Andrews, TX: When a Child Behind the Wheel and a Failed Spare Tire Take Nine Lives
You are reading this because someone you love did not come home from a golf tournament. A van carrying a coach and eight young athletes back to Hobbs, New Mexico, met a pickup truck on FM 1788 near Andrews, Texas, and nine people are gone. The National Transportation Safety Board has confirmed two facts that make this crash different from any other you have read about: the pickup was driven by a 13-year-old — a child who, under Texas law, cannot hold any license at all — and the truck’s left front tire, which was a spare, blew out before impact. Both vehicles caught fire. Everyone in that van, and the child driving the truck, died.
We are not going to pretend we can give you back what was taken. What we can do is tell you, plainly and completely, what the law allows families to do when nine people are killed because a child was put behind the wheel of a 3/4-ton pickup on a rural West Texas highway with a spare tire on the front axle. We can tell you who can be held accountable — and it is not just the child. We can tell you what evidence is burning right now, what the insurance companies are already doing, and what the first 72 hours demand of every family that lost someone on that road.
This is what we do. We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, and we handle wrongful death and motor vehicle collision cases in Texas. The analysis below is written as the senior trial attorney on our team, and it is written to you — the person at the kitchen table at 2 a.m. trying to understand what happened and what to do next.
What Happened on FM 1788: The Facts That Change Everything
On the evening of March 15, 2022, at approximately 8:17 p.m., a 2017 Ford Transit van operated by the University of the Southwest was traveling on FM 1788 near Andrews, Texas, towing a box trailer. The van was carrying a coach and eight student-athletes from the university’s golf team, returning to Hobbs, New Mexico, after a tournament in Midland. At the same time, a 2007 Dodge 2500 pickup truck was traveling on the same road. The Dodge veered into the opposing lane of traffic and collided with the van head-on. Both vehicles were engulfed in fire following the collision. Nine people died.
Two findings from the NTSB transform this from a tragic accident into a case with multiple avenues of legal accountability:
First, the driver of the Dodge 2500 was 13 years old. In Texas, a person must be 14 to begin classroom instruction for a learner’s license and 15 to receive a provisional license. A 13-year-old driving on a public highway is breaking the law — period. The Department of Public Safety confirmed this directly. A child that age has no legal right to operate any motor vehicle on a public road in Texas.
Second, the truck’s left front tire — which was a spare tire, not a regular road tire — blew out before the collision. A spare tire on a 2007 vehicle could be up to 15 years old. Rubber degrades over time regardless of tread depth, and a 15-year-old spare pressed into service as a primary front tire on a heavy-duty pickup at highway speeds is a failure waiting for a time and a place. On FM 1788, it found both.
NTSB Vice Chairman Bruce Landsberg characterized the collision as “clearly a high-speed collision” — a statement that tells you the closing speed between these two vehicles, on a road where the speed limit runs 70 to 75 miles per hour with no physical median separating opposing lanes, was sufficient to make survival unlikely for anyone in either vehicle.
The question is not whether this was preventable. It was. The question is who allowed it to happen, and whether the companies that made the tire and the truck did their part.
Who Is Legally Responsible When a 13-Year-Old Causes Nine Deaths
This case has more potential defendants than most wrongful death cases because the harm was caused by a chain of failures — a child who should never have been driving, adults who let it happen, a tire that should never have been on that axle, and companies that may have built or warned about that tire inadequately.
The parents or guardians of the 13-year-old driver bear the primary responsibility under the doctrine of negligent entrustment. They entrusted a dangerous instrumentality — a 3/4-ton, 6,700-pound pickup truck — to a child who was legally incapable of holding any license in Texas. The entrustor knew or should have known the child was incompetent to operate the vehicle safely. This theory supports both compensatory and punitive damages.
The registered owner of the 2007 Dodge 2500, if different from the parents, faces independent claims for negligent entrustment (permitting an unlicensed 13-year-old to operate the vehicle) and negligent maintenance (a spare tire was deployed on the front axle). If the owner is the parents, these claims merge with the negligent entrustment theory. If the owner is a separate person or entity, that owner has its own insurance and its own liability.
The tire manufacturer of the failed spare — whose identity has not yet been publicly confirmed — faces a products liability claim if the tire was defectively manufactured, defectively designed, or sold with inadequate warnings about spare tire lifespan and usage limitations. A spare tire on a 2007 vehicle may be up to 15 years old, raising age-degradation and warning-adequacy claims that open a path to a defendant with the resources to actually compensate nine families for their losses.
FCA US / Stellantis — the corporate successor to the manufacturer of the 2007 Dodge 2500 — faces potential products liability exposure if the spare tire system, the vehicle’s handling characteristics after a front-tire failure, or the warnings regarding spare tire use contributed to the loss of control. The spare tire’s DOT Tire Identification Number, once identified, will show the tire’s manufacturer and manufacture date — and that single stamp on the sidewall may determine whether this is a million-dollar case or a multi-million-dollar case.
Any adult who provided the keys or knowingly permitted the child to access the vehicle faces negligent entrustment and negligent supervision claims. Identifying every adult in the household, who had access to the keys, and what they knew about the child’s driving is foundational work that must begin before memories fade and household arrangements change.
Texas Negligent Entrustment: When Letting a Child Drive Becomes a Lawsuit
Negligent entrustment is the primary legal theory in this case, and it is one of the most powerful tools Texas law gives to the families of people killed by someone who should never have been behind the wheel.
The doctrine works like this: when a person entrusts a dangerous instrumentality — and a 3/4-ton pickup truck on a public highway is exactly that — to someone they know or should know is incompetent to operate it safely, the entrustor is liable for the harm that results. The entrustor does not have to be driving. The entrustor does not have to be present. The entrustor has to have given the keys, or left the keys accessible, to someone they knew or should have known could not safely drive.
In this case, the incompetence is not a matter of opinion. A 13-year-old in Texas cannot legally hold any form of driver’s license. The minimum age for classroom instruction is 14. The minimum age for a provisional license is 15. A 13-year-old has no learner’s permit, no classroom hours, no behind-the-wheel training, no licensing exam, and no lawful authority to operate a motor vehicle on FM 1788 or any other public road in Texas. The adults who allowed this child access to a 2007 Dodge 2500 entrusted a deadly machine to a person who was, by law and by common sense, incompetent to operate it.
Texas courts have long recognized negligent entrustment as a well-established cause of action. The elements are: (1) the entrustor entrusted a vehicle to the driver, (2) the entrustor knew or should have known the driver was incompetent or unlicensed, (3) the vehicle was a dangerous instrumentality, and (4) the driver’s incompetence caused the harm. Every element is met here on the face of the facts: a 13-year-old, unlicensed by definition, was entrusted with a heavy-duty pickup truck, and the truck collided head-on with a van carrying nine people.
The insurance defense bar will argue that the entrustor did not “know” the child was going to drive. But negligent entrustment does not require the entrustor to know the specific trip was going to happen — it requires the entrustor to know or should have known the entrustee was incompetent to drive. A 13-year-old is incompetent as a matter of law. If the keys were accessible, if the child had driven before, if any adult in the household was aware of the child’s driving habits — every one of these facts strengthens the entrustment claim.
This theory also opens the door to punitive damages, because allowing a 13-year-old to operate a heavy-duty pickup on a public highway — with a spare tire on the front axle — demonstrates a conscious indifference to the safety of others that Texas gross negligence law was written to punish.
Negligence Per Se: Texas Law Says a 13-Year-Old Cannot Drive
There is a separate legal doctrine at work here that is even simpler than negligent entrustment, and it is called negligence per se. When a person violates a statute or regulation designed to protect a class of people, and the violation causes the kind of harm the statute was meant to prevent, the violation itself is evidence of negligence — and in many cases, negligence as a matter of law.
Texas law sets minimum ages for driver licensing. A 13-year-old cannot legally operate a motor vehicle on a public highway. The Department of Public Safety confirmed that a 13-year-old driving is breaking the law. The statute is designed to protect everyone on the road from the very harm that occurred — an unlicensed, untrained operator losing control of a vehicle and killing people. The violation caused exactly the kind of harm the licensing requirements exist to prevent.
“A 13-year-old driving would be breaking the law.” — Department of Public Safety Sgt. Victor Taylor, confirming that the child’s operation of the vehicle violated Texas licensing requirements.
Negligence per se is powerful because it removes the argument about whether the conduct was reasonable. It was not reasonable. It was illegal. The defense cannot argue the 13-year-old was exercising due care, because the 13-year-old had no legal right to be on that road in the first place.
The Spare Tire: Products Liability and the 15-Year-Old Tire
The second avenue of accountability — and the one that may determine whether nine families receive meaningful compensation — runs through the tire that failed.
The NTSB found that the left front tire on the Dodge 2500 was a spare, and that it blew out before the collision. Every tire sold in the United States carries a DOT Tire Identification Number stamped on the sidewall. For tires manufactured since 2000, the last four digits of that number encode the manufacture date: the first two digits are the week, and the last two are the year. A tire stamped “3207” was made in the 32nd week of 2007. If the spare on this Dodge 2500 was the factory original, it was manufactured in 2006 or 2007 — making it 15 or 16 years old at the time of the crash.
Here is what the tire science says about aged tires: rubber degrades over time regardless of use. Heat, oxygen, and ozone break down the rubber compounds. The steel belts inside can separate from the rubber. A tire that has never been used — a spare sitting in the bed or under the truck for 15 years — can look brand new and still be dangerously degraded. Multiple major automakers recommend replacing tires after six years regardless of tread wear, and many set a hard stop at ten years. A 15-year-old spare pressed into highway service on a heavy-duty pickup is a tire that has exceeded every manufacturer’s safety window.
The products liability investigation must answer three questions: Who made the tire? When was it made? And did the manufacturer adequately warn that this tire should not be used as a primary road tire after a certain age?
If the tire was defectively manufactured — if the rubber compounds, the belt construction, or the bonding were defective when the tire left the factory — the tire manufacturer is strictly liable for the harm caused by the failure. Strict liability does not require proof that the manufacturer was careless. It requires proof that the product was defective and that the defect caused the harm.
If the tire was defectively designed — if the design itself made the tire unreasonably dangerous, or if a safer alternative design existed and was not adopted — the manufacturer is liable for the harm.
If the manufacturer failed to adequately warn about spare tire lifespan, speed limitations, or the dangers of using an aged spare as a primary road tire, the failure-to-warn theory opens a path to recovery. Many spare tires carry warnings about maximum speed and distance. But a 15-year-old spare may carry no warning about age degradation at all — and that silence may be the defect.
The vehicle manufacturer — Stellantis, as the corporate successor to Chrysler Group LLC, which manufactured the 2007 Dodge 2500 — faces a parallel set of questions. Did the vehicle’s spare tire system adequately account for the vehicle’s weight and operating conditions? Did the owner’s manual warn about spare tire age? Did the vehicle’s handling characteristics after a front-tire failure contribute to the loss of control? The crashworthiness doctrine — established in Larsen v. General Motors Corp. — holds that a manufacturer has a duty to design a vehicle that is reasonably safe in foreseeable collisions, and that the maker is liable for the portion of the harm caused by defective design over and above what would have occurred absent the defect. A tire failure is foreseeable. A loss of control after a tire failure is foreseeable. The question is whether the vehicle’s systems — steering, stability, braking — were adequate to allow a driver (even a 13-year-old) to maintain control after the tire failed.
You can learn more about how tire blowout cases work — and when a lawyer becomes essential — in our guide to truck tire blowouts.
Gross Negligence and Punitive Damages: Conscious Indifference on FM 1788
Texas law allows exemplary damages — punitive damages — when a defendant acts with gross negligence. Gross negligence means more than ordinary carelessness. It means a conscious indifference to the safety of others — actual awareness of the risk and deliberate disregard of it, or behavior so extreme that it shows an actual intent to disregard the safety of others.
Allowing a 13-year-old to operate a 3/4-ton pickup truck on a public highway is not a mistake. It is not a lapse in judgment. It is a choice — a choice made by every adult who had access to the keys, who knew the child was driving, or who left a vehicle accessible to a child below the legal driving age. When that choice is compounded by a spare tire on the front axle — a tire that may have been 15 years old and that no careful owner would have trusted at highway speeds — the indifference becomes harder to defend against.
Punitive damages matter in this case for a reason beyond punishment: they may be the only way to bridge the gap between what nine families have lost and what the available insurance can pay. If the parents’ auto liability limits and umbrella coverage are insufficient to compensate nine deaths — and they almost certainly are — the threat of an uncapped punitive damages verdict is what creates the pressure to settle for every dollar the insurance stack can produce. The Stowers doctrine — a Texas rule that imposes a duty on liability insurers to accept reasonable settlement demands within policy limits when an ordinarily prudent insurer would do so — turns that pressure into a tool. A Stowers demand, served on the parents’ insurer early in the case, with the overwhelming liability documented, forces the insurer to choose: settle within limits and close the exposure, or refuse and face a bad-faith claim if a jury returns a verdict above the policy limits.
Texas Wrongful Death and Survival Actions: What the Law Allows Families to Recover
Texas law gives families two separate legal claims after a death caused by someone else’s negligence, and understanding the difference between them is the first step in understanding what this case is worth.
The wrongful death action belongs to the surviving family members — the spouse, children, and parents of the person who died. It compensates the family for what they lost: the financial support the deceased would have provided, the companionship and society, the emotional comfort, the guidance and counsel, and the services the deceased performed. In Texas, wrongful death damages include lost earning capacity, lost inheritance, mental anguish, loss of companionship, and the cost of funeral and burial. There is no general statutory cap on wrongful death damages in Texas outside of medical malpractice cases.
The survival action belongs to the estate of the person who died. It carries forward the claim the deceased would have had if they had survived — the pain and suffering experienced between injury and death, the medical expenses incurred before death, and the funeral costs. The survival action answers one of the most important questions in this case: did any of the nine victims survive the mechanical impact of the collision but die from the fire that followed? If they did, the survival action captures the conscious pain and suffering of those final minutes — and that is a damages category that can dramatically increase the value of the case.
The Texas statute of limitations for wrongful death and personal injury is generally two years from the date of the incident. For the families of the nine people killed on March 15, 2022, that deadline is the controlling clock — but the evidence preservation clock runs far faster, which is why the first phone call to a lawyer matters more than the last.
For nine deaths — particularly young college student-athletes with full earning-capacity horizons ahead of them — the theoretical combined damages readily exceed $75 million to $150 million in economic and non-economic losses, before any punitive damages. The young age of the student-athletes means the lost earning capacity stretches across decades. The coach’s estate carries its own substantial earning-capacity loss. The mental anguish of multiple grieving families is real and compensable. The horror of the death mechanism — a high-speed head-on collision followed by fire — is a factor a jury will weigh.
But theoretical damages and collectible damages are two different numbers, and the honest answer about what this case is worth requires understanding both.
The Insurance Reality: Why Nine Deaths Cost More Than Any Single Policy
The critical deflator in this case is collectibility. The primary defendants — the 13-year-old’s parents or guardians and the vehicle owner — almost certainly carry auto liability limits grossly insufficient to compensate nine families for the deaths of their loved ones. Texas’s minimum auto liability coverage is $30,000 per person and $60,000 per accident — a number that nine wrongful deaths would pass in the first hour of medical bills, if anyone had survived long enough to incur them. Most people carry more than the minimum, but even a $100,000 or $300,000 policy is a fraction of what nine deaths are worth. Umbrella or excess coverage, if it exists, might add $1 million to $5 million — still insufficient for nine deaths.
This is why the products liability track against the tire manufacturer and the vehicle manufacturer is the primary path to meaningful recovery. A tire manufacturer and a global automaker like Stellantis have the resources to pay a verdict that reflects the actual value of nine lives. But the products liability claim only matures if the investigation identifies the tire manufacturer, proves a defect or inadequate warning, and establishes specific causation between the tire failure and the lane departure. Until that investigation is complete, the practical recovery range spans from low single-digit millions (if only the parents’ insurance is available) to tens of millions (if the products liability claim matures and a jury or a settlement delivers the full value of the harm).
The insurance stack on the parents’ side likely includes: the auto liability policy on the Dodge 2500, any umbrella or excess policy, and potentially the homeowner’s policy if it provides coverage for the child’s use of the vehicle. Each policy must be identified, confirmed, and tested for coverage. The Stowers doctrine turns the overwhelming liability — a 13-year-old driving is negligence per se — into leverage: a reasonable settlement demand within the parents’ policy limits, served early, forces the insurer to either settle or expose itself to bad-faith liability if a jury returns a verdict above the limits.
On the products liability side, the tire manufacturer and Stellantis carry their own insurance towers — far larger than any personal auto policy. The investigation into the tire’s identity, age, and condition is what determines whether that tower becomes available. The tire’s DOT Tire Identification Number is the key that unlocks that door.
The insurance adjuster assigned to the parents’ claim has already been told to value this file. The initial reserve — the money the insurer sets aside to pay the claim — was probably set within the first 48 hours, before anyone understood the full scope of nine deaths. That reserve will be low. The adjuster’s job is to close this file for as little as possible. The families’ job, with the right lawyer, is to make the insurer understand that nine wrongful deaths with negligence per se liability is not a file that closes cheaply.
What the Crash Did to Nine People: The Medicine of a High-Speed Head-On
The NTSB characterized this as a high-speed collision. On FM 1788, with speed limits of 70 to 75 miles per hour and no physical median, the closing speed between two vehicles approaching each other in opposing lanes can exceed 140 miles per hour. The kinetic energy in a collision at those speeds is not linear — it increases with the square of the speed. A crash at 70 mph carries four times the destructive energy of a crash at 35 mph. When a 2007 Dodge 2500 — a heavy-duty truck weighing approximately 6,700 pounds — meets a Ford Transit van towing a trailer at highway speeds, the energy dissipation is catastrophic.
The victims in this collision almost certainly suffered a combination of massive blunt-force deceleration injuries. The human body is not built to withstand the forces generated by a head-on collision at highway speeds. The most likely injury pattern includes traumatic brain injury from the brain impacting the inside of the skull, thoracic and abdominal organ rupture from the seatbelt and steering column forces, cervical spine fracture from the head whipping forward and back, and pelvic and long-bone fractures from the collapse of the vehicle’s structure into the passenger compartment.
The fire that engulfed both vehicles after the collision adds a second mechanism of harm. Thermal burns and smoke inhalation are injuries that develop over time — seconds to minutes — which raises the most important medical question in this case from a damages standpoint: did any of the nine victims survive the initial mechanical impact but die from the fire? If any victim was alive after the collision and died from burns or inhalation, the survival action for that victim captures the conscious pain and suffering of those final moments. Autopsy findings — specifically, the presence of carbon monoxide in the blood or soot in the airway — will answer this question. That answer can materially increase the damages for each affected victim.
The families need to know that the medical evidence in this case — the autopsy reports, the toxicology findings, the injury descriptions — is evidence that must be obtained and preserved. In a case where the vehicles burned and the physical evidence is fragile, the medical records are among the most durable proof of what actually happened to the people inside.
The Adjuster’s Playbook: What They Will Try Before the Funerals Are Over
Within days of the crash, someone will contact the families. The voice will be warm, the words will be sympathetic, and the purpose will be to limit the insurance company’s exposure. Here are the plays that are already being run or will be run soon — and the counter to each.
Play 1: The fast, sympathetic call. An adjuster or representative will call to “check on the family” and ask the family to “just tell us what happened” — on a recording. The purpose is to lock in a statement before the family has legal counsel, to capture anything that could be used later to shift blame or minimize the claim. The counter: do not give any recorded statement to any insurance company. Not the parents’ insurer, not the university’s insurer, not anyone. Every word spoken to an adjuster before the family has a lawyer is a word that can be quoted back in court. The only response to any adjuster is: “I need to speak with my attorney first.”
Play 2: The quick check with a release attached. A settlement check may arrive fast — sometimes before the funeral, sometimes before the family understands the full scope of what happened. The check will come with a release — a document that, once signed, extinguishes the family’s right to pursue any further compensation. The purpose is to close the file for a fraction of its value before the family knows what it is worth. The counter: never sign anything from an insurance company without having a lawyer read it first. A release signed in grief is still a release. The money that looks sufficient in the first week will look like a rounding error when the family understands what nine deaths actually cost.
Play 3: The “limited coverage” narrative. The adjuster will tell the family that the at-fault driver’s insurance limits are small and that is all there is. The purpose is to make the family believe the only money available is the parents’ auto policy, discouraging investigation into the products liability track where the real recovery lives. The counter: the insurance limits on the parents’ policy are not the ceiling on what this case is worth. The tire manufacturer and the vehicle manufacturer have their own resources. The spare tire that blew out is a separate defendant with a separate insurance tower. The case is not limited to what the parents’ insurer says is available.
Play 4: The delay aimed at the statute of limitations. The adjuster may be friendly and slow — responsive enough to keep the family from hiring a lawyer, but never actually offering a fair settlement. The purpose is to let the two-year statute of limitations run out while the family believes a settlement is coming. The counter: the deadline is real, but the evidence deadline is faster. The burned vehicles, the failed tire, the EDR data, the cell phone records — all of these have their own clocks that run far shorter than two years. The family that waits to see what the adjuster offers may find that the evidence to prove the case has been legally destroyed before anyone asked for it.
Play 5: The blame-the-victim inversion. The adjuster may suggest that the van driver could have avoided the collision, or that the university should not have had the team on the road at that hour, or that the trailer the van was towing contributed to the severity. The purpose is to plant the seed of comparative fault — to reduce the at-fault driver’s share of responsibility by shifting blame to the victims. The counter: Texas follows a modified comparative negligence rule with a 51% bar — a plaintiff is barred from recovery only if assigned more than 50% of the fault. A 13-year-old driving illegally with a blown spare tire on the front axle of a heavy-duty truck that crossed into oncoming traffic is not a case where the victims will be assigned the majority of fault. But every percentage point the defense can pin on the victims is money, and the defense will fight for every point. The family needs a lawyer who can hold the line.
The Evidence Is Burning: What Must Be Preserved Before It Disappears
Every piece of evidence in this case is on a clock, and the clock is shorter than most families realize. Both vehicles burned. The tire that failed is deteriorating with every day it sits in an impound lot. The road evidence — skid marks, gouge marks, debris patterns — is being erased by traffic and weather. The cell phone records that show what the child was doing before the crash are on a deletion timer. Every one of these records must be frozen with a preservation letter before the law allows it to disappear.
Both vehicles — the 2007 Dodge 2500 and the 2017 Ford Transit van — and all component parts. These are the most critical physical evidence in the case. Both vehicles burned, which means the remaining physical evidence — the frame, the axle, the tire fragments, the EDR module, the steering column, the braking system — is fragile and subject to further degradation from weather, corrosion, and scrap disposal. A preservation letter and impound hold order must go out within days. If the vehicles are released to a salvage yard and crushed, the single most important physical evidence in the case is gone.
The left front spare tire and wheel assembly from the Dodge 2500. This is the single most critical piece of physical evidence in the entire case. The spare tire that blew out before impact must be examined by a board-certified tire failure analyst for manufacturing defects, age degradation, improper inflation, and misuse as a primary tire. The DOT Tire Identification Number on the tire will identify the manufacturer and the manufacture date — and that identification is what determines whether the products liability claim against a tire manufacturer is viable. Fire damage and environmental exposure will rapidly degrade the tire’s rubber composition and render forensic analysis unreliable. The tire must be photographed, cataloged, and placed under a litigation hold immediately.
Event Data Recorder data from both vehicles. Both vehicles are equipped with EDRs — black boxes — that record pre-crash speed, braking input, steering input, seatbelt use, and the timing of events in the seconds before impact. For the Dodge 2500, the EDR will show the vehicle’s speed before the tire failure, whether the driver attempted to brake, and how the vehicle responded after the tire blew. For the Ford Transit, the EDR will show whether the van driver had any time to react. EDR modules may survive fire, but the data must be extracted before memory degradation. A qualified forensic technician with the right equipment — not a mechanic, not a tow yard employee — must image both modules.
Cell phone records of the 13-year-old and all household members. These records will show whether the child was distracted at the time of the crash — texting, calling, using an app — and whether any adult was aware of or directed the child’s driving. Cell phone carriers retain records for limited periods before automatic deletion. Preservation letters must go to every carrier serving every member of the household within 30 to 90 days.
Vehicle maintenance and tire purchase records for the Dodge 2500. These records will establish who owned the vehicle, when the spare tire was installed, whether the spare was a factory original (potentially 15 years old) or a replacement, and whether any maintenance was performed. Private maintenance records may be discarded. Tire retailers may purge transaction records. The tire purchase history is central to both the negligent maintenance and products liability theories.
Household composition, custody arrangements, and key-access evidence. This identifies every adult with custody or supervisory responsibility over the 13-year-old, who had access to vehicle keys, whether keys were secured, and what the household knew about the child’s driving habits. This is the foundation of the negligent entrustment and negligent supervision claims. Memories fade. Household arrangements change. Witnesses disperse. The investigation must begin before these facts become harder to establish.
Scene evidence on FM 1788. Skid marks, gouge marks, the debris field, and roadway measurements establish the vehicle paths, the point of tire failure, the point of lane departure, the angle of impact, and the post-impact trajectory. FM 1788 is an active roadway. Residual scene evidence will be obliterated by traffic, weather, and road maintenance within days to weeks. A forensic scene mapping must be conducted before the evidence is gone.
NTSB investigation working files. The NTSB has launched a full investigation. The NTSB’s final report is generally not admissible in civil litigation — but the underlying factual data (vehicle examination notes, speed analysis, tire findings, witness statements) can be obtained through discovery and used to support expert opinions. The NTSB investigation typically takes 12 to 24 months. Early coordination with NTSB party participants can preserve access to the factual data that the final report will be built on.
How a Case Like This Is Actually Built: From Preservation to Proof
Here is the chronological walk of how a case with nine wrongful deaths, a 13-year-old driver, and a failed spare tire is built — week by week, step by step — from the day a family calls to the day a number is on the table.
Week one. The preservation letter goes out. It goes to the impound lot holding both vehicles, ordering them not to release, crush, or alter anything. It goes to the parents’ insurance company, ordering preservation of every policy, every claim file, every recorded statement, and every communication. It goes to the cell phone carriers serving every member of the 13-year-old’s household, ordering preservation of call records, text messages, and data usage. It goes to the tire retailer where the spare was purchased (if that can be identified from the vehicle’s service records), ordering preservation of every transaction record. It goes to the NTSB party participants, requesting access to factual investigation data. Every letter is a race against a clock the other side is counting on you not to know about.
Weeks two through four. The vehicles are examined. A board-certified tire failure analyst and an accident reconstructionist are retained. They go to the impound lot. They photograph every inch of both vehicles. They document the tire fragments, the wheel assembly, the suspension components, and the EDR module. They image the EDR data from both vehicles using the right forensic equipment. They map the scene on FM 1788 — measuring skid marks, gouge marks, debris patterns, and the roadway geometry — before traffic and weather erase what remains.
Weeks four through twelve. The tire is identified. The DOT Tire Identification Number on the failed spare is decoded. The manufacturer is identified. The manufacture date is confirmed. If the tire was made in 2006 or 2007, it was 15 or 16 years old at the time of the crash — and the products liability claim against the tire manufacturer is live. The tire is placed under a chain-of-custody protocol. A laboratory examination is scheduled. The manufacturer is put on notice of the claim.
Months three through six. Discovery begins. Interrogatories and document requests go to the parents, the vehicle owner, the tire manufacturer, and Stellantis. Depositions are taken: the parents, the household members, the responding officers, the NTSB investigators (as to factual findings only), the tire engineer, the accident reconstructionist. The insurance policies are confirmed. The Stowers demand is prepared and served on the parents’ insurer.
Months six through twelve. The products liability investigation matures. The tire expert issues a report. The accident reconstructionist issues a report. The life-care planner and forensic economist build the damages model for nine deaths — lost earning capacity, lost household services, mental anguish, loss of companionship, and the survival-action damages for any victim who survived the impact but died in the fire. The Stowers demand is served. The insurer responds — and if the demand is reasonable and the insurer refuses, the bad-faith exposure begins to build.
Year one through year two. The case proceeds toward trial or mediation. Mediation is deferred until the products liability investigation is mature — because settling prematurely against only the parents’ limited insurance would leave the tire and vehicle manufacturer exposure on the table, and that exposure is where the real value lives. If mediation fails, the case is tried in Andrews County — a small, rural venue with a limited jury pool, where voir dire must focus on juror attitudes toward parental responsibility, child supervision, and corporate accountability for tire safety.
The First 72 Hours: What Families Must Do Now
The first 72 hours after a catastrophic crash are when evidence is either preserved or lost. The families of the nine people killed on FM 1788 have a short window to act before the proof that could hold someone accountable is legally destroyed.
Do not give a recorded statement to any insurance company. Not the parents’ insurer, not the university’s insurer, not any carrier. Every word will be transcribed and can be used against the family later. The only response to any adjuster is: “I need to speak with my attorney.”
Do not sign anything from any insurance company. No release, no authorization, no acknowledgment. A document signed in the first days after a death — before the family understands what the case is worth, before the products liability investigation has identified the tire manufacturer, before the full scope of the harm is known — can extinguish rights that are worth far more than any check offered in those first days.
Do not post on social media. Nothing about the crash, nothing about the family’s grief, nothing about the other driver or the investigation. Insurance companies monitor social media, and anything posted can be taken out of context and used to minimize the family’s claim.
Demand preservation of both vehicles. The 2007 Dodge 2500 and the 2017 Ford Transit van are the most critical physical evidence in the case. If they are in an impound lot, they must not be released, altered, or scrapped. A preservation letter from a lawyer freezes them in place.
Demand preservation of the failed tire. The spare tire that blew out is the single most important piece of evidence. It must be photographed, cataloged, and stored under chain of custody. The DOT Tire Identification Number on the sidewall identifies the manufacturer and the manufacture date — and that identification determines whether a products liability claim exists.
Identify every insurance policy. The parents’ auto policy, any umbrella or excess policy, the homeowner’s policy, the vehicle owner’s policy (if different from the parents), the university’s insurance. Every policy is a potential source of recovery, and every policy must be confirmed before it lapses or is allowed to expire.
Call a lawyer. Not next week. Not after the funeral. Not after the adjuster makes an offer. The evidence in this case is burning, and the clock on the evidence runs faster than the clock on the statute of limitations. The preservation letter that saves the tire, the vehicles, and the cell phone records is the first thing a lawyer sends — and it has to go out before the law allows that evidence to disappear.
Andrews County and the Permian Basin: Why Where This Happened Matters
FM 1788 is a two-lane Farm-to-Market road in Andrews County, in the Permian Basin oilfield region of West Texas, near the New Mexico border. Andrews County has a population of approximately 18,000 — a small, rural community where the jury pool is limited and the venue shapes both trial strategy and settlement leverage.
Farm-to-Market roads in this region typically carry speed limits of 70 to 75 miles per hour, with no physical median separation between opposing lanes. A tire failure or a momentary loss of control at those speeds can result in an immediate, unrecoverable lane departure into oncoming traffic — which is exactly what happened here. The nearest Level I or II trauma centers are in Midland and Lubbock, meaning extended emergency response times to rural crash scenes on FM 1788. Those response times affect survivability — and they affect evidence integrity, because the longer the scene sits uncontrolled, the more physical evidence degrades.
The Permian Basin is one of the most active oil and gas production regions in the world, and the roads around Andrews carry significant commercial traffic alongside passenger vehicles. Our firm handles Texas oilfield commercial truck cases across this region, and we know the corridors, the industries, the courthouses, and the way these cases are tried in West Texas.
Andrews County as a trial venue means a small, conservative jury pool. Voir dire must focus on juror attitudes toward parental responsibility and child supervision, on whether jurors understand that a 13-year-old driving is illegal, and on corporate accountability for tire safety. There may also be a question of whether venue can be established in a larger, more diverse county based on where the defendants reside or other jurisdictional facts — a strategic decision that depends on the specific defendant identities and the specific facts of the case.
The Two-Map Doctrine applies here: the physical map shows FM 1788, the Permian Basin, the drive time to the nearest trauma center. The power map shows the defendants — the parents in Andrews County, the tire manufacturer wherever it is headquartered, Stellantis as a global corporation, the insurance adjusters who may be working from a tower in another state. The jury that decides what nine lives were worth will be twelve people from Andrews County — the reader’s own neighbors, in a community where everyone knows someone affected by the oilfield economy and the roads that serve it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the parents be sued when their 13-year-old child causes a fatal accident in Texas?
Yes. Texas law recognizes negligent entrustment as a cause of action when a parent or guardian entrusts a motor vehicle to a child they know or should have known was incompetent or unlicensed to drive. A 13-year-old in Texas cannot legally hold any driver’s license — the minimum age for classroom instruction is 14 and the minimum for a provisional license is 15. Allowing a 13-year-old to operate a vehicle on a public highway is negligence per se, and the adults who permitted it can be held liable for the resulting deaths. The parents’ auto liability insurance, any umbrella or excess coverage, and potentially their homeowner’s policy may all be sources of recovery.
How long do I have to file a wrongful death lawsuit in Texas?
Texas generally gives surviving families two years from the date of death to file a wrongful death lawsuit. The two-year statute of limitations is the controlling deadline, but the evidence preservation deadline runs far faster. The burned vehicles, the failed tire, the EDR data, the cell phone records — all have their own clocks that run in days, weeks, or months, not years. The family that waits until month 20 to call a lawyer may find that the statute of limitations has not run, but the evidence to prove the case has been legally destroyed.
Can we sue the tire manufacturer if a spare tire blowout caused the crash?
Yes — if the investigation identifies the tire manufacturer and proves that the tire was defectively manufactured, defectively designed, or sold with inadequate warnings about spare tire lifespan and usage limitations. Every tire sold in the United States carries a DOT Tire Identification Number on the sidewall. The last four digits encode the manufacture date. If the spare on this 2007 Dodge 2500 was the factory original, it could have been 15 or 16 years old at the time of the crash — far beyond every manufacturer’s recommended replacement window. The products liability claim against the tire manufacturer is the primary path to meaningful recovery for nine families, because the tire manufacturer’s resources far exceed the parents’ insurance limits.
What is the case worth when nine people are killed in a head-on collision?
The theoretical damages for nine wrongful deaths in Texas — particularly young college student-athletes with full earning-capacity horizons — could exceed $75 million to $150 million in combined economic and non-economic damages, before punitive damages. The critical deflator is collectibility: the primary defendants (the parents/guardians and vehicle owner) likely carry auto liability limits grossly insufficient for nine deaths, with umbrella coverage of $1 million to $5 million if available. The products liability track against the tire manufacturer and Stellantis is the primary path to meaningful recovery. The practical recovery range spans from low single-digit millions (insurance-only) to tens of millions (if the products liability claim matures). The honest answer depends on what the investigation finds.
Does the NTSB report determine who was at fault?
No — and this is a critical point. The NTSB’s final report is generally not admissible in civil litigation. The NTSB exists to prevent future accidents, not to assign legal blame. Its probable-cause finding cannot be shown to a jury. However, the underlying factual data — the vehicle examination notes, the speed analysis, the tire findings, the witness statements — can be obtained through discovery and used to support the family’s own expert opinions. The NTSB investigation provides a roadmap for what to investigate; the family’s lawyers build the case from the facts the investigation surfaces, not from the conclusion it reaches.
What if the parents’ insurance is not enough to cover nine deaths?
It almost certainly is not. Nine wrongful deaths, particularly the deaths of young people with decades of earning capacity ahead of them, exceed any personal auto policy. This is exactly why the products liability investigation is so important. The spare tire that failed has a manufacturer — and that manufacturer has resources far beyond what the parents’ insurance can pay. The vehicle manufacturer, Stellantis, is a global corporation with the resources to compensate nine families for their losses. The case must be built on two tracks: the negligent entrustment track against the parents (to capture every dollar of available insurance) and the products liability track against the tire and vehicle manufacturers (to reach the resources that can actually compensate nine families).
What should we not do after a fatal accident?
Do not give a recorded statement to any insurance company. Do not sign anything from any insurance company — no release, no authorization, no acknowledgment. Do not post about the crash on social media. Do not assume the parents’ insurance is the only source of recovery. Do not wait for the adjuster to make a fair offer — the adjuster’s job is to close the file for as little as possible, not to compensate the family for what was lost. Do not let the two-year statute of limitations pass while waiting for an offer, and do not let the evidence-preservation clock run out while waiting for the NTSB report.
Can we recover punitive damages in Texas for this crash?
Yes — Texas allows exemplary (punitive) damages when a defendant acts with gross negligence, meaning a conscious indifference to the safety of others. Allowing a 13-year-old to drive a 3/4-ton pickup on a public highway — with a spare tire on the front axle — is the kind of conduct that supports a gross negligence finding. Punitive damages are important in this case not just as punishment but as leverage: the threat of an uncapped punitive verdict is what creates the pressure to settle for every dollar the insurance stack can produce. The Stowers doctrine turns that pressure into a tool by forcing the insurer to either accept a reasonable settlement demand within policy limits or face bad-faith exposure.
Was the University of the Southwest van a commercial vehicle?
No — the Ford Transit van operated by the university almost certainly falls below the 10,001-pound GVWR threshold that would trigger commercial vehicle classification under federal regulations. Neither vehicle in this collision was a commercial motor vehicle subject to FMCSA regulations. This case is a passenger-vehicle collision, not a commercial trucking case. The university’s own insurance may be a separate source of recovery, but the FMCSA regulatory regime that governs commercial carriers does not apply here.
Why This Firm: The People Who Will Fight for Your Family
Ralph Manginello has spent 27-plus years in Texas courtrooms, including federal court. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer, and he approaches every case the way a reporter approaches a story — finding the facts the other side hoped would stay buried. He is the managing partner of Attorney911, licensed since November 1998, admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and a member of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association and the Houston Bar Association. He does not settle cases he should try, and he does not try cases he should settle. He works until the evidence is frozen, the experts are retained, and the number on the table reflects what the harm actually costs.
Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims exactly like yours. He sat in the meetings where claim reserves were set. He knows how the valuation software works, how the recorded-statement calls are engineered, and how the surveillance and social-media monitoring operate. Now he sits on your side of the table. He is fluent in Spanish and conducts full consultations in Spanish without an interpreter — which matters in the Permian Basin, where the community is meaningfully Spanish-speaking.
We handle these cases on contingency. We do not get paid unless we win your case. The fee is 33.33% before trial and 40% if the case goes to trial. The first consultation is free, and our staff is live 24/7 — not an answering service, a human being who picks up the phone at any hour. Call 1-888-ATTY-911.
We serve your family fully in Spanish. Hablamos Español.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. The firm has recovered $50 million-plus in aggregate, 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. Those results were earned on different facts, for different clients, in different cases. What we promise you is not a result — it is the full weight of our training, our experience, and our refusal to let an insurance company decide what your family’s loss is worth.
This page is legal information, not legal advice. Nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts, and the facts of this crash — the 13-year-old driver, the spare tire, the nine deaths, the fire — will be investigated and proven on the evidence, not on the headlines.
If someone you love was killed on FM 1788, call us now. The evidence is burning. The tire is degrading. The adjuster has already been assigned. The preservation letter that saves the proof is the first thing we send — and it goes out the day you call.
1-888-ATTY-911. Free consultation. No fee unless we win.