Train Hits Semi-Truck in Midland County: Railroad Crossing Liability and Your Legal Rights
If you were behind the wheel of that truck on Highway 80 on the evening of September 23, 2024, or you were in the locomotive, or you were waiting at home for someone who was — you already know what it sounds like when a freight train connects with something that did not clear the rails in time. The Texas Department of Public Safety reported no injuries. Maybe that is true. Maybe it is not true yet. What we know for certain is this: the fact that the truck was on the tracks does not automatically make this the truck driver’s fault, and the railroad knows that even if nobody has told you.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm. We handle commercial truck accident cases across Texas, including the Permian Basin corridors where heavy truck traffic and active rail lines cross each other dozens of times in a single county. This page is not about a case we are on — it is about what the law actually says when a train hits a truck in Midland County, Texas, what evidence is already disappearing, and what to do in the first hours and days if you were involved in a collision like this one. Everything here is legal information, not legal advice. The consultation is free. 1-888-ATTY-911. Twenty-four hours a day, and you talk to a person, not an answering service.
What Happened at Highway 80 and South County Road 1250
On the evening of September 23, 2024, at approximately 7:45 p.m., a Union Pacific freight train collided with the trailer of a semi-truck transporting frozen pizzas at the railroad crossing where Highway 80 meets South County Road 1250 in Midland County. The train struck the towed trailer — not the cab — scattering frozen cargo along the tracks and the roadway. The Midland Fire Department responded. DPS reported no injuries. The crash remains under investigation.
“The train hit the towed trailer, scattering frozen food along the tracks and roadway.”
— Texas Department of Public Safety report
Three facts in that paragraph matter more than they might seem.
First, the train struck the trailer, not the tractor. That means the cab — where the driver sits — had already crossed or was crossing the tracks when the trailer was still on them. This raises an immediate question about clearance: did the driver misjudge the trailer’s length relative to the crossing, or was the crossing designed so that a truck of this length could not fully clear the tracks even when the driver believed they had? The answer changes who is responsible.
Second, the time was 7:45 p.m. In late September in West Texas, sunset falls around 7:30 p.m. — so this collision happened in the minutes just after dark, in dusk conditions where depth perception and object detection are at their worst. The visibility of the crossing, the illumination of the tracks, the reflectivity of any warning signs, and the audibility of the train horn all become central questions.
Third, the location is Highway 80 and South County Road 1250 in unincorporated Midland County. That matters because of what kind of crossing it is — and that is where the liability analysis begins.
Railroad Crossings in Midland County: The Passive Crossing Problem
Midland County sits in the heart of the Permian Basin — America’s most productive oil field. The roads here carry a constant flow of heavy commercial trucks: water haulers, frac sand transporters, crude oil tankers, pump trucks, and food-distribution vehicles serving oilfield operations, agricultural shipments, and retail supply chains. Those trucks cross active Union Pacific rail lines at grade crossings throughout the county — and many of those crossings in unincorporated Midland County are passive crossings, equipped with nothing more than a crossbuck sign.
A passive crossing has no gates, no flashing lights, no bells. It has a white X-shaped sign that tells the driver “there is a railroad crossing here” and nothing else. No signal activates when a train approaches. No barrier descends to block the road. The entire burden of detecting the train falls on the driver’s eyes and ears — which, at 7:45 p.m. in rural West Texas, with an unfamiliar crossing, possible vegetation obstruction, and a loaded trailer behind them, is a far heavier burden than most people realize.
The Federal Railroad Administration has long recognized that passive crossings are dramatically more dangerous than active crossings. The absence of gates and lights is not a neutral condition — it is a known hazard that creates heightened collision risk, especially for commercial drivers who may be unfamiliar with the crossing, driving at dusk, pulling a long trailer that requires more clearance than the crossing provides, or dealing with sight lines obscured by terrain, vegetation, or industrial infrastructure.
This is the central question any investigation of this collision must answer: what kind of crossing was it, and was that protection adequate for the traffic it carries? If the crossing at Highway 80 and CR 1250 was a passive crossing — just a crossbuck — then the question becomes whether Union Pacific and whatever entity maintains that crossing allowed a known hazard to persist on a road that carries heavy commercial truck traffic through one of the busiest oil regions in the country.
Who Could Be Responsible When a Train Hits a Truck
Railroad crossing collisions are not single-defendant cases. Multiple parties can bear responsibility, and the allocation of that responsibility is the central fight in any investigation. Here is the liability map for a collision like this one.
Union Pacific Railroad — the railroad can be responsible if the crossing warning devices were missing, malfunctioning, or inadequately maintained; if the train crew failed to sound the horn or bell as required by federal regulation approaching the crossing; if the train was operated at an unsafe speed for the crossing conditions; if vegetation or terrain obstructed the sight line in a way the railroad was responsible for maintaining; or if the crossing was inherently dangerous for the type of traffic it carries and the railroad failed to upgrade it.
The motor carrier — the trucking company can be responsible if the driver failed to stop, look, and listen before crossing the tracks as required by federal commercial vehicle regulations; if the driver misjudged trailer clearance; if the carrier failed to train the driver on grade-crossing procedures; or if the carrier’s hiring or supervision practices were deficient.
The truck driver — the driver can bear a share of fault if they failed to exercise the caution federal regulations require at grade crossings. But that share is a percentage, not a confession — and it does not erase the railroad’s separate duties.
The crossing signal maintainer — if the crossing was equipped with active warning devices that malfunctioned or were improperly maintained, the entity responsible for signal inspection and testing could share liability.
The cargo owner or shipper — the owner of the frozen pizza cargo has a property damage claim for the lost shipment, and could be drawn into the case as a claimant or, in some scenarios, as a party if improper loading or securement contributed to the trailer’s positioning.
Texas applies a modified comparative negligence standard with a 51% bar. That means a person cannot recover if they are 51% or more at fault — but if they are 50% or less at fault, their recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, not erased. Every percentage point of fault assigned to the truck driver is money out of the driver’s recovery and money the railroad keeps. That is exactly why the railroad’s investigators work so hard in the first 48 hours to build the narrative that the truck was on the tracks and the train could not stop.
Union Pacific Railroad: The Company on the Other Side
Union Pacific is a Class I freight railroad — one of the largest in North America. It operates approximately 32,000 route miles across the western two-thirds of the United States, with extensive trackage through the Permian Basin serving oil, gas, agricultural, and intermodal freight. It is not a small company that will be overwhelmed by a claim. It is a sophisticated corporate defendant with a dedicated in-house legal department, its own police force, and signal-maintenance personnel who respond to crossing collisions as a matter of routine.
Here is what that means for you: within hours of this collision, Union Pacific had its own people on the scene. The Union Pacific police were taking statements from the train crew. Signal-maintenance personnel were inspecting the crossing equipment. The locomotive’s event recorder was being downloaded — that device captures train speed, throttle position, brake application, and horn activation timestamps, and it is the single most important piece of evidence in any crossing collision case. All of this happened before anyone on the truck side had hired a lawyer, and certainly before anyone had sent a preservation letter.
Union Pacific’s claims department and in-house counsel have defended hundreds of grade-crossing collisions. They know exactly which evidence to gather, which narratives to build, and which defenses to raise. They will argue that the truck was on the tracks, that the crossing was properly marked, that the horn was sounded, and that the train crew acted appropriately. Some of that may be true. Some of it may not. The point is that the railroad’s version of events is being constructed by professionals — and the other side needs the same level of professionalism to test it.
The Federal Rules That Govern Every Grade Crossing
Railroad crossing collisions live at the intersection of two federal regulatory regimes — one governing the truck driver’s duties, one governing the railroad’s duties. Both sets of rules create standards of care that, if violated, become evidence of negligence.
The truck driver’s duties: FMCSA 49 CFR 392.10
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration regulations require commercial motor vehicle drivers to slow down, check for trains, and stop before crossing railroad tracks. The rule is specific: a commercial driver approaching a railroad grade crossing must slow down and check that the track is clear before proceeding. For vehicles carrying hazardous materials, the requirements are even stricter, including a full stop before the crossing.
This is the regulation the railroad will point to first. If the truck driver did not come to a complete stop, or did not adequately check for the train, the railroad will argue this regulation was violated and that the violation caused the collision. But the counter is equally important: the regulation requires the driver to check that the track is clear — and if the crossing’s design, signage, or sight lines made it impossible for the driver to see the approaching train, then compliance with the regulation was not reasonably possible. The failure is not the driver’s alone; it is the crossing’s.
The railroad’s duties: FRA horn-sounding and signal maintenance
Federal Railroad Administration regulations under 49 CFR Part 222 mandate that locomotives sound their horn at public grade crossings — unless the crossing is within an established quiet zone. The horn must be sounded at a specific distance before the crossing and in a specific pattern. If the train crew did not sound the horn at the required distance, or did not sound it at all, that is a regulatory violation — and it is evidence of negligence.
FRA regulations under 49 CFR Part 234 govern the inspection, testing, and maintenance of grade crossing signal systems. If the crossing at Highway 80 and CR 1250 had active warning devices — flashing lights, gates, bells — those devices must be inspected and tested on a schedule set by federal regulation. If the devices malfunctioned, or if maintenance records show missed inspections or deferred repairs, that is evidence the railroad failed in its duty to maintain the crossing’s safety systems.
The preemption question: FRSA and state-law claims
The Federal Railroad Safety Act creates a federal safety framework that can preempt certain state-law claims against railroads for crossing signal adequacy. If a crossing was equipped with FRA-compliant active warning devices, state-law claims that challenge the adequacy of those devices may be preempted — meaning the railroad can argue that federal law governs the signal’s design and the state court cannot impose a different standard.
But preemption is not a blanket shield. State-law claims based on inadequate vegetation control, sight-line obstruction, the railroad’s operational negligence (horn-sounding failures, excessive speed, delayed braking), and the adequacy of protection at passive crossings — where there are no active devices to trigger preemption — may survive. The distinction between active and passive crossings is critical here. If the crossing at Highway 80 and CR 1250 was passive, the preemption defense is weaker, because there were no FRA-compliant active devices to preempt state tort claims about the crossing’s safety.
This is the kind of analysis that separates a lawyer who handles railroad crossing cases from one who does not. The preemption doctrine is a wall — but it has doors, and the doors are the railroad’s own operational failures and the crossing’s physical conditions.
Texas Law: Comparative Fault, the Statute of Limitations, and Your Deadline
Texas gives you two years from the date of the incident to file a personal injury or property damage claim. That is the Texas statute of limitations for personal injury and property damage, and it runs from the date of the collision — September 23, 2024 — not from the date you discovered an injury or the date the investigation concluded. For property damage claims involving the truck, trailer, and cargo, the two-year clock started the day of the collision. For any personal injury claim — including delayed-onset injuries that may surface days or weeks later — the two-year clock also started on the date of the collision, not the date of symptom onset.
Texas follows a modified comparative negligence rule with a 51% bar. If you are 50% or less at fault, your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault but you can still recover. If you are 51% or more at fault, you recover nothing. This is why the railroad works so hard in the first 48 hours to build the story that the truck was on the tracks and the train could not stop — every percentage point of fault they can pin on the truck driver is money they keep.
Texas does not impose general non-economic damage caps outside of medical malpractice cases. Punitive damages are subject to statutory limitations under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provisions. For a property-damage-only case, punitive damages are unlikely to apply unless discovery reveals prior similar incidents at this crossing that the railroad ignored.
The Evidence Clock: What Exists and How Fast It Dies
Every railroad crossing collision generates a trail of evidence — but that evidence is on a clock, and some of it dies faster than you would believe. Here is what exists, who holds it, and how fast it can legally disappear.
Train event recorder / locomotive data. The locomotive’s event recorder captured the train’s speed, throttle position, brake application, horn activation timestamp, and bell use approaching and at the crossing. This is the single most important piece of evidence in the case — it proves whether the horn was sounded, when it was sounded, how fast the train was moving, and whether the crew applied emergency braking. Union Pacific may download and store this data, but access requires a prompt formal request or litigation hold. The data is typically preserved for a limited window before it may be overwritten or archived.
Crossing signal system logs and maintenance records. If the crossing had active warning devices, the signal system generated event logs showing whether the devices activated, when they activated, and whether they functioned correctly. These logs can overwrite within days to weeks. The maintenance records — inspection dates, repair history, malfunction reports — should be preserved via litigation hold, but the crossing’s physical signal equipment should be independently inspected before any repairs are made.
Truck dashcam and forward-facing camera footage. If the truck was equipped with a dashcam, it captured the approach to the crossing, the driver’s speed, visibility conditions, and whether the driver stopped or slowed before the tracks. Dashcam footage typically overwrites within hours to days depending on the system. An immediate preservation demand to the motor carrier is critical — this footage is the fastest-dying evidence in the entire case.
Driver’s electronic logging device and GPS data. The driver’s ELD and Qualcomm or GPS system captured the route, speed, hours-of-service compliance, and location timestamps approaching the crossing. ELD data is retained for approximately 8 days on the device itself, but carriers may purge backend data within 30 days unless a hold is placed.
DPS crash report and scene photographs. The official DPS investigation report should be available within 5 to 10 business days. It will contain the investigating officer’s findings, point of impact, vehicle positioning, crossing condition documentation, and witness statements. Scene evidence degrades immediately after the roadway is cleared — tire marks, debris patterns, vegetation conditions, and sight-line obstructions can change within days.
Union Pacific police incident report and train crew statements. The railroad’s internal investigation file includes the crew’s observations and any admissions regarding horn use, speed, or signal visibility. Crew statements are typically taken within 24 to 48 hours by railroad investigators. Securing these statements in discovery requires early litigation — they are not voluntarily produced.
Crossing signage, sight-line, and vegetation conditions. Whether crossbucks, advance warning signs, stop lines, or pavement markings were present and visible; whether vegetation or terrain obstructed the view of approaching trains. Vegetation and crossing conditions change with seasonal maintenance or mowing cycles. Prompt independent documentation — photographs, measurements, sight-line analysis — is essential before conditions change.
The pattern here is simple: the fastest-dying evidence is the evidence that most strongly contradicts the railroad’s narrative. The dashcam that shows the driver could not see the train. The signal logs that show the gates did not descend. The vegetation that blocked the sight line before the railroad mowed it. This is why the preservation letter goes out the day you call — not the week after, not the month after. The day.
What Union Pacific Does in the First 48 Hours
Union Pacific does not wait. Within hours of a crossing collision, the railroad’s response apparatus activates. Union Pacific police arrive on scene and take control of the railroad’s side of the investigation. Signal-maintenance personnel inspect the crossing equipment and document its condition. The locomotive event recorder is downloaded. The train crew is separated and interviewed — their statements taken by railroad investigators who are building the railroad’s defense, not searching for the truth.
Within 24 to 48 hours, the railroad has:
- The train’s speed and brake data from the event recorder
- The horn-sounding timestamp from the recorder
- The crew’s statements about what they saw and did
- The signal system’s event logs (if the crossing had active devices)
- Photographs of the crossing and the scene from the railroad’s perspective
- The railroad’s own accident report
The railroad’s claims department will also begin building the narrative that the truck was on the tracks and the train could not stop. They will calculate the train’s stopping distance and compare it to the distance available. They will document the crossing’s warning devices. They will look for any evidence that the truck driver failed to stop or yield.
None of this is shared with the other side voluntarily. All of it requires formal discovery — which requires a lawsuit — which requires a lawyer who knows what to ask for.
This is the asymmetry that kills cases. The railroad has professionals on scene within hours. The truck driver has — what? A tow bill, a DPS report that takes 10 days, and a phone call from an adjuster who sounds friendly and is not. The preservation letter that freezes the evidence has to come from someone who knows what to freeze and how to demand it. That is the day-one move.
The Insurance Adjuster’s Playbook: Three Plays and How to Counter Each
If you were driving the truck, or you are the motor carrier dealing with the aftermath, you will hear from insurance adjusters — possibly from multiple directions. Here are the plays they run and how to counter each one.
Play 1: The “Just Tell Us What Happened” Recorded Statement
Within days of the collision, someone will call — maybe Union Pacific’s claims representative, maybe the motor carrier’s insurer, maybe both. They will sound sympathetic. They will ask you to “just tell us what happened” — on a recording. The recording is not for your benefit. It is built to be quoted against you later. Every word you say will be transcribed and scrutinized for any inconsistency with the DPS report, the event recorder data, or your later testimony. The adjuster is not your friend; the adjuster is a professional whose job is to reduce what the company pays.
The counter: Do not give a recorded statement to any insurance representative — Union Pacific’s, the motor carrier’s, or anyone else’s — without having spoken to a lawyer first. You are not required to give a recorded statement to the other side’s insurer. Your factual reporting obligations to DPS and your own employer are separate from sitting down with an adjuster’s microphone. If they press, say: “I will cooperate with the investigation, but I am not giving a recorded statement to the insurance company until I have consulted with counsel.”
Play 2: The Quick Settlement Check with a Release Attached
A check may arrive fast — sometimes within weeks — with a release printed on the back or attached to it. The release, once signed, settles the claim. All of it. The property damage, the cargo loss, and any personal injury claim you have not yet discovered. The check is designed to arrive before the medical results do — before the MRI that shows the herniated disc, before the concussion symptoms that surface a week later, before the shoulder injury that seemed minor until you could not lift your arm.
The counter: Do not sign any release, do not cash any check from the other side’s insurer, and do not accept any “full and final” settlement offer until you have had a medical evaluation and spoken with a lawyer. The adrenaline of a train collision can mask serious injuries for days. A release signed on day five is forever.
Play 3: “You Were on the Tracks, So You’re at Fault”
The railroad’s insurer will argue that the truck was on the tracks and that is the end of it. This is the simplest defense and the one they will lead with. But “on the tracks” is not the same as “at fault.” The railroad had duties too — to sound the horn, to maintain the crossing, to ensure the warning devices were adequate, to operate the train at a safe speed. If the crossing was passive and the driver could not see the train, or if the horn was not sounded at the required distance, or if vegetation obscured the sight line, then the truck’s presence on the tracks is a shared failure, not a sole one.
The counter: Do not accept the premise that being on the tracks equals being at fault. Railroad crossing safety is a two-way street under federal law. The train crew had duties. The railroad had duties. The crossing itself had a design and a maintenance history. Every one of those is a separate question, and the answers require evidence that the railroad is already gathering for its own benefit.
Play 4: The Counterclaim for Track Damage and Delay Costs
Union Pacific may assert counterclaims for damage to rail equipment, track infrastructure, and train delay costs. Freight trains are expensive to stop and delay — the railroad will calculate the cost of the interrupted run, crew time, equipment damage, and track repair, and may seek to recover those costs from the motor carrier and its insurer. This is the reverse side of the liability coin: the same collision that generates your claim against the railroad can generate the railroad’s claim against you.
The counter: Counterclaims are not automatic wins for the railroad. They are subject to the same comparative-fault framework — if the railroad was 60% at fault for the collision, its counterclaim is reduced by 60%. And the railroad’s damages must be documented, not asserted. A skilled insurance-claim lawyer can evaluate whether the counterclaim has merit or is a pressure tactic designed to force a low settlement on the primary claim.
Property Damage, Cargo Loss, and the Counterclaim Risk
This collision was reported as a property-damage incident with no injuries. That fundamentally shapes the case. The damages profile is not medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering — it is the destroyed or damaged tractor-trailer unit, the lost cargo (the frozen pizzas that scattered across the tracks), debris removal and track-clearance costs, and potentially Union Pacific’s counterclaims for rail equipment damage and train delay.
On the property-damage side, the motor carrier’s insurer will likely handle the truck and trailer damage through its own collision coverage, then pursue subrogation against Union Pacific if the crossing was inadequate. The cargo owner’s insurer will handle the lost cargo and may also pursue subrogation. These are commercial insurance battles that happen between insurers — but the outcome depends on evidence that is disappearing right now.
The counterclaim risk is real. Union Pacific can and often does seek recovery for track damage, equipment damage, and the cost of a delayed freight run. For a motor carrier, this means the collision can generate both a claim (against the railroad for crossing inadequacy) and a counterclaim (from the railroad for track damage). The net recovery depends on the comparative-fault allocation — which depends on the evidence.
This is why even a “no-injury” crossing collision needs early evidence preservation. The difference between a property-damage settlement that covers the truck, trailer, and cargo — and one that leaves the motor carrier paying the railroad’s counterclaim out of pocket — is the evidence that proves the crossing was inadequate and the railroad was at fault.
Delayed-Onset Injuries: Why “No Injuries” Today Does Not Mean “No Injuries” Tomorrow
The DPS report says no injuries. That is the scene finding — what paramedics and officers observed in the minutes after the collision. It is not a medical clearance, and it is not a guarantee.
A train striking a truck trailer generates enormous forces. Even if the cab was not directly struck, the impact transmits through the frame and the driver’s seat. The sudden deceleration — or the sudden jolt of the trailer being ripped away — can cause injuries that do not surface until hours or days later.
Musculoskeletal injuries — whiplash, cervical and lumbar strain, herniated discs — are the most common delayed-onset injuries after a vehicle collision. The adrenaline of the moment masks pain. The driver walks away, tells DPS they are fine, goes home, and wakes up the next morning unable to turn their head. This is not weakness or malingering — it is the standard presentation of a deceleration injury, well-documented in the medical literature.
Concussion and mild traumatic brain injury can occur without a direct blow to the head. The brain accelerates and decelerates inside the skull during a sudden impact — the coup-contrecoup mechanism. A “mild” TBI (a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 13–15, which means the person was conversant and oriented) can still produce serious symptoms: headaches, dizziness, memory gaps, difficulty concentrating, personality changes. More than one in seven people with a mild brain injury never fully recover. The symptoms may not appear for days. And a normal CT scan at the ER does not rule out a brain injury — in mild TBI, the CT is normal approximately 90% of the time because the damage is microscopic tearing of nerve fibers that the scan was not designed to detect.
Post-traumatic stress is real after a train collision. The sound, the impact, the helplessness of being unable to move a truck off the tracks in time — these are the ingredients of trauma. PTSD has a formal diagnostic checklist, not a mood. Symptoms can include nightmares, avoidance of the crossing location, hypervigilance, exaggerated startle, sleep disruption, and inability to concentrate. These can surface weeks later.
If you were driving the truck and you develop any of these symptoms — even days or weeks after the collision — seek medical evaluation immediately. Do not assume that the DPS report’s “no injuries” means you have no claim. The two-year statute of limitations runs from the date of the collision, not the date of symptom onset — so the clock is already running. Delayed-onset injuries after what seemed like a minor crash are real, diagnosable, and compensable — but they require medical documentation, and that documentation needs to start as soon as symptoms appear.
If you were a train crew member
If you were in the locomotive — the engineer or the conductor — and you develop injuries, your remedy is different from an ordinary personal injury claim. Railroad employees are covered by the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), a federal statute that provides a full tort remedy against the railroad for injuries caused by the railroad’s negligence. FELA gives you three years to file (longer than the two-year Texas deadline), applies a “featherweight” causation standard (the railroad is liable if its negligence played any part, even the slightest, in producing the injury), and allows full tort damages including pain and suffering with no statutory cap. Contributory negligence reduces but does not bar your recovery, and assumption of risk is abolished. FELA is a powerful remedy that most railroad employees do not know about until it is too late.
If you were a train crew member and you are experiencing any symptoms — physical or psychological — after this collision, you should know that FELA exists, that it gives you more time and a lower burden of proof than ordinary Texas law, and that the railroad’s claims department is not your advocate even though you work for the railroad. The railroad’s investigators who took your statement were building the railroad’s defense, not protecting your rights.
What a Train-Truck Collision Case Is Worth in Texas
For a property-damage-only incident like this one, the case value is confined to commercial cargo loss, potential trailer and tractor damage, and track-clearance expenses — with the possibility of Union Pacific counterclaims offsetting recovery. Based on the reported facts, the realistic range is $0 to $75,000 on the property-damage side, depending on the value of the cargo, the extent of equipment damage, and the comparative-fault allocation.
That number changes dramatically if injuries surface. If the truck driver or a train crew member develops a documented injury — even a “minor” one — the case value increases materially. A musculoskeletal injury with medical treatment and lost work time can add tens of thousands of dollars. A concussion or mild TBI with lasting symptoms can push the value into six figures. A serious injury — and train-truck collisions are capable of producing catastrophic harm even when the initial report says “no injuries” — can generate a case worth hundreds of thousands or more, depending on medical costs, lost earning capacity, and the permanence of the injury.
These ranges are honest framings, not promises. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. The value of any specific case depends on the evidence, the medical documentation, the comparative-fault allocation, the defendant’s coverage, and the jurisdiction. What we can tell you is that the railroad’s first offer — if it makes one — will be a fraction of what the case is worth, because the railroad’s business model depends on paying less than full value.
How a Railroad Crossing Case Is Actually Built
Here is how a crossing collision case is built from the ground up — not a summary, but the actual sequence of work.
Week one: preservation. The day you call, the preservation letter goes out — to Union Pacific, to the motor carrier, to the crossing signal maintainer if applicable, to any dashcam or telematics vendor. The letter names every piece of evidence by type: the locomotive event recorder data, the crossing signal system logs, the dashcam footage, the ELD and GPS data, the crew statements, the maintenance records, the vegetation-control records. The letter demands that all of it be frozen. This is the single most important step in the case, and it cannot wait.
Weeks one to four: the DPS report and scene documentation. The DPS crash report is obtained and analyzed. An independent investigator visits the crossing — photographs the signage, measures the sight lines, documents the vegetation conditions, and records the crossing’s physical characteristics. If the crossing is passive, that fact is documented. If vegetation has already been mowed since the collision, “before” photographs from the scene or from satellite imagery become critical.
Weeks four to twelve: discovery and the event recorder. If a lawsuit is filed, discovery targets the train event recorder data — speed, horn activation, brake application. This is the evidence that proves or disproves the railroad’s narrative. Discovery also targets the crossing signal maintenance records, the vegetation-control logs, the train crew’s training and operational records, and the truck driver’s ELD data, dashcam footage, and training history on grade-crossing procedures. Key expert witnesses include a railroad grade-crossing safety expert to evaluate the crossing design and warning adequacy, an accident reconstructionist to determine collision dynamics and sight-line analysis, and potentially a signal-systems engineer if active devices were present.
Months three to twelve: depositions and the proof. The depositions are where the case is won or lost. The train crew is deposed about horn use, speed, and what they saw. The signal maintainer is deposed about inspection and repair history. The railroad’s safety director is deposed about the company’s choices. Every prior incident at this crossing is explored. Every maintenance gap is documented. The number at the end is built from all of it — the event recorder that shows the horn was late, the maintenance log that shows the signal was not inspected, the vegetation record that shows the sight line was obstructed, the crew testimony that confirms the train was speeding.
This is not a process that can be short-cut. It is the process that separates a real railroad crossing case from a quick settlement that leaves money on the table.
The First 72 Hours: Your Roadmap
If you were involved in this collision or one like it, here is what to do — and what not to do — in the first 72 hours.
Hour 1 to 24: Medical first. If you have any pain, any dizziness, any symptom at all, go to a doctor or an emergency room. Tell them you were in a train-truck collision. Let them examine you, image what needs imaging, and document what they find. The medical record created in the first 24 hours is the foundation of any injury claim. “I felt fine at the scene” is normal — it is also why the medical record from day two or day three, when the adrenaline wears off, matters so much.
Hour 1 to 48: Say nothing to the other side’s insurer. Do not give a recorded statement to Union Pacific’s claims representative. Do not give a recorded statement to the motor carrier’s insurer if you are the driver. You are not required to. Your factual reporting to DPS and your employer is separate from sitting down with an adjuster’s microphone. If they call, say: “I am not giving a recorded statement at this time. I will cooperate with the investigation through my attorney.”
Hour 1 to 72: Do not sign anything. Do not sign a release. Do not cash a check from the other side’s insurer. Do not accept a “full and final” settlement. Do not agree to let the railroad’s investigator “just ask you a few questions” without counsel. Everything you sign can be used against you. Everything you say can be transcribed. The first 72 hours are for medical care, factual reporting to DPS, and calling a lawyer — nothing else.
Hour 1 to 72: Document what you can. If you are able, photograph the crossing — the signage, the sight lines, the vegetation, the road approach. Photograph the truck and trailer if accessible. Photograph any visible damage. Write down everything you remember about the approach: what you saw, what you heard, whether there were lights or gates, whether you heard a horn, how fast you were going, what the visibility was like. Memory degrades fast. A written account in the first 72 hours is worth more than a reconstructed account three months later.
Hour 1 to 72: Call a lawyer. The preservation letter that freezes the event recorder data, the signal logs, the dashcam footage, and the crew statements goes out the day you call — not the week after. Every day you wait is a day the railroad has to gather evidence for its own defense and a day the evidence that could help you is one step closer to being legally destroyed. The consultation is free. The call costs nothing. Not calling can cost everything.
Who We Are
Ralph Manginello is our managing partner — 27+ years of trial practice, licensed in Texas since November 1998, admitted to federal court in the Southern District of Texas. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer, which means he asks questions for a living and does not accept the first answer. He has spent more than two decades in courtrooms, including federal court, trying cases against corporations that have more lawyers than most towns have people.
Lupe Peña is our associate attorney — a former insurance-defense attorney who spent years inside a national defense firm, in the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims exactly like yours. He knows how the reserve is set in the first 48 hours, how the recorded-statement call is engineered, and how the valuation software discounts pain it cannot see. He now uses that knowledge for injured clients. He is fluent in Spanish and conducts full consultations in Spanish without an interpreter.
We work 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 consultation is free, and it is confidential. We have live staff 24 hours a day — not an answering service, a person. Hablamos Español.
Our firm has recovered more than $50 million for clients across Texas, including millions in trucking cases. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. What we guarantee is this: when you call, you talk to a lawyer. When you hire us, we send the preservation letter the same day. When we take your case, we build it the way we have described on this page — evidence first, depositions second, trial readiness always.
Frequently Asked Questions
If the truck was on the tracks, isn’t the truck driver automatically at fault?
No. Railroad crossing safety is a two-way street under federal law. The truck driver has duties — to slow down, check for trains, and stop before the tracks. But the railroad has duties too — to sound the horn at the required distance, to maintain the crossing’s warning devices, to ensure the crossing is not obscured by vegetation, and to operate the train at a safe speed. If the crossing was passive (just a crossbuck, no gates or lights), if the sight line was obstructed, or if the horn was not sounded, the truck’s presence on the tracks is a shared failure, not a sole one. Texas comparative fault means the railroad’s share of responsibility reduces what it can recover and increases what you can recover.
The DPS report says no injuries. Can I still have a claim?
Yes. “No injuries reported” is a scene finding — what officers observed in the minutes after the collision. It is not a medical clearance. Delayed-onset injuries — whiplash, herniated discs, concussion, PTSD — can surface hours, days, or even weeks after the impact. The adrenaline of a train collision masks pain. If you develop any symptoms, seek medical evaluation immediately and document them. The two-year statute of limitations runs from the date of the collision, so the clock is already running even if your symptoms have not appeared yet.
How long do I have to file a claim?
Texas imposes a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury and property damage claims, running from the date of the incident — September 23, 2024, for this collision. If you are a railroad employee covered by FELA, you have three years. Missing the deadline bars the claim forever, no matter how strong it is. But the deadline is not the most urgent clock — the evidence preservation clock is much shorter. Dashcam footage can overwrite in hours. Signal logs can overwrite in days. The preservation letter is the first move, and it cannot wait.
What if Union Pacific sues me for track damage?
Union Pacific can and often does assert counterclaims for damage to rail equipment, track infrastructure, and train delay costs. These counterclaims are subject to the same comparative-fault framework as your claim — if the railroad was 60% at fault for the collision, its counterclaim is reduced by 60%. The railroad’s damages must be documented, not just asserted. A lawyer who understands railroad crossing cases can evaluate whether the counterclaim has merit or is a pressure tactic designed to force a low settlement.
What is a “passive crossing” and why does it matter?
A passive crossing is a railroad grade crossing equipped with only a crossbuck sign — no gates, no flashing lights, no bells. The entire burden of detecting an approaching train falls on the driver’s eyes and ears. Many crossings in unincorporated Midland County are passive. Passive crossings are dramatically more dangerous than active crossings, especially at night, for commercial drivers pulling long trailers, or when sight lines are obstructed. If the crossing was passive, the railroad’s preemption defense is weaker, and the argument that the crossing was inadequate for the traffic it carries is stronger.
What is the train event recorder and why is it so important?
The locomotive event recorder is the train’s black box. It captures speed, throttle position, brake application, horn activation timestamps, and bell use. It is the single most important piece of evidence in any crossing collision case because it proves — in numbers, not in memory — whether the horn was sounded, when it was sounded, how fast the train was moving, and whether the crew applied emergency braking. Union Pacific downloads this data within hours of a collision. Access requires a formal request or litigation hold. If you wait to call a lawyer, the data may be archived or overwritten before anyone on your side has asked for it.
Do I need a lawyer if there were no injuries?
If the collision was truly property-damage-only, you may be able to resolve the property damage through the motor carrier’s insurer. But three things make a lawyer valuable even in a no-injury case: (1) the counterclaim risk from Union Pacific for track damage and delay costs, which can exceed the property damage claim; (2) the evidence preservation deadline, which runs regardless of whether injuries surface; and (3) the possibility of delayed-onset injuries that you have not yet detected. A consultation is free. There is no downside to calling and asking.
Can I sue Union Pacific if the crossing only had a crossbuck sign?
Yes — and the argument may be stronger than against a crossing with active devices. Federal preemption under the Federal Railroad Safety Act can shield railroads from state-law claims about the adequacy of active warning devices that were FRA-compliant. But at a passive crossing, there are no active devices to trigger preemption. State-law claims about the adequacy of the crossing’s protection, the railroad’s failure to upgrade a known hazardous crossing, vegetation maintenance, sight-line obstruction, and crew operational failures (horn, speed, braking) may survive preemption. The distinction between active and passive crossings is one of the most important factors in a railroad crossing case.
What if I was a train crew member who was injured?
If you are a railroad employee — engineer, conductor, or other crew member — and you were injured in this collision, your remedy is the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), not ordinary Texas personal injury law. FELA gives you three years to file (versus two under Texas law), applies a lower causation standard (the railroad is liable if its negligence played any part, even the slightest), allows full tort damages including pain and suffering, and prohibits the railroad from raising assumption-of-risk as a defense. The railroad’s investigators who took your statement were building the railroad’s defense, not protecting your rights. You should speak with a lawyer who understands FELA before giving any further statements to the railroad.
When You Are Ready to Call
If you were in that truck on Highway 80, or in the locomotive, or you are the family member of someone who was — the call is free, it is confidential, and you will talk to a lawyer, not a screener. The preservation letter goes out the day you call. The evidence that is disappearing right now — the dashcam footage, the signal logs, the event recorder data — is the evidence that decides whether the railroad’s narrative stands or falls.
1-888-ATTY-911. Twenty-four hours a day. We do not get paid unless we win your case. Hablamos Español.
This page is legal information, not legal advice. Every case is different. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. But the deadlines are real, the evidence clock is running, and the railroad has already started building its defense. The question is whether you will have someone building yours.