Howard County I-20 Fatal Truck Accident: Tire Blowout Kills McAllen Driver in Three-Semi Collision
If you are reading this page, someone you love is gone. A truck driver left home on a Friday morning — probably before dawn, the way they always do — and did not come back. The Texas Department of Public Safety has told you what happened in broad strokes: a tire blew out on a 2022 International LT, the truck crossed the center median on eastbound I-20 in Howard County, and re-entered the lanes where it collided with two other commercial trucks. One of those trucks was his. He was taken to Midland Memorial Hospital, about thirty miles west of Big Spring, and he did not survive.
You are being told it was an accident. A tire blew. Nobody’s fault. That is what the carrier hopes you accept, because the moment you do, the evidence disappears and the story closes. We are here to tell you something different: a tire blowout on a commercial truck is almost never simply bad luck. Federal law imposes specific, enforceable duties on every motor carrier to ensure that the tires on their trucks are safe, inspected, and maintained — and when a tire fails at highway speed on I-20 and sends an 80,000-pound tractor across a median into oncoming traffic, the question is not whether it was an accident. The question is who knew the tire was dangerous, who was required to know, and who let that truck roll anyway.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We handle commercial trucking and wrongful death cases in Texas. Ralph Manginello has spent 27-plus years in courtrooms, including federal court. Lupe Peña spent years on the other side of this fight — inside a national insurance-defense firm, in the rooms where adjusters decide how to value and deny claims exactly like yours — before he chose to use that knowledge for families instead of carriers. He conducts full consultations in Spanish without an interpreter. We work on contingency: we do not get paid unless we win your case. The call is free. The number is 1-888-ATTY-911, and someone answers it twenty-four hours a day.
What Happened on I-20 in Howard County
On a Friday morning, three commercial trucks were traveling eastbound on Interstate 20 through Howard County, Texas. According to the Texas Department of Public Safety, a 2022 International LT — a late-model tractor — driven by Carlos Lopez experienced a tire blowout. The truck veered into the center median. Then it re-entered the eastbound lanes, where it collided with a 2022 Kenworth T680 driven by Jose Mexicano, a 64-year-old resident of McAllen, and a 2005 Kenworth driven by Michael Washington.
Jose Mexicano was transported from the crash scene to Midland Memorial Hospital, located in neighboring Midland County approximately thirty miles west of Big Spring, the Howard County seat. He was pronounced dead. Lopez and Washington sustained minor injuries.
The crash investigation is ongoing. The Texas DPS has identified the tire failure as a critical evidentiary focus. That word — critical — is doing more work than it sounds like. It means the difference between a case that holds a carrier accountable and a case that closes with no answers. The tire is the whole case. And the tire is the single most perishable piece of evidence in this collision.
I-20 through Howard County is a major east-west interstate freight corridor. It connects the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex to West Texas and beyond, carrying heavy commercial truck traffic from Permian Basin oilfield operations, regional distribution centers, and long-haul freight. The stretch through Howard County is long, open highway with high posted speeds and dense commercial-vehicle traffic — particularly the energy-sector logistics that dominate the regional economy. When a tire fails on this road at seventy-plus miles per hour, the driver has seconds, not minutes, to keep an 80,000-pound combination vehicle in its lane. When those seconds run out, the physics take over: a truck crossing a median into oncoming commercial traffic creates a closing speed that turns whatever it hits into a catastrophe. If you want to understand what happened on I-20 that Friday morning, you start with the definitive guide to commercial truck accidents — and then you go deeper, into the tire itself.
Why a Tire Blowout Is Not “Just an Accident”
A tire blowout on a commercial motor vehicle is an event with a cause. The cause is almost always one of four things: a manufacturing or design defect in the tire itself, improper maintenance (underinflation, mismatched load ratings, a failed repair), age-related degradation (a tire run past its safe service life), or a wear pattern that a proper inspection should have caught before the truck left the yard. Federal law does not leave this to chance. It imposes specific duties on the carrier and the driver — and those duties create a paper trail that either proves the carrier was doing its job or proves it was not.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations are not suggestions. They are enforceable federal law, and they govern every commercial truck on I-20. Here is the tire safety standard, from the Code of Federal Regulations:
“No motor vehicle shall be operated on any tire that—(1) Has body ply or belt material exposed through the tread or sidewall, (2) Has any tread or sidewall separation, (3) Is flat or has an audible leak, (4) Has a cut to the extent that the ply or belt material is exposed.”
— 49 CFR § 393.75(a)
That regulation means a truck with a tire showing tread separation — the kind of separation that precedes a blowout — was illegally on the road. It was not supposed to be there. If the carrier’s own inspection records show the tire was checked and cleared, either the inspection was not actually performed or the person performing it missed what federal law says no commercial vehicle may operate with. If the records do not exist, the carrier was not inspecting at all.
The maintenance duty is equally direct:
“Every motor carrier and intermodal equipment provider must systematically inspect, repair, and maintain, or cause to be systematically inspected, repaired, and maintained, all motor vehicles and intermodal equipment subject to its control.”
— 49 CFR § 396.3(a)
And the pre-trip duty falls on the driver:
“No commercial motor vehicle shall be driven unless the driver is satisfied that the following parts and accessories are in good working order, nor shall any driver fail to use or make use of such parts and accessories when and as needed.”
— 49 CFR § 392.7(a)
After every trip, the driver must document defects in writing — and the report must specifically cover tires:
“Every motor carrier shall require its drivers to report, and every driver shall prepare a report in writing at the completion of each day’s work on each vehicle operated… The report shall cover at least the following parts and accessories: … (v) Tires.”
— 49 CFR § 396.11(a)(1)
Put these regulations together and a picture emerges. Before that International LT rolled onto I-20, the driver was required to inspect the tires and be satisfied they were safe. The carrier was required to have a systematic maintenance program. After every prior trip, the driver was required to document any tire defects in writing. If any of those steps found a tire with tread separation, exposed belt material, or a sidewall cut, the truck was prohibited from operating. The tire that blew out on I-20 was, by definition, a tire that should not have been in service. The question is which duty was skipped — and the answer is in the records, if those records still exist.
This is where truck tire blowouts and when you need a lawyer becomes not just a resource but a roadmap. The tire tells the story. A forensic tire examination can distinguish between a manufacturing defect (a belt-edge anomaly, a tread-belt separation inconsistent with normal wear), a maintenance failure (underinflation wear patterns, a patch that failed, a mismatched load rating), and age-related degradation (a tire run well past its service life with rubber compound breakdown). Each of these points to a different defendant. Each of these demands a different preservation strategy. And each of these is provable — but only if the tire is still in existence when the expert gets to it.
Who Is Responsible When a Truck’s Tire Fails on I-20
Three commercial trucks collided on I-20 that Friday morning. Each one may have a different motor carrier behind it. Each carrier may have different insurance. And the tire that failed belongs to one of them — the carrier operating the 2022 International LT. That carrier bears primary responsibility under federal law for tire condition, pre-trip inspection compliance, and preventive maintenance. But the defendant structure in this case is wider than one carrier, and identifying every party with exposure is the first move in building a case that covers the full measure of what happened.
The motor carrier operating the International LT. This is the primary defendant. The carrier is vicariously liable for the driver’s on-duty operation of the vehicle — meaning the company stands behind the driver’s actions as if they were its own. But the carrier also faces direct liability for its own choices: if the tire that failed showed signs of wear, underinflation, aging, or prior damage that a proper inspection or maintenance program should have caught, the carrier is directly liable for putting an unsafe vehicle on the road. The carrier may also face negligent-entrustment liability if it knew or should have known the tire was unsafe and nonetheless handed the truck to the driver.
The driver of the International LT. The driver has a personal duty under federal law to inspect the tires before driving and to refuse to operate a vehicle with a defect likely to cause a breakdown or accident. The degree of the driver’s fault depends on whether the blowout was foreseeable — whether a reasonable inspection would have revealed the tire’s condition — and whether the driver’s response after the blowout was reasonable. A blowout can happen to a careful driver with a well-maintained tire; it can also be the foreseeable result of skipping an inspection on a tire that was already separating.
The tire manufacturer or retreader. If the forensic tire examination reveals a manufacturing defect — a tread-belt separation, a belt-edge anomaly, a manufacturing inconsistency with normal wear — Texas products liability law supports a strict-liability claim against the tire’s manufacturer. If the tire was retreaded, the retreader may be a producing party under Texas law as well. The tire’s DOT code, stamped on the sidewall, identifies the manufacturer, the plant, and the production week. That code is how you trace the tire from the factory to the truck. It is also how you find out whether other tires from the same production batch have failed — a pattern that transforms a single blowout into evidence of a systemic defect.
The maintenance contractor or tire service provider. If a third-party vendor installed, repaired, or serviced the tire and did so improperly — wrong size, mismatched load rating, improper inflation, a failed plug-and-patch repair — a negligence claim against that vendor applies. Many carriers outsource maintenance to independent shops, and those shops carry their own insurance. The maintenance invoices, service records, and tire purchase history for the International LT will show who touched that tire last and what they did to it.
The carrier operating the 2005 Kenworth. The third truck in this collision is a 2005 Kenworth — a twenty-one-year-old tractor. Its age raises separate maintenance scrutiny. Its involvement in the collision sequence matters to crash reconstruction: whether it contributed to the fatal impact or was itself a victim of the cross-median vehicle. A 2005 tractor on I-20 in the Permian Basin may be an oilfield hauler, a regional distribution truck, or an owner-operator’s rig. Its carrier’s role in the crash turns on the reconstruction — the EDR data, the final rest positions, the debris field — not on the preliminary report.
The carrier operating the Kenworth T680 (Mr. Mexicano’s vehicle). If Mr. Mexicano was driving as an employee at the time of the crash, his estate may have a workers’ compensation death benefit claim against his own employer alongside the third-party wrongful death claim against the at-fault carrier. This is a fork the at-fault carrier hopes the family misses. Texas law is explicit:
“An employee or legal beneficiary may seek damages from a third party who is or becomes liable to pay damages for an injury or death that is compensable under this subtitle and may also pursue a claim for workers’ compensation benefits under this subtitle.”
— Tex. Lab. Code § 417.001(a)
In plain English: the family can pursue workers’ compensation death benefits through the employer’s comp carrier — a faster, no-fault system that pays a capped benefit — and simultaneously pursue a full wrongful death claim against the at-fault carrier, the tire manufacturer, and any other negligent third party. The comp claim does not replace the tort claim. It runs alongside it. And when the comp carrier pays death benefits, it may seek reimbursement from the third-party recovery — but the family’s recovery from the at-fault parties is not limited to what comp pays. This is why identifying whether Mr. Mexicano was on duty at the time of the crash is one of the first questions to answer, and why the answer opens two lanes instead of one. You can learn more about our 18-wheeler accident practice to understand how these multi-carrier cases are built.
Texas Wrongful Death Law: Who Can File and What Can Be Recovered
Texas wrongful death claims are governed by Chapter 71 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code — the Texas Wrongful Death Act. The law authorizes specific people to bring the claim, defines what they can recover, and sets the deadline.
Who can file. Under Texas law, a wrongful death action may be brought only by and for the benefit of the surviving spouse, children, and parents of the decedent. If none of those statutory beneficiaries bring the action within three months of the death, the personal representative of the estate may bring it for their benefit. This means the right to sue belongs to the family — not to the estate’s executor by default, but to the spouse, the children, and the parents first.
What the family can recover. The wrongful death beneficiaries may recover for the losses they have suffered because of the death: the mental anguish they have endured, the loss of the decedent’s companionship, the financial support he would have provided, and the services he would have rendered to the household. These are the human losses — the losses that workers’ compensation does not cover and that no insurance formula can calculate.
What the estate can recover — the survival action. Separately from the wrongful death claim, the estate of Jose Mexicano may bring a survival action under Texas law. The survival claim captures the damages that Mr. Mexicano himself could have recovered had he survived — including conscious pain and suffering between the moment of injury and the moment of death, medical expenses incurred before death, and funeral and burial costs. The survival recovery passes through the estate rather than directly to the beneficiaries. Whether there was conscious pain and suffering — and for how long — will be assessed from the Midland Memorial Hospital records, the EMS run report, and the medical examiner’s findings. If Mr. Mexicano was conscious and aware between the impact and death, even briefly, the survival claim carries its own weight.
The deadline. Under Texas law, a wrongful death action must be commenced not later than two years after the date of death. This is the general rule. Certain tolling exceptions exist — for minors, for example — but the two-year period is the controlling deadline in most cases. Two years sounds like a long time. It is not. The evidence in a commercial trucking case has a much shorter shelf life than the statute of limitations, and the carrier knows this. The two-year deadline is the backstop. The real deadline — the one that decides whether you win or lose — is measured in days and weeks.
Punitive damages. Texas law makes exemplary — punitive — damages available upon a showing of fraud, malice, or gross negligence, subject to heightened pleading and proof by clear and convincing evidence. If the carrier operating the International LT knew the tire was deteriorating and let the truck roll anyway, or if it skipped required inspections as a matter of practice, the predicate for punitive damages may exist. Punitive damages are not automatic. They require proof that goes beyond ordinary negligence — proof that the carrier consciously disregarded a known risk. The maintenance records, the inspection history, and any prior roadside violations are the evidence that builds or breaks a punitive claim.
No general damage cap. Texas does not impose a general cap on wrongful death or personal injury damages outside the medical-malpractice context. There is a statutory cap on exemplary damages in certain cases, but the economic and non-economic damages in a commercial trucking wrongful death case are not capped by a blanket rule. This is one of Texas’s strongest advantages for families: the full measure of the loss — the financial support, the companionship, the anguish — is recoverable without an artificial ceiling.
For a deeper look at how these claims work, our wrongful death practice page walks through the framework in detail.
How Comparative Fault Works in a Multi-Truck Crash on I-20
Texas follows a modified comparative responsibility rule. The statute states that a claimant cannot recover damages if his percentage of responsibility for the harm is greater than fifty percent. If the claimant’s responsibility is fifty percent or less, recovery is allowed but reduced in proportion to that responsibility. So if the jury finds the decedent ten percent at fault, the recovery is reduced by ten percent. If the jury finds the decedent fifty-one percent at fault, there is no recovery at all.
In a three-truck collision, comparative fault is the defense’s primary weapon. Every carrier’s lawyer will try to push fault onto the other vehicles — including the truck that was hit. The at-fault carrier’s defense team will argue that Mr. Mexicano could have avoided the collision, that he was following too closely, that his speed was excessive for conditions, that he should have seen the International LT crossing the median and taken evasive action. Each percentage point they pin on the decedent is money subtracted from the family’s recovery — and if they push that number past fifty percent, the family gets nothing.
This is why crash reconstruction is not optional in a multi-truck case. The Electronic Control Module data from all three tractors — vehicle speed, throttle position, brake application, event data around the moment of the blowout and the collision — is the objective evidence that either confirms or refutes the defense’s comparative-fault narrative. The final rest positions, the skid marks, the debris field, and the dashcam footage from all three trucks build the reconstruction that assigns fault based on physics, not on the defense’s preference. Without that reconstruction, the defense fills the gap with speculation. With it, the defense’s speculation collapses.
The multi-carrier dynamic also creates a strategic problem. Three carriers mean three insurance towers, three defense teams, and three sets of cross-claims. Each carrier will point at the others. The carrier of the International LT will argue the Kenworth drivers should have avoided the collision. The carrier of the 2005 Kenworth will argue it was a passive victim. The family’s case must establish the International LT’s carrier as the primary causal actor — the truck whose tire failed, whose driver lost control, whose vehicle crossed the median into oncoming traffic — early and forcefully, before the cross-claims dilute the narrative. The defense will exploit the confusion. The answer to that exploitation is a reconstruction that leaves no room for it.
The Evidence Is Disappearing Right Now
Every piece of evidence that decides this case is on a clock. Some of it is on a clock measured in days. The carrier controls most of it. And the carrier’s interests are not the family’s interests. Here is what exists, who holds it, and how fast it can legally vanish.
The failed tire and wheel assembly from the International LT. This is the single most important piece of physical evidence in the case. The tire tells you whether the blowout was caused by a manufacturing defect, a maintenance failure, age-related degradation, or road damage. A forensic tire expert can read the failure mode from the tire’s remains — tread separation patterns, belt-edge conditions, internal damage signatures. But the tire sits in a tow yard, and tow yards release vehicles for repair or scrap within days to weeks. The tire and wheel assembly must be impounded and placed under a litigation hold before any disposition occurs. Once it is gone, it is gone. There is no substitute for the physical tire. No photograph, no report, no witness statement can replace what a forensic tire examination reveals. If the tire is destroyed, the case may be lost with it.
Electronic Control Module and Engine Control Module data from all three tractors. Every late-model commercial tractor captures event data — vehicle speed, throttle position, brake application, and sometimes steering input around a crash event. The 2022 International LT and the 2022 Kenworth T680 are both late-model tractors with ECM/EDR capability. The 2005 Kenworth may have more limited data but should not be assumed to have none. This data is volatile: it can be overwritten by continued vehicle operation, or it can be cleared during repair. The modules must be downloaded before any vehicle is returned to service. If the carrier sends the truck to a repair facility, the download window may close.
Driver Vehicle Inspection Reports and pre-trip inspection records for the International LT. These records establish whether the driver or the carrier identified tire deficiencies before the trip. If the records show the tire was inspected and cleared, the inspection was either inadequate or falsified. If the records do not exist, the carrier was not inspecting at all — a regulatory violation that supports a negligence finding. These records can be revised or supplemented after an incident. A preservation demand must go out immediately to lock them as they existed on the day of the crash.
Preventive maintenance records, tire purchase history, and repair invoices for the International LT. These show whether the carrier maintained a compliant maintenance program, when the failed tire was installed, how old it was, and whether prior tire issues were addressed. They also identify any third-party maintenance vendor who may have serviced the tire. Like the inspection records, these can be altered after the fact. The preservation letter must demand them in their original form.
Dashcam footage from all three tractors. If any of the three trucks was equipped with a forward-facing or driver-facing camera, the footage may capture the blowout event, the vehicle trajectory after loss of control, and the collision sequence. This is objective evidence of the crash dynamics — not a witness’s memory, not a reconstruction, but a recording. Dashcam systems typically overwrite on a loop within days to weeks. If the footage is not preserved before the loop cycles, it is permanently destroyed.
GPS and telematics records from all three carriers. These establish vehicle speed, location, and routing in the time leading up to the crash. They corroborate or contradict driver and witness accounts. Telematics providers may purge data on standard retention schedules. A preservation letter must go to each carrier and to each telematics provider.
DPS Crash Reconstruction Report and supplemental investigation materials. The Texas DPS will produce a CR-3 crash report with official findings on the crash sequence, vehicle positions, and causal factors. These reports typically take weeks to months. But scene evidence — skid marks, gouge marks, the debris field, final rest positions — must be photographed and documented before roadway cleanup erases them. Once the highway is cleaned and traffic resumes, the physical scene is gone.
Driver qualification files and Hours-of-Service records for all three drivers. These determine whether fatigue, inexperience, or regulatory noncompliance contributed to driver reaction time or the failure to avoid the collision. Under federal law, motor carriers must retain records of duty status and supporting documents for not less than six months from the date of receipt. After that retention period, deletion is legal. Six months sounds like a window. In practice, it is a wall: if the records are not preserved before the retention period expires, they are gone forever, and the carrier is within its legal rights to have destroyed them. This is why the preservation letter goes out before the funeral, not after the insurance company calls.
If a carrier lets required evidence die after receiving a preservation demand, the consequences can be severe. An adverse-inference instruction allows the jury to assume the lost evidence was as damaging as the plaintiff says it was. Sanctions are available. And in some cases, the destruction itself becomes a separate claim. The bar for the harshest sanctions is high, but the leverage begins the moment the preservation letter is on file. The letter is not a formality. It is the first shot in the evidence war, and the carrier’s response — or silence — tells you what the records would have shown.
What a Fatal Truck Crash Case Is Worth in Texas
The value of a wrongful death case arising from a commercial truck collision depends on the facts — who was at fault, how provable the fault is, how many insurance policies are in play, and what the decedent’s life meant to the people who survived him. Every case is different, and past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. But the framework for valuing a case like this is built from specific categories, and understanding those categories is how the family knows whether a settlement offer is fair or a fraction.
Economic damages. These include funeral and burial expenses, medical costs for treatment rendered before death at Midland Memorial Hospital, and the loss of the decedent’s earning capacity and financial support. At age sixty-four, the earning-capacity calculation must account for remaining working years and retirement trajectory. A forensic economist builds this number from wage records, tax returns, employment benefits, and actuarial tables that project working life expectancy. The number is not a guess — it is a present-value calculation built from documented inputs. If Mr. Mexicano was a long-haul driver earning a commercial driver’s wage with years of expected working life ahead, that income stream has a quantifiable present value.
Non-economic wrongful death damages. These encompass the mental anguish and loss of companionship suffered by the surviving spouse, children, or parents. These are the damages that no formula can calculate and that no insurance adjuster’s software can capture. Texas does not cap these damages in a non-medical-malpractice wrongful death case. The jury hears evidence about the relationship — what the decedent meant to his family, what was lost, what the family endures — and the jury decides what that loss is worth. In a Howard County courtroom, with a jury drawn from a working-class, oil-and-gas-influenced population that understands what it means to lose someone who worked these roads, the human damages can be substantial.
Survival damages. The estate may recover for conscious pain and suffering between the moment of impact and the moment of death. The duration and severity of that suffering will be assessed from the hospital record, the EMS documentation, and the medical examiner’s findings. If Mr. Mexicano was conscious after the collision — even briefly — the survival claim carries independent value.
Punitive damages. If the carrier maintained the vehicle with knowledge of a deteriorating tire condition or skipped required inspections as a matter of practice, punitive damages become a live issue. Texas requires proof of gross negligence by clear and convincing evidence — a heightened standard — but if the maintenance records show a pattern of disregard, the predicate exists. Punitive damages are subject to a statutory cap in certain cases, but the cap does not apply to the economic and non-economic recovery.
Case value range. Based on the facts of this incident — a three-commercial-truck collision with a tire blowout as the causal mechanism, a sixty-four-year-old decedent, multiple carriers with separate insurance, and the potential for both maintenance negligence and tire-defect claims — the realistic range runs from approximately $750,000 on the low end to $6,000,000 on the high end. The low end assumes contested liability, a finding that the tire failure was unforeseeable with no carrier fault, and significant comparative-fault allocation against the decedent. The high end assumes provable negligent maintenance or a confirmed tire defect, a single clear at-fault carrier with strong insurance coverage, and punitive aggravators. A mid-range resolution of $1.5 million to $3.5 million is realistic if the carrier’s negligence is established but the punitive claim is uncertain. Collectibility is favorable — commercial motor carriers carry substantially higher insurance than private passenger vehicles, and multiple carriers mean multiple policies — but the three-vehicle collision introduces cross-claims and comparative-fault dynamics that may pressure settlement values.
The insurance ladder. An interstate commercial carrier is federally required to carry a minimum of $750,000 in liability coverage, and many carry far more — excess layers stacked into the millions. Each of the three carriers in this collision may have its own primary policy and its own excess tower. The same crash that exhausts one carrier’s primary limit may reach into a second carrier’s excess layer. Knowing which policies exist, in what order they pay, and which carrier’s coverage responds to which theory of liability is half the value of the case. The adjuster knows the ladder. The family must know it too.
The Insurance Adjuster’s Playbook — and How to Counter Each Play
Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm. He sat in the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims from people exactly like the family reading this page. He knows the plays because he used to run them. Now he uses that knowledge for families. Here are the plays the adjuster will run — and the counter to each.
Play one: the friendly “just checking in” call. Within days of the crash, someone will call the family. The voice will be warm. The tone will be sympathetic. The purpose will be to get the family talking — on a recording — about what happened, how they are feeling, and what they remember. Every word is engineered to be quoted later in a way that minimizes the claim. “He was a good driver” becomes “even the family admits the decedent had no time to react” becomes “the decedent contributed to the collision.” The counter: do not take the call. Do not give a recorded statement to any carrier’s adjuster — not the at-fault carrier’s, not the decedent’s employer’s carrier, not any of them. Every statement can wait until you have counsel. What you should not say to an insurance adjuster is not a suggestion — it is a rule.
Play two: the fast settlement check with a release buried under it. A check may arrive within weeks — sometimes before the medical records are complete, sometimes before the funeral costs are finalized. The check comes with a release. The release, once signed, extinguishes every claim the family has against that carrier — permanently. The amount will be a fraction of what the case is worth. The carrier is betting that grief and financial pressure will make the family take the money and sign the paper before anyone has looked at the tire, downloaded the EDR data, or examined the maintenance records. The counter: do not sign anything from any insurance company without counsel reviewing it. A release is permanent. The few thousand dollars they offer today is the millions they are trying not to pay tomorrow.
Play three: the “it was just a tire blowout — nobody’s fault” narrative. The carrier will frame the blowout as an unforeseeable, unpreventable act — a random failure that no one could have predicted. This narrative is designed to close the inquiry before it starts. If the blowout was nobody’s fault, there is no negligence, no maintenance claim, no products liability, no punitive exposure. The counter: federal law says a tire with tread separation, exposed belt material, or sidewall cuts may not be operated. If the tire was in that condition before the blowout, the carrier was required to know and failed. The forensic tire examination and the maintenance records are the evidence that transforms “nobody’s fault” into “the carrier’s fault.” But that evidence must be preserved before the carrier’s narrative hardens into the official story.
Play four: the comparative-fault push. The at-fault carrier’s lawyers will look for any fact they can use to push fault onto the decedent — his speed, his following distance, his reaction time, his lane position. Every percentage point of fault assigned to the decedent reduces the recovery, and if they push it past fifty percent, the family recovers nothing. The counter: the EDR data from all three tractors, the crash reconstruction, and the dashcam footage establish the physics of the collision. The International LT crossed the median. The decedent was in his lane. The reconstruction either gives the defense a comparative-fault argument or takes it away — and the reconstruction is only as good as the data that feeds it, which is why the data must be preserved immediately.
Play five: the delay aimed at the statute of limitations. The carrier may stall — requesting extensions, missing deadlines, offering to “evaluate” the claim while the two-year statute of limitations runs. The family feels pressure mounting; the carrier feels nothing. The counter: the statute is two years, but the evidence clock is much shorter. The preservation letter, the expert retentions, and the records demands do not wait for the statute. They go out immediately. The case is built while the carrier stalls, and when the carrier finally engages, the evidence is already locked.
How We Build a Case Like This
Here is the chronological walk — week one through resolution — of how a commercial trucking wrongful death case is actually built.
Week one: preservation. The day the family calls, preservation letters go out — not one letter, but letters to every carrier, every maintenance provider, every telematics company, and any tire manufacturer or retreader identifiable through the DOT code on the failed tire. Each letter demands specific items: the failed tire and wheel assembly, the EDR modules from all three tractors, the DVIRs and pre-trip inspection records, the preventive maintenance file, the dashcam footage, the GPS and telematics data, and the driver qualification files and HOS records. The letters are not requests. They are formal demands that create a legal duty to preserve — and a legal consequence for failure. The tire is impounded. The vehicles are held. The data is frozen.
Weeks two through four: expert retention and preliminary examination. A tire-forensics expert is retained to examine the failed tire before any repair facility or insurer disposes of it. The expert looks for the failure mode — tread-belt separation, belt-edge distress, manufacturing anomalies, wear patterns, underinflation signatures, age-related degradation. The DOT code is traced to the manufacturing plant and production week. If the tire was retreaded, the retreader’s identity and process are examined. A crash reconstruction expert is retained to begin building the collision sequence from EDR data, scene evidence, and final rest positions. The reconstruction will determine the speed of each vehicle, the braking of each driver, and the path of the International LT from the moment of the blowout to the point of impact.
Weeks four through twelve: records discovery. The maintenance records, inspection logs, tire purchase history, and driver qualification files are produced. We examine them for gaps, alterations, and inconsistencies. We cross-reference the carrier’s inspection records with the FMCSA’s roadside inspection database to identify any prior violations. We look for a pattern — not just one missed inspection, but a maintenance culture that let unsafe tires roll. We identify every defendant: the carrier, the driver, the tire manufacturer, the maintenance vendor. We evaluate the insurance tower for each.
Months three through six: depositions. The safety director, the maintenance manager, the driver, and any third-party vendor are deposed under oath. The safety director explains the carrier’s maintenance program — or the absence of one. The maintenance manager explains when the tire was installed, when it was last inspected, and what was found. The driver explains his pre-trip inspection — or the lack of one. The depositions are where the carrier’s narrative meets the evidence, and where the evidence wins.
Months six through resolution: valuation and demand. A life-care planner and a forensic economist build the damages model — the economic losses in present value, the non-economic losses supported by the family’s testimony, the survival claim from the medical records, and the punitive claim from the maintenance history. A settlement demand is calibrated to the carrier’s policy limits — and if the carrier’s negligence is clear and the demand is within the policy limits, the insurer faces a decision: settle within limits or risk an excess judgment that exposes the carrier — and potentially the insurer — to liability beyond the policy. This is the leverage point. This is where the case resolves or moves toward trial.
Our experience in Permian Basin oilfield commercial truck accidents is directly relevant to this corridor and the freight that moves on it. The carriers, the maintenance practices, the tire failure modes, and the defense playbook are the same whether the truck was hauling frac sand, crude oil, or general freight on I-20 through Howard County.
The First 72 Hours: What to Do and What Not to Do
If you are reading this within the first seventy-two hours of the crash, here is what matters and what does not.
Do get medical attention for yourself. Even if you were not in the truck, grief and shock produce physical symptoms that can be dangerous. The family’s health is the foundation of everything else.
Do not speak to any insurance adjuster. Not the at-fault carrier’s. Not the decedent’s employer’s carrier. Not the other drivers’ carriers. Every call is recorded. Every statement can be used. The adjuster’s friendliness is a tool. Wait until you have counsel.
Do not sign anything. No release. No authorization. No form of any kind from any insurance company. A release is permanent. An authorization gives the carrier access to medical records that can be used to minimize the claim. If someone hands you paperwork, set it down and call a lawyer.
Do not post on social media. Nothing about the crash. Nothing about the family’s grief. Nothing about the decedent. Insurance adjusters and defense investigators monitor social media. A photograph, a comment, a check-in — any of it can be taken out of context and used to argue the family’s damages are less than they are.
Do identify whether the decedent was driving as an employee. If Mr. Mexicano was on duty at the time of the crash, the family may have both a workers’ compensation death benefit claim and a third-party wrongful death claim. The comp claim moves on its own timeline. The third-party claim is where the full recovery lives. Both must be pursued, and the interplay between them — particularly the comp carrier’s right to reimbursement from the third-party recovery — requires coordination from the start.
Do ask for a personal representative to be appointed. If the family intends to pursue a survival action through the estate, a personal representative must be appointed by the court. This is the person Texas law authorizes to bring the estate’s claim. The appointment is a procedural step, but it is a necessary one, and it should be initiated early.
Do call us. The call is free. The consultation is free. We work on contingency — we do not get paid unless we win your case. The preservation letters go out the day you call. The evidence lock begins the day you call. The day you call is the day the clock starts working for you instead of against you. The number is 1-888-ATTY-911. Someone answers twenty-four hours a day.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the family sue if a tire blowout caused the crash?
Yes. A tire blowout is not an act of God — it is an event with a cause, and the cause points to a liable party. If the tire failed because of a manufacturing defect, the tire manufacturer may be liable under Texas products liability law. If the tire failed because the carrier did not maintain it properly — underinflation, missed inspections, a tire run past its service life — the carrier is liable for negligent maintenance. If a third-party maintenance shop serviced the tire improperly, that vendor is liable. The blowout is the beginning of the investigation, not the end of it. The forensic tire examination and the maintenance records are what transform “a tire blew” into “a carrier let an unsafe tire on the road.”
How long does the family have to file a wrongful death claim in Texas?
Under Texas law, a wrongful death action must be commenced not later than two years after the date of death. This is the general rule under the Texas Wrongful Death Act. Certain tolling exceptions exist, but the two-year period is the controlling deadline in most cases. However, the evidence in a commercial trucking case — the tire, the EDR data, the dashcam footage, the maintenance records, the HOS logs — has a much shorter shelf life than the statute of limitations. The real deadline is measured in days and weeks, not years. The preservation letter is what protects the case, and it must go out immediately.
What if the decedent was partly at fault for the collision?
Texas follows a modified comparative responsibility rule: a claimant cannot recover if his percentage of responsibility is greater than fifty percent. If the decedent’s responsibility is fifty percent or less, the recovery is reduced by that percentage but not eliminated. In a three-truck collision, the defense will push to assign fault to every vehicle — including the one that was hit. The crash reconstruction — built from EDR data, scene evidence, and dashcam footage — is what either supports or defeats the comparative-fault argument. The reconstruction is only as good as the data that feeds it, which is why the data must be preserved before the defense builds its narrative.
Can the family recover if the decedent was working as a truck driver at the time?
Yes, and the family may have two separate claims. Under Texas law, an employee’s legal beneficiary may seek damages from a third party who is liable for an injury or death that is compensable under workers’ compensation, and may also pursue a workers’ compensation claim. The comp claim provides death benefits through the employer’s comp carrier — a faster, no-fault system with capped benefits. The third-party wrongful death claim against the at-fault carrier, the tire manufacturer, and any other negligent party provides the full measure of recovery — including non-economic damages that comp does not pay. Both claims can proceed simultaneously. The comp carrier may seek reimbursement from the third-party recovery, but the family’s recovery from the at-fault parties is not limited to what comp pays.
Who gets the money from a wrongful death settlement in Texas?
Under the Texas Wrongful Death Act, a wrongful death action is brought by and for the benefit of the surviving spouse, children, and parents of the decedent. The recovery is distributed among the qualifying beneficiaries according to their respective losses — not equally, but proportionally to the harm each has suffered. The survival action, if any, is brought by the estate and passes through the estate according to the decedent’s will or the Texas intestacy statutes. The wrongful death recovery and the survival recovery are separate streams with separate beneficiaries and separate distribution rules.
What is the tire’s DOT code and why does it matter?
The DOT code is a alphanumeric sequence stamped on the tire’s sidewall by the manufacturer. It identifies the tire’s manufacturer, the plant where it was produced, the tire size, and the week and year of production. The DOT code is how you trace a tire from the factory to the truck. It tells you how old the tire was when it failed. It tells you whether the tire came from a production batch with a history of failures. It identifies the manufacturer for a products liability claim and the retreader if the tire was retreaded. The DOT code is one of the first things a tire-forensics expert reads — and it is one of the first things that must be preserved on the failed tire before the tire is destroyed.
How much does it cost to hire a truck accident lawyer?
We work on contingency. We do not get paid unless we win your case. The fee is 33.33 percent of the recovery before trial and 40 percent if the case goes to trial. There are no hourly charges. There are no upfront costs. The consultation is free. If we do not recover for you, you owe us nothing. This means anyone can afford the firm — the family’s ability to pay is never the question. The only question is whether the case has merit, and that is what the free consultation determines.
What should the family do if an insurance adjuster has already called?
Stop talking. Do not return the call. Do not provide a recorded statement. Do not sign any authorization or release. The adjuster’s call is not a courtesy — it is a strategic move designed to lock in a statement that can be used to minimize the claim. Every conversation with an adjuster should go through counsel. If the adjuster has already recorded a statement, that statement may be usable, but the family’s rights are not extinguished by it. Call us. The consultation is free. We will assess what was said and build the case from here.
Can the family sue the tire manufacturer even if the carrier was also at fault?
Yes. Texas law allows the family to pursue multiple defendants under multiple theories simultaneously. The carrier may be liable for negligent maintenance, the tire manufacturer may be liable for a product defect, and a maintenance vendor may be liable for negligent service. The jury apportions responsibility among all defendants according to their respective fault. The family recovers from each defendant according to that apportionment — subject to the comparative-fault rule. Multiple defendants mean multiple insurance towers and multiple avenues of recovery. They also mean cross-claims and apportionment arguments, which is why the case must establish the primary causal actor — the International LT and its tire — early and clearly.
Why Attorney911
Ralph Manginello has spent 27-plus years in courtrooms, including federal court. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer — he knows how to find the story the records tell, and he knows how to tell it to a jury. He is admitted to the State Bar of Texas (Bar #24007597, licensed November 6, 1998) and the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas. He is the managing partner of the firm and leads by doing the work. You can read more about Ralph Manginello’s background and practice on his bio page.
Lupe Peña is a former insurance-defense attorney. He spent years at a national defense firm — in the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to value, deny, and devalue claims from people exactly like the family reading this page. He knows how the reserve is set in the first 48 hours, how the recorded-statement call is engineered, how the surveillance works, and where the delay tactics cross the line into bad faith. He now uses that knowledge for families. He is fluent in Spanish and conducts full consultations in Spanish without an interpreter. You can learn more about Lupe Peña and his insurance-defense background on his bio page.
The firm has recovered more than $50 million in the aggregate for clients, including a $5 million-plus brain-injury settlement, a $3.8 million-plus amputation settlement, a $2.5 million-plus truck-crash recovery, and a $2 million-plus maritime back-injury settlement. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. What those results do show is that when the evidence is preserved, the experts are retained, and the case is built the right way, the full measure of recovery is achievable.
We are not the counsel of record on this incident. We have not been retained by the Mexicano family. We are writing this page because the family of anyone killed in a commercial truck crash on I-20 in Howard County needs to know — right now, while the evidence still exists — what their rights are, what the carrier is already doing, and what must happen in the first hours and days to protect the case. The education, the governing law, the evidence clocks, the honest evaluation of what a case like this is worth — that is what we provide. If the family calls, the preservation letters go out that day. The tire is impounded. The data is frozen. The clock starts working for them.
We serve families fully in Spanish. Hablamos Español. Lupe conducts complete consultations in Spanish without an interpreter — the same depth, the same protector voice, the same expertise, in the language the family prays in.
The call is free. The consultation is free. We do not get paid unless we win your case. The number is 1-888-ATTY-911. Someone answers twenty-four hours a day — not an answering service, a live person. Contact us when you are ready. We will be ready.
This page is legal information, not legal advice. Every case is different. Every fact pattern is unique. The statutes, regulations, and deadlines described here are current as of the date of publication, but laws change. If you or your family has been affected by a commercial truck crash, call us for a free consultation specific to your situation. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.