It is the document every claim is built on. Request it from DPS as soon as it is available.
Cell phone records — the distraction evidence:
If distraction contributed to the lane departure, cell phone records showing call, text, or data activity at 6:30 p.m. on July 2, 2026, would establish negligence and potentially gross negligence. Carrier retention policies vary. Some carriers hold records for 90 days, some for a year or more. A litigation hold letter or subpoena must go out promptly. If the driver was texting or using an app at the moment of the lane departure, that fact transforms the case from simple negligence to potential gross negligence — and opens the door to punitive damages.
Toxicology and autopsy records:
If the deceased was the driver, postmortem toxicology will confirm or exclude intoxication as a contributing factor. If she was a passenger, the autopsy will document the cause of death and the mechanism of injury — critical for the survival claim and for excluding alternative causation theories. Toxicology and autopsy records are typically completed within 30 to 60 days by the medical examiner’s office.
Medical records from UMC Lubbock:
The 13-year-old’s trauma center records document the full scope of injuries — surgical interventions, ICU course, imaging, and prognosis. These records are essential for life-care planning and damages quantification. They accumulate over the treatment course and should be obtained through a HIPAA-compliant authorization as treatment stabilizes. The injuries in a rollover ejection at highway speed can include traumatic brain injury, spinal or orthopedic fractures, internal organ damage, degloving injuries, and significant scarring or disfigurement.
Witness statements and passing vehicle dashcam footage:
Witness memory degrades within days. U.S. 385 is a rural highway, and surveillance cameras are rare — but commercial trucks on this oilfield corridor frequently have dashcams. Identifying any commercial vehicle that passed the scene in the minutes around 6:30 p.m. and requesting its footage before the recording loop overwrites it is urgent. Some truck dashcam systems overwrite in as few as 72 hours.
The Insurance Adjuster Playbook: What They Do and How We Counter
Lupe Peña sat in the rooms where these decisions get made. He knows the playbook because he used to run it. Here is what the insurance company is already doing — and what we do about each play.
Play 1: The “just checking in” call.
Within days, someone friendly will call the family. The tone is warm, concerned. “We just want to check on you and the children.” “We just need to know what happened.” The call is recorded. Every word the family member says is being transcribed for later use. A casual “she was a good driver” or “I don’t think she was on her phone” or “the kids seem okay” will come back as an exhibit.
Our counter: Do not give a recorded statement to the other side’s insurance company. Not now. Not after the funeral. Not while a child is in the ICU. You are not obligated to do so. If the adjuster calls, take their name and number and say nothing else. We handle that call.
Play 2: The fast settlement check.
A check may arrive fast — sometimes within weeks — with a release attached. The amount will seem like a lot of money to a grieving family. It is almost always a fraction of what the case is worth. The release, once signed, extinguishes every claim forever — including claims the family does not yet know exist because the child’s prognosis is not yet clear.
Our counter: No settlement discussions begin until the child’s medical prognosis is clearer, the DPS report is complete, and the insurance coverage is fully mapped. A Stowers demand — a formal settlement offer that, if rejected, exposes the insurer to a verdict above policy limits — is evaluated only after the liability and damages picture is complete.
Play 3: The seat belt defense.
The insurance company will hammer the seat belt non-use. They will hire a biomechanical expert to testify that the ejection would not have occurred if belts had been worn. They will argue the ejected occupants are responsible for a large share of their own injuries. In Texas, this defense has teeth — comparative negligence reduces recovery.
Our counter: The lane departure caused the crash. The seat belt non-use affected injury severity. We separate those two facts and fight to keep the fault allocation on the primary negligent act — the failure to maintain the lane. We also investigate whether the vehicle’s restraint system functioned properly. If the belts were actually worn and the system failed, the seat belt defense collapses entirely. If they were not worn, we work to minimize the comparative fault percentage by focusing the jury on the act that set the entire catastrophe in motion.
Play 4: The IME — their doctor.
The insurer may demand that the injured passenger be examined by a doctor the insurance company selects. That doctor’s job is to minimize the injury, attribute symptoms to pre-existing conditions, and produce a report that supports a low settlement. This is standard procedure, not a surprise.
Our counter: We prepare the client for the IME, we review the IME doctor’s history of defense-oriented testimony, and we bring our own treating physicians and retained experts whose opinions carry the weight of the actual medical record.
Play 5: Social media surveillance.
The insurance company is already monitoring social media. Any post by any family member — a photo, a check-in, a comment about how the kids are doing — can be screenshotted and used to argue the injuries are not as serious as claimed. A photo of the 13-year-old smiling in a hospital bed will be presented as “she looks fine.”
Our counter: Advise every family member to post nothing about the crash, the injuries, the legal case, or the children’s recovery. Nothing. Not a photo, not a comment, not a reaction. The surveillance is real and it is ongoing.
The Medicine: Rollover Ejection Injuries at Highway Speed
When a vehicle rolls over at highway speed and an unbelted occupant is ejected, the injuries are catastrophic by physics, not by chance. A human body launched from a vehicle at 70 miles per hour hits the ground with the same energy as a fall from a multi-story building. The body absorbs forces it was never designed to withstand.
Ejection and death at the scene:
A person ejected in a rollover may suffer massive blunt force trauma — head injuries, spinal cord injuries, internal organ rupture, or a combination. When death is pronounced at the scene, the survival claim is limited to the conscious pain and suffering between the moment of injury and the moment of death. If death was instantaneous or near-instantaneous, the survival damages may be modest. But the wrongful death claim — the family’s claim for the loss of the person’s life, their earning capacity, their companionship — is independent and substantial.
The 13-year-old’s serious injuries:
A teenager ejected from a rolling pickup truck and transported to a Level I trauma center with serious injuries faces a potential constellation of harm. Traumatic brain injury — even a so-called “mild” TBI with a normal initial CT scan — can produce lasting cognitive, emotional, and behavioral effects. A brain injury from an ejection at 70 miles per hour is not a concussion that heals in two weeks. It can mean memory loss, executive dysfunction, personality change, headaches that never stop, and a future that looks different from the one that child was walking toward before July 2.
Spinal fractures, orthopedic injuries, internal organ damage, and significant scarring or disfigurement are all possible. The medical record from UMC Lubbock — the trauma alerts, the surgical reports, the imaging, the ICU course — is the foundation of the damages case. A full life-care plan, built by a certified life-care planner and reduced to present value by a forensic economist, projects the cost of every surgery, every therapy session, every medication, every piece of equipment, and every year of care that child will need across the rest of their life.
The three additional children:
The 11-year-old, the 12-year-old, and the 7-year-old were in the vehicle. The preliminary report does not detail their injuries. But every child in a rollover crash needs a medical evaluation. Internal injuries, concussions, and spinal injuries can present hours or days later. A child who says “I’m fine” at the scene may not be fine. Each child has an independent claim, and each child’s medical records are the evidence that supports it.
Case Value: What This Case May Be Worth
We are going to give you the honest range, and we are going to tell you why the range is so wide.
Estimated case value range: $100,000 to $3,500,000.
The low end assumes the at-fault driver was the deceased carrying only standard Texas minimum liability limits, with no umbrella policy, no viable product liability theory, and limited UM/UIM coverage. Under that scenario, recovery is constrained by what insurance exists, and $100,000 may be the realistic ceiling.
The high end assumes the investigation reveals higher coverage limits, an umbrella policy, or a manufacturer defect that opens a second recovery pocket. It assumes the 13-year-old’s injuries are severe and lifelong — requiring a full life-care plan with future medical projections and a forensic economist’s present-value calculation. It assumes the wrongful death claim of a 30-year-old woman with decades of earning capacity ahead of her is fully developed. And it assumes the seat belt comparative fault reduction is on the lower end of the 20% to 40% range.
The dominant variable is collectibility. A $3.5 million verdict against an estate with $30,000 in liability coverage is worth $30,000. A $500,000 verdict against a manufacturer with deep pockets is worth $500,000. The insurance coverage audit — tracing every liability, UM/UIM, PIP, and umbrella policy across both the Dodge and any household policies covering the child passengers, including potential stacking under Texas law — is what determines where on this range the case actually lands.
The seat belt defense is the single largest damages deflator. Under Texas comparative negligence, the ejected occupants’ failure to wear seat belts will reduce the net recovery by an estimated 20% to 40%. This is why the biomechanical investigation matters — if we can show the belt system failed, the deflator disappears.
A guardian ad litem will be required for all minor claimants. This adds procedural complexity and timeline. No settlement involving a minor is final until a court approves it. This protection exists for the children, and it means the case takes longer — but it also means the children’s interests are protected.
The First 72 Hours: What to Do and What Not to Do
Medical first — always.
If any child who was in that vehicle has not been examined by a doctor, do that now. Not next week. Now. Internal injuries, brain injuries, and spinal injuries can present with delayed symptoms. A clean bill of health from the scene is not a clean bill of health. The medical record from a prompt evaluation is also evidence — it documents the connection between the crash and any injury that develops later.
Do not give a recorded statement.
Not to the other driver’s insurance company. Not to your own insurance company until you have spoken with a lawyer. The adjuster’s job is to minimize the claim. Your words will be used against you.
Do not sign anything.
No release, no authorization, no settlement offer, no medical authorization from the insurance company. If someone puts a document in front of you, do not sign it. Call us first.
Do not post on social media.
Nothing about the crash. Nothing about the injuries. Nothing about the children’s recovery. Nothing about the legal case. The insurance company is watching.
Do not discuss fault.
With anyone. Not with the other driver’s insurer, not with friends on Facebook, not with witnesses who call. The DPS investigation is ongoing. Premature fault discussion can damage both the family’s emotional state and the legal position.
Do let us send the preservation letter.
The evidence is on a clock. The preservation demand letter — sent to the salvage yard holding the Dodge, to the insurance companies, to the cell phone carrier, to any commercial truck company whose vehicle passed the scene — is what freezes the evidence before it disappears. This does not require the family’s active involvement. We do this. The day you call is the day the clock starts working for you instead of against you.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long do I have to file a wrongful death claim in Texas?
Texas imposes a two-year statute of limitations on both wrongful death and personal injury claims. The clock runs from the date of the incident — July 2, 2026 — not from the date of death, not from the date the DPS report is completed, and not from the date the family discovers the full extent of the injuries. Two years sounds like a long time. It is not. Medical treatment must stabilize, the DPS investigation must conclude, the insurance coverage must be mapped, the vehicle must be inspected, and the life-care plan must be built — all before a demand is even sent. The deadline can approach faster than people expect. For minor claimants, the rules regarding tolling of the limitations period should be confirmed with an attorney — but do not assume the clock is paused. Confirm the current Texas rule regarding tolling for minor claimants with a lawyer immediately.
Can my family still recover if the person who was driving was not wearing a seat belt?
Yes. Texas comparative negligence reduces recovery based on fault — it does not erase it. As long as the at-fault driver’s negligence (the lane departure, the failure to maintain the lane) is found to be the greater cause of the crash, recovery is available. The seat belt non-use will reduce the amount, but it does not bar the claim. The 51% bar means recovery is available as long as the person is not found to be 51% or more at fault.
Who gets the money from a wrongful death settlement in Texas?
The statutory beneficiaries — the surviving spouse, the children, and the parents of the deceased — are the people the law authorizes to bring a wrongful death claim. The proceeds are distributed among the beneficiaries according to their respective losses. For minor children, a guardian ad litem is appointed to protect their interests, and any settlement involving a minor requires court approval. The money for a minor is typically placed in a protected account or structured settlement until the child reaches adulthood.
What if the at-fault driver was the person who died?
If the deceased was the driver, her estate’s liability insurance is the primary recovery source for the injured passengers. Texas does not bar a child’s claim against a parent’s estate for auto negligence. The estate’s auto liability policy — and any umbrella or excess coverage — pays the injured passengers’ claims. If the policy limits are insufficient, UM/UIM coverage from household policies covering the child passengers may provide additional recovery.
What is UM/UIM coverage and how does it help in this case?
Uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage is a type of insurance that pays you when the at-fault driver has no insurance or not enough insurance to cover your losses. In a case where the at-fault driver’s liability limits are low — or the at-fault driver is the deceased with limited coverage — UM/UIM policies on vehicles in the children’s households may provide additional recovery. Texas law allows stacking of UM/UIM coverage in certain circumstances. A full coverage audit traces every applicable UM/UIM policy.
What is a life-care plan and why does the 13-year-old need one?
A life-care plan is a formal medical-economic document, built to a published professional standard, that projects every treatment, therapy, medication, piece of equipment, and caregiver hour a catastrophically injured person will need for the rest of their life, with associated costs. It is built by a certified life-care planner in consultation with the treating physicians. A forensic economist then reduces those future costs to present value — the lump sum that, if invested today, would pay for all of it. For a teenager with a traumatic brain injury or spinal injury from a highway-speed ejection, the life-care plan is what turns “lifetime care” from a phrase into a dollar figure a jury can trust.
Will my family have to go to court?
Most personal injury and wrongful death cases settle before trial. But a case that settles for full value only settles because the insurance company believes the alternative — a trial verdict — could cost them more. The willingness to take a case to trial is what creates the leverage to settle. We prepare every case as if it will be tried. The decision to settle or try the case is always the client’s.
How much does a lawyer cost?
We work on contingency. That means we do not get paid unless we win your case. The fee is 33.33% of the recovery if the case settles before trial, and 40% if the case goes to trial. The consultation is free. The call is free. We advance the costs of investigation — the EDR download, the vehicle inspection, the expert reports — and those costs are repaid from the recovery. If there is no recovery, you owe us nothing for fees or costs.
Why Our Firm
Ralph Manginello has been licensed to practice law in Texas since November 6, 1998 — more than 27 years. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer, which means he knows how to find the story the evidence tells and how to tell it to a jury in language they understand. He is admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. He has tried cases in courtrooms across this state.
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 knows how the reserve is set in the first 48 hours, before the real injuries are diagnosed. He knows how the recorded-statement call is engineered to get you to say “I’m feeling okay.” He knows the IME doctor selection process. He sat at the other table. Now he sits at yours. And he conducts full consultations in Spanish, without an interpreter, because the families who need us most should not have to translate their grief.
We have recovered more than $50 million for our clients. We have a 4.9-star Google rating from more than 251 reviews. We answer the phone 24 hours a day, 7 days a week — not with an answering service, with live staff. The same-day spoliation letter goes out the day you call. The 48-hour evidence-preservation protocol is not a marketing phrase; it is what we do.
We serve families across Texas — from our Houston offices, from Austin, from Beaumont, and on cases like this one, anywhere in the Permian Basin corridor where a highway crash has torn a family apart.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
If You Are Reading This at 2 A.M.
Here is what we want you to know: you do not have to make any decision tonight. You do not have to understand comparative negligence, or EDR data, or Stowers demands, or life-care plans. You have to do three things: get every child who was in that vehicle to a doctor, do not sign anything, and do not post on social media.
When you are ready — tomorrow, or next week, or whenever the fog lifts enough to pick up the phone — call us. The consultation is free. The call is free. We work on contingency — no fee unless we win. And we speak Spanish.
1-888-ATTY-911. 1-888-288-9911. Contact us.
Hablamos Español.
We will be here.