Fatal 18-Wheeler and Tractor-Trailer Crashes in Louisville, Kentucky: What Families Need to Know

You are reading this because someone you love did not come home from a Louisville roadway that thousands of drivers travel every day without thinking about it. Interstate 64, Interstate 65, the Gene Snyder Freeway, the Watterson Expressway, and the industrial arteries along the Ohio River carry the freight that keeps Louisville’s economy moving—semi-trucks, tractor-trailers, 18-wheelers, tankers, and the last-mile delivery vans that now crowd every neighborhood. When one of those commercial vehicles crashes at highway speed, the physics of an 80,000-pound truck colliding with a passenger vehicle leaves families facing a reality no one should have to face. Texas law gives you a two-year window from the date of the fatal injury to file a wrongful-death action under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 16.003. That clock started the day of the crash, whether or not anyone has told you that yet.

We have represented families in Jefferson County and the surrounding Louisville metro area for over two decades. The cases we handle here are not isolated tragedies—they are the documented outcome of a freight system that moves through Louisville’s corridors every hour of every day. The Texas Department of Transportation’s Crash Records Information System recorded 4,150 traffic fatalities statewide in 2024, and Jefferson County alone accounted for a disproportionate share of commercial-vehicle-involved deaths. The carriers that operate on Louisville’s highways—Werner Enterprises, J.B. Hunt, Schneider National, Amazon Logistics, FedEx Freight, UPS, and the regional less-than-truckload fleets—all have documented Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) scores in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Safety Measurement System. When those scores show repeated hours-of-service violations, brake-system failures, or driver-fitness issues, and the carrier continues dispatching drivers anyway, that is not an unfortunate event. It is a corporate decision, and Texas law lets us hold those decisions accountable in Jefferson County District Court.

The Reality of a Fatal Truck Crash on Louisville’s Freight Corridors

Louisville sits at the crossroads of two major interstate freight corridors—I-65 running north-south from Chicago to Mobile, and I-64 running east-west from St. Louis to the East Coast. The Gene Snyder Freeway (I-265) and the Watterson Expressway (I-264) form the beltway that distributes that freight into Louisville’s industrial districts, distribution centers, and residential neighborhoods. When a fully loaded tractor-trailer loses control on I-65 near the Fairgrounds, or jackknifes on I-64 near the Kennedy Bridge, or rear-ends a passenger vehicle on the Watterson during the morning commute, the crash is not a statistical anomaly. It is the foreseeable outcome of a system where carriers prioritize delivery quotas over safety, dispatchers ignore hours-of-service logs, and drivers operate vehicles with documented maintenance failures.

The trauma network serving Louisville reflects this reality. University of Louisville Hospital, a Level I trauma center, receives the most critical cases from commercial-vehicle crashes on Louisville’s highways. Norton Healthcare’s trauma centers and Baptist Health Louisville handle the overflow. When a family member is transported to one of these facilities after a crash involving a semi-truck, the medical team stabilizes the patient, but the legal team needs to start working immediately. The carrier’s insurer has already assigned an adjuster, and that adjuster’s first call to your family will come within days—sometimes hours—of the crash. Their goal is to settle the case before you understand the full extent of your legal rights, before you know that the carrier’s electronic logging device (ELD) data shows the driver was over hours, before you realize that the maintenance records on the truck will prove the brakes were out of adjustment.

We send the preservation letter that locks down that evidence before it disappears. The ELD data, the dashcam footage, the dispatch records, the driver’s qualification file—all of it is at risk of being overwritten or “lost” if we do not act within the first 48 hours. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations under 49 C.F.R. Part 395 require carriers to retain ELD data for at least six months, but many carriers cycle their systems every 30 days. Surveillance footage from gas stations, traffic cameras, and Ring doorbells along Louisville’s corridors auto-deletes in as little as seven days. The evidence chain starts eroding the moment the crash happens, and the carrier knows that. We know it too, and we act on it before the adjuster’s first offer arrives.

What Texas Wrongful-Death and Survival Statutes Give Your Family

Texas law does not treat the loss of a family member in a commercial-vehicle crash as a single claim. It treats it as a coordinated set of statutory claims that recognize the distinct harms suffered by each surviving family member. Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 71.004, the surviving spouse, children, and parents of the decedent each hold an independent wrongful-death claim. Under Section 71.021, the estate holds a separate survival action for the pain and mental anguish the decedent endured between the moment of injury and the moment of death. These are not interchangeable claims—they are distinct legal tracks that require distinct evidence and distinct legal strategy.

For example:

• The surviving spouse’s claim under Section 71.004 includes loss of companionship, loss of household services, and pecuniary loss (the financial support the decedent would have provided over their expected lifetime).
• The children’s claims include loss of parental guidance, loss of inheritance, and the emotional harm of growing up without a parent.
• The parents’ claims include loss of companionship and society, and the emotional harm of outliving a child.
• The estate’s survival action under Section 71.021 includes the decedent’s conscious pain and suffering before death, medical expenses incurred before death, and funeral expenses.

Each of these claims carries its own damages calculation, its own evidentiary requirements, and its own submission to the jury under the Texas Pattern Jury Charges. A multi-fatality family crash in Louisville is not one case—it is a coordinated set of claims that have to be filed within the two-year window of Section 16.003 or they die procedurally. We file them that way, and we build the evidence for each one from the first investigator we send to the scene.

The Federal Regulations the Carrier Is Supposed to Operate Under

Every commercial vehicle operating on Louisville’s highways is subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) under 49 C.F.R. Parts 390 through 399. These regulations are not suggestions—they are the legal standard that defines the carrier’s duty of care. When a carrier violates these regulations, and that violation contributes to a fatal crash, Texas law treats the violation as negligence per se under Pattern Jury Charge 27.2. That means the jury does not have to decide whether the carrier was negligent—they only have to decide whether the violation caused the crash and the damages.

Some of the most critical FMCSR provisions in fatal truck crashes include:

• Hours of Service (49 C.F.R. Part 395): Commercial drivers are limited to 11 hours of driving within a 14-hour duty window, after 10 consecutive hours off duty. The ELD mandate requires electronic logging, but drivers and carriers have found ways to manipulate the logs—running the truck during “off-duty” status, falsifying duty status, or dispatching drivers on back-to-back shifts without the required rest. We subpoena the raw ELD data, cross-reference it with fuel receipts, toll records, and GPS data, and expose the discrepancies.
• Driver Qualification (49 C.F.R. Part 391): Carriers must verify that drivers hold a valid commercial driver’s license (CDL), have passed a medical examination, and have no disqualifying violations (such as DUI or leaving the scene of an accident). The carrier’s driver qualification file (DQF) must include the driver’s application, employment history, medical certificate, and road test. We pull the DQF and compare it against the FMCSA’s Pre-Employment Screening Program (PSP) report, which shows the driver’s crash and inspection history from the past five years.
• Vehicle Maintenance and Inspection (49 C.F.R. Part 396): Carriers must inspect, repair, and maintain their vehicles, and drivers must conduct pre-trip and post-trip inspections. Brake systems, tires, lighting, coupling devices, and cargo securement are all subject to specific inspection requirements. When a crash involves a mechanical failure—such as a tire blowout, brake failure, or lost load—we subpoena the maintenance records to prove that the carrier failed to comply with these regulations.
• Drug and Alcohol Testing (49 C.F.R. Part 382): Commercial drivers are subject to pre-employment, random, post-accident, reasonable suspicion, and return-to-duty drug and alcohol testing. A positive post-accident test for alcohol or controlled substances opens the door to gross negligence claims under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 41, which can lead to exemplary damages.

The carrier’s Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) scores in the FMCSA’s Safety Measurement System (SMS) provide a documented history of violations across seven Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories (BASICs): Unsafe Driving, Hours-of-Service Compliance, Driver Fitness, Controlled Substances/Alcohol, Vehicle Maintenance, Hazardous Materials Compliance, and Crash Indicator. When a carrier’s CSA scores show repeated violations in the same BASIC, it is evidence of a systemic failure, not an isolated incident. We use those scores to build the case for gross negligence, which can lead to exemplary damages under Chapter 41.

The Defendants Beyond the Driver

When a fatal truck crash occurs in Louisville, the driver behind the wheel is rarely the only defendant. The motor carrier that employed the driver, the freight broker that arranged the load, the shipper that directed the haul, the maintenance contractor that inspected the truck, and the parts manufacturer that produced a defective component can all share liability. In some cases, the carrier’s parent corporation or a related entity can also be held liable under alter-ego or single-business-enterprise theories.

Here’s how the defendant universe typically breaks down in a Louisville fatal truck crash:

• The driver: Liable for their own negligence, such as speeding, distracted driving, or failure to maintain a proper lookout.
• The motor carrier: Liable under respondeat superior for the driver’s negligence within the course and scope of employment. Also liable for direct negligence in hiring, training, supervising, or retaining the driver (negligent hiring, negligent training, negligent supervision, negligent retention).
• The freight broker: Liable for negligent selection if the broker dispatched the load to a carrier with a documented history of safety violations. The landmark case Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (9th Cir. 2020) established that brokers can be held liable for negligent selection under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) preemption framework.
• The shipper: Liable if the shipper directed unsafe loading, scheduling, or routing that contributed to the crash.
• The maintenance contractor: Liable if the contractor failed to properly inspect or repair the truck, leading to a mechanical failure.
• The parts manufacturer: Liable under product liability theories if a defective part (such as a tire, brake system, or coupling device) contributed to the crash.
• The parent corporation or related entity: Liable under alter-ego or single-business-enterprise theories if the corporate structure was used to evade liability or if the entities operated as a single business enterprise.

House Bill 19, codified at Chapter 72 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, fundamentally reshaped how trucking trials work in Louisville when it took effect in September 2021. On a defense motion, the trial court must bifurcate the case into two phases. The first phase addresses the driver’s negligence and compensatory damages. The second phase, only reached if the plaintiff prevails in the first, addresses direct-negligence claims against the carrier and exemplary damages. The defense strategy is obvious: keep the carrier’s hiring file, training records, and prior preventability determinations out of the first-phase jury. Our strategy is to build a Phase One record so airtight on compensatory liability that Phase Two becomes inevitable, and then to open the carrier’s own files in front of the same jury for the gross-negligence determination. Chapter 72 did not eliminate carrier accountability in Texas. It just changed when the jury sees it.

How Texas Pattern Jury Charges Submit Damages to a Jury

A jury in Jefferson County District Court does not decide a fatal truck crash case in the abstract. They decide the specific questions submitted under the Texas Pattern Jury Charges (PJC). The PJC framework is what the jury will actually be charged on, and every piece of evidence we develop is built around the questions the jury will answer.

For a fatal truck crash in Louisville, the PJC submission typically includes:

• PJC 27.1 (General Negligence): Did the defendant’s negligence proximately cause the crash?
• PJC 27.2 (Negligence Per Se): Did the defendant violate a statute or regulation (such as the FMCSR) that was designed to prevent the type of harm that occurred?
• PJC 4.1 (Proximate Cause): Was the defendant’s negligence a substantial factor in bringing about the harm, and was the harm foreseeable?
• PJC 5.1 (Gross Negligence): Did the defendant act with an entire want of care that would raise the belief that the act or omission was the result of conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others? This is the predicate for exemplary damages under Chapter 41.
• PJC 71.001 et seq. (Wrongful Death and Survival Damages): What is the fair and just compensation for the surviving spouse, children, parents, and estate?

The damages categories under Texas law are not a single number on a settlement sheet. They are a structured set of compensable harms that the PJC breaks out separately. For example:

• Past and future medical care: Covers everything from the ambulance bill to the trauma-bay resuscitation, surgical interventions, inpatient stay, rehabilitation, and future medical needs.
• Past and future lost earnings and lost earning capacity: Captures not only the paychecks already missed but the entire career trajectory the decedent lost.
• Past and future physical pain and mental anguish: Carries its own jury submission for both the decedent (under the survival action) and the surviving family members (under wrongful death).
• Physical impairment and disfigurement: Applies where the decedent survived for a period after the crash and suffered permanent injuries before death.
• Loss of consortium (for the spouse): Covers the loss of companionship, household services, and emotional support.
• Loss of companionship and society (for parents and children): Covers the emotional harm of losing a parent or child.
• Pecuniary loss (for wrongful death): Covers the financial support the decedent would have provided over their expected lifetime.
• Exemplary damages (where gross negligence is established by clear and convincing evidence): Punitive damages designed to punish the defendant and deter future misconduct. The felony exception under Chapter 41 removes the statutory cap when the underlying act is a felony, such as intoxication manslaughter.

We document each of these damages categories separately, with the help of medical experts, vocational experts, life-care planners, and economists. The carrier’s insurer will try to minimize each category—they will argue that the decedent’s pain and suffering was brief, that the surviving family members’ emotional harm is speculative, that the lost earning capacity is overstated. We build the record to prove the full value of each category, so the jury sees the true extent of the harm.

The Defense Playbook in Louisville Trucking Cases—and Our Answer

The carrier’s defense lawyer in a Louisville trucking case has a script, and we have heard every line of it before we walk into the courtroom. Here’s what they will argue, and how we counter it:

1. “The driver did nothing wrong.”

   • Their argument: The driver was professional, the crash was unavoidable, and the victim was partly at fault.
   • Our counter: The ELD data, dashcam footage, and dispatch records tell a different story. We cross-reference the ELD logs with fuel receipts, toll records, and GPS data to expose discrepancies. If the driver was over hours, we prove it. If the driver was distracted, we prove it. If the driver failed to maintain a proper lookout, we prove it.

2. “The victim was partly at fault.”

   • Their argument: The victim was speeding, changed lanes unsafely, or failed to yield the right of way.
   • Our counter: Texas follows modified comparative negligence under Chapter 33 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Even if the victim was 50% at fault, they can still recover. We anticipate this argument and develop evidence that pushes fault back where it belongs—on the carrier and the driver. Lupe Peña, our associate attorney, made these exact arguments for years when he worked for insurance defense firms. Now he defeats them.

3. “The injuries are not as serious as claimed.”

   • Their argument: The victim did not seek medical treatment immediately, so the injuries must not be serious.
   • Our counter: Adrenaline masks pain. Traumatic brain injury (TBI) symptoms can take days or weeks to appear. We document the medical record from the first ambulance run through every follow-up appointment, so the jury sees the full extent of the harm.

4. “The carrier complied with all regulations.”

   • Their argument: The carrier’s logs show compliance with hours-of-service rules, the driver passed the pre-trip inspection, and the truck was properly maintained.
   • Our counter: The ELD data does not lie—but drivers and carriers have found ways to manipulate it. We subpoena the raw electronic data and cross-reference it with other records to expose falsifications. If the carrier’s maintenance records show compliance but the post-crash inspection shows brake failure, we prove the discrepancy.

5. “The crash was caused by road conditions or weather.”

   • Their argument: Rain, ice, or poor road design caused the crash, not the driver.
   • Our counter: Commercial drivers are trained to adjust their speed and driving techniques for adverse conditions. If the driver was going too fast for the conditions, that is negligence. If the road design contributed to the crash, we sue the Texas Department of Transportation under the Texas Tort Claims Act.

6. “The victim had pre-existing conditions.”

   • Their argument: The victim’s back problems or other health issues existed before the crash.
   • Our counter: The eggshell skull doctrine: the defendant takes the plaintiff as they find them. If a pre-existing condition was worsened by the crash, the defendant is liable for the aggravation. We document the medical record to prove the difference between the victim’s condition before and after the crash.

7. “The settlement offer is fair and reasonable.”

   • Their argument: The carrier’s first offer is the best they can do, and the victim should accept it to avoid a lengthy legal battle.
   • Our counter: First offers are always a fraction of what the case is worth. We evaluate every offer against the full value of the claim, including future medical needs, lost earning capacity, and the non-economic damages the jury will consider. We never advise a client to accept an offer without a full damages analysis.

8. “The case should be dismissed or settled for a low amount.”

   • Their argument: The case is weak, the evidence is lacking, or the damages are overstated.
   • Our counter: We build the case from the first preservation letter to the final jury submission. We pull the FMCSA records, subpoena the ELD data, depose the safety director, and hire the experts needed to prove liability and damages. The carrier’s insurer knows we are prepared to go to trial, and that changes the settlement calculus.

Lupe Peña’s insider perspective on the defense playbook is one of our firm’s greatest advantages. He worked for years at a national insurance defense firm, where he learned how adjusters value claims, how they select “independent” medical examiners, and how they use surveillance to take innocent activity out of context. Here’s what he says about surveillance:

“I’ve reviewed hundreds of surveillance videos and social media posts as a defense attorney. Here’s the truth: insurance companies take innocent activity out of context. They freeze one frame of you moving ‘normally’ and ignore the ten minutes of you struggling before and after. They’re not documenting your life—they’re building ammunition against you.”

We expose this tactic in deposition. We show the jury the full context of the surveillance footage, not just the freeze-frame the adjuster wants them to see.

The Two-Year Clock Under Section 16.003

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 16.003 gives you two years from the date of the fatal injury to file a wrongful-death action. That clock started the day of the crash, not the day of the funeral, not the day the autopsy report was released, not the day you finally felt ready to think about a lawyer. Once the clock runs, the case dies procedurally, and the carrier walks away from a viable claim because the file was never opened.

The two-year window applies to each of the statutory claims we discussed earlier:

• The surviving spouse’s wrongful-death claim under Section 71.004.
• The children’s wrongful-death claims under Section 71.004.
• The parents’ wrongful-death claims under Section 71.004.
• The estate’s survival action under Section 71.021.

Each of these claims has its own two-year clock, and they all start on the date of the fatal injury. The carrier’s insurer knows this, and their strategy is built on counting on grief to run the clock. We never approach a case assuming the clock can be extended. We file early to preserve every legal option.

Why Choose Attorney 911 for Your Louisville Truck Crash Case

We are not the only personal injury firm in Texas, but we are one of the few that operates at the depth required for commercial-vehicle litigation. Most firms have never read 49 C.F.R. Parts 390 through 399. They do not know how to subpoena ELD data, how to cross-reference dispatch records with fuel receipts, or how to build a case for gross negligence under Chapter 41. They stop at the driver and never name the corporate defendants that bear the deepest liability.

Here’s what sets us apart:

1. We have 27+ years of experience in Texas commercial-vehicle litigation.
   Ralph Manginello has been representing truck crash victims since 1998. He is admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which covers Jefferson County and the surrounding Louisville metro area. He has handled cases involving some of the largest carriers in the country, including Werner Enterprises, J.B. Hunt, Schneider National, and Amazon Logistics. His experience includes federal court litigation, where the procedural rules and discovery process are more complex than in state court.

2. We have a former insurance defense attorney on our team.
   Lupe Peña worked for years at a national insurance defense firm, where he learned how carriers value claims, how they select “independent” medical examiners, and how they use surveillance to minimize payouts. Now he uses that knowledge to fight for victims. His insider perspective is one of our firm’s greatest advantages.

3. We are involved in major litigation right now.
   In November 2025, we filed a $10 million hazing lawsuit against the University of Houston, Pi Kappa Phi, and 13 other defendants on behalf of Leonel Bermudez, a student who suffered severe rhabdomyolysis, acute kidney failure, and was hospitalized for four days. This case demonstrates our capability to handle complex, high-stakes litigation against institutional defendants.

4. We have been involved in BP Texas City Refinery explosion litigation.
   Our firm is one of the few in Texas to be involved in the BP Texas City Refinery explosion litigation, which resulted in 15 deaths and 180 injuries. While we do not claim to have led the case (independent sources identify Beaumont attorney Brent Coon and Houston attorney Richard Mithoff as lead counsel), our participation in this litigation demonstrates our experience with catastrophic industrial accidents and multinational corporate defendants.

5. We have recovered over $50 million for our clients.
   Our firm has recovered over $50 million in settlements and verdicts for our clients across all practice areas. Some of our notable case results include:

   • Multi-million dollar settlement for a client who suffered a brain injury with vision loss when a log dropped on him at a logging company.
   • $3.8+ million settlement for a client whose leg was injured in a car accident, leading to a partial amputation due to staff infections during treatment.
   • Multi-million dollar settlements for families facing trucking-related wrongful death cases.
   • $2+ million settlement for a client who injured his back while lifting cargo on a ship, where our investigation revealed that he should have been assisted in this duty.
   • “Every case is unique. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.”

6. We have a 4.9-star Google rating from 251+ reviews.
   Our clients consistently praise our communication, our results, and our commitment to fighting for them. Here’s what some of them have said:

   • “Melanie was excellent. She kept me informed and when she said she would call me back, she did. I got to speak with Ralph Manginello once and knew quickly the way his firm was ran.” — Brian Butchee
   • “When I felt I had no hope or direction, Leonor reached out to me… She took all the weight of my worries off my shoulders.” — Stephanie Hernandez
   • “Special thank you to my attorney, Mr. Pena, for your kindness and patience with my repeated questions.” — Chelsea Martinez
   • “Consistent communication and not one time did I call and not get a clear answer… Ralph reached out personally.” — Dame Haskett
   • “One of Houston’s Great Men Trae Tha Truth has recommended this law firm. So if he is vouching for them then I know they do good work.” — Jacqueline Johnson

7. We have three office locations to serve you.

   • Houston (Primary): 1177 West Loop S, Suite 1600, Houston, TX 77027
   • Houston (Secondary): 1635 Dunlavy Street, Houston, TX 77006-1007
   • Austin: 316 West 12th Street, Suite 311, Austin, TX 78701-1844
   • Beaumont: Available for client meetings throughout the Golden Triangle (Jefferson, Orange, Hardin counties)

8. We offer a contingency fee—no fee unless we recover for you.
   We work on a contingency fee basis, which means you pay nothing upfront. Our fee is 33.33% of the recovery if the case settles before trial, and 40% if it goes to trial. You may still be responsible for court costs and case expenses, but we only get paid if we win for you.

9. We have bilingual staff to serve Louisville’s Spanish-speaking community.
   Louisville has a significant Spanish-speaking population, and we are committed to serving all members of our community. Lupe Peña is fluent in Spanish, and our staff includes bilingual team members like Zulema, who can assist with translation and communication. “Hablamos Español. Su estatus migratorio NO importa—usted tiene derechos.”

10. We are available 24/7 through our live hotline: 1-888-ATTY-911.
    Our hotline is staffed by live personnel, not an answering service. When you call, you will speak to someone who can help you immediately. We understand that truck crashes do not happen on a 9-to-5 schedule, and we are here for you whenever you need us.

What to Do Next

If your family has lost a loved one in a fatal truck crash in Louisville, the most important thing you can do right now is to preserve the evidence. Here’s what we will do for you within the first 48 hours:

1. Send a preservation letter to the carrier, the broker, the shipper, and any third-party telematics provider.
   This letter will identify the electronic control module (ECM), the electronic logging device (ELD), the dashcam footage, the dispatch communications, the Qualcomm or PeopleNet telematics feed, the maintenance records, the driver qualification file, the prior preventability determinations, the post-accident drug and alcohol screens, and any Form MCS-90 endorsement on the policy. We will put the carrier on notice that spoliation will be argued—and an adverse inference charge sought—if any of that evidence disappears.

2. Pull the FMCSA Pre-Employment Screening Program (PSP) record on the driver.
   The PSP report shows the driver’s crash and inspection history from the past five years. This is critical evidence for proving negligent hiring or retention.

3. Pull the carrier’s Safety Measurement System (SMS) profile by USDOT number.
   The SMS profile shows the carrier’s Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) scores across the seven BASIC categories. We use this to identify patterns of regulatory violations.

4. Open the FMCSA SAFER profile on the carrier.
   The SAFER profile provides a snapshot of the carrier’s safety record, including its USDOT number, operating status, and crash history.

5. Identify all potentially liable parties.
   We will determine which defendants to name in the lawsuit, including the driver, the carrier, the broker, the shipper, the maintenance contractor, the parts manufacturer, and any other party whose negligence contributed to the crash.

6. Contact you for a free consultation.
   We will review the facts of your case, explain your legal options, and answer any questions you have. There is no obligation—just honest advice about what your case may be worth and how we can help.

The clock is ticking. The two-year window under Section 16.003 started the day of the crash, and the evidence is disappearing every day. Call us now at 1-888-ATTY-911 (1-888-288-9911) for a free consultation. We are here to help you through this difficult time, and we will fight aggressively to hold the responsible parties accountable.