Wrong-Way DWI on Highway 191: What Happened to Two DPS Troopers and a Child — and What the Law Lets Victims Recover
If you are reading this because someone you love was on State Highway 191 in the early hours of a Saturday morning — a trooper who went to work that shift and came home with injuries that changed everything, or a family member trying to understand how a 9-year-old child ended up running through the dark toward strangers in uniform because she was terrified of her own father — you are in the hardest part of this right now. The hospital is running tests. The criminal case is on the news. And somebody from an insurance company has already called you, sounding sympathetic, asking you to “just tell us what happened.” We are going to tell you what is actually true in Texas law, what the evidence looks like, what it is worth, and what the other side is already doing — because the difference between a fair recovery and a fraction of one is measured in days, not months.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We handle Texas injury and wrongful-death cases, including drunk-driving crashes and catastrophic car accidents. We do not get paid unless we win your case. The consultation is free, and we answer the phone 24 hours a day at 1-888-ATTY-911. This page is not legal advice for your specific case — it is legal information, written by trial lawyers, about what the law allows and what the clock is doing while you read.
What Happened on Highway 191 Near Faudree Road
Here is what the public record reports, and what it means once you translate it from police-report language into the physics and the law of what actually occurred.
Around 3 a.m. on a Saturday, a 35-year-old man from Seminole was driving westbound in the eastbound lanes of State Highway 191 near mile marker 268. For anyone who knows this road, SH 191 is the divided highway that connects Midland and Odessa through the heart of the Permian Basin — a corridor that carries commuter traffic, commercial trucks, and oilfield-related vehicles through Ector and Midland counties. At 3 a.m., the road carries a particular mix: bar-closing traffic and shift-change oilfield workers sharing the same asphalt. Wrong-way entries on divided corridors like this one frequently happen when an impaired driver exits a commercial area or makes a U-turn through a gap in the median, and the 3 a.m. timing falls squarely in the peak late-night impaired-driving window.
A Midland DPS trooper pulled him over. When she instructed him to stay put, he drove toward her — and trapped her between her open patrol-car door and the inside of her vehicle. That is a crush injury. The mechanism is torso compression: the body caught between two unyielding surfaces, the kind of force pattern that produces rib fractures, internal organ damage, and injuries that a trauma surgeon needs to evaluate with imaging and sometimes with emergency surgery.
He did not stop. He continued traveling the wrong direction and struck a second trooper’s vehicle head-on near the intersection of Faudree Road and SH 191. The Faudree Road corridor on Odessa’s east side is a rapidly developing area with intersecting cross-streets that has been the site of multiple serious collisions, particularly during overnight hours. The head-on collision rendered both vehicles inoperable and knocked the driver unconscious.
His 9-year-old daughter was in the vehicle with him. She got out and ran to the troopers on foot because she was scared. At the hospital, she told staff she was upset with her father for “being drunk and crashing again.” That single word — “again” — is one of the most powerful pieces of evidence in this entire case. It establishes prior similar conduct. It means this was not a one-time lapse in judgment. It was a pattern, and a 9-year-old child knew it.
The driver exhibited bloodshot, glassy eyes and the odor of alcohol. He admitted to drinking that night. He refused a voluntary blood draw. Troopers obtained a search warrant for his blood — a forced draw that is admissible in both the criminal case and any parallel civil proceeding under the Fourth Amendment framework that Texas courts and federal courts have upheld. He had been convicted of driving while intoxicated twice before and of evading police in a vehicle once before. He was charged with child endangerment, evading police in a vehicle, aggravated assault against a public servant, and DWI third or more — and held in the Ector County jail on bonds totaling $175,000.
That is what happened. Now here is what it means under Texas law — for the troopers, for the child, and for anyone who was on that road.
The Answer Core: Your Direct Questions, Answered
Can the injured troopers sue the drunk driver?
Yes — and they should, but the criminal case does not pay them. The criminal prosecution of the driver, while important for public safety, does not compensate injured victims for their medical bills, lost wages, pain, or future care. A parallel civil action is essential and must be filed within Texas’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury. The criminal charges — DWI, aggravated assault against a public servant, evading, and child endangerment — establish negligence per se predicates. That means the violation of those statutes is itself evidence of negligence, and in many cases operates as negligence as a matter of law. The civil case is a separate fight with a separate purpose: making the people who were hurt whole.
Is there enough insurance to cover what happened?
This is the hardest honest answer on this page. The driver’s personal auto policy likely carries standard Texas limits — and one night in a trauma center can pass those limits before the patient is discharged. There is a deeper problem: the deliberate act of driving toward the first trooper may trigger the intentional-act exclusion in his auto policy, potentially eliminating coverage for the assault on that officer. The head-on collision and the initial wrong-way DWI operation, however, may fall within negligence coverage. Without a viable dram shop defendant — a bar or restaurant that over-served him — recovery may be limited to whatever auto liability and UM/UIM coverage exists. With a dram shop defendant, the recoverable range rises substantially. That is why identifying where he was drinking is the single most important unanswered question in this case.
What about the 9-year-old child?
The child has her own claim. She was a passenger in a vehicle operated by an intoxicated parent who drove the wrong way on a divided highway, pinned a peace officer, and then struck another vehicle head-on. She experienced both the terror of witnessing impaired driving and the physical forces of a head-on collision. Her hospital statement — that her father was “drunk and crashing again” — is powerful evidence of prior similar conduct relevant to punitive damages and her own emotional-distress claim. She needs immediate evaluation by a pediatric trauma psychologist, both for her well-being and to document her emotional-injury damages. A parent or guardian can bring a claim on her behalf, and the statute of limitations for a minor’s claim is tolled — meaning the clock does not start running the same way it does for an adult.
How long do we have to file?
Texas imposes a two-year statute of limitations on personal injury and wrongful death claims. That is the outer deadline — but the real urgency is not the filing deadline. The real urgency is the evidence. Bar surveillance video overwrites itself in days to weeks. Cell phone location data that would show where the driver was drinking is on a carrier retention clock. The vehicle’s event data recorder — the black box — records pre-collision speed, braking, and the delta-V of the head-on impact, but the vehicle can be released from impound or salvaged within weeks. The filing deadline gives you two years. The evidence gives you days.
The Defendant’s DWI History and What It Means for Punitive Damages
Two prior DWI convictions. One prior conviction for evading police in a vehicle. A 9-year-old in the car. Wrong-way operation on a divided highway at 3 a.m. A conscious decision to drive toward a peace officer who had just told him to stay put.
Under Texas law, punitive damages are available when a defendant acts with gross negligence — which means the defendant was actually aware of the risk involved and proceeded with conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others. This is not a hard standard to meet on these facts. A person with two prior DWI convictions who gets behind the wheel after drinking, with his child in the car, and drives the wrong way on a divided highway has demonstrated exactly the conscious disregard the law requires. The “again” in his daughter’s hospital statement — “drunk and crashing again” — is admissible evidence of prior similar conduct that supports both the gross-negligence finding and the punitive-damages award.
Texas imposes no statutory cap on punitive damages in ordinary personal injury or wrongful-death actions arising from vehicular negligence. The caps that exist in Texas apply to medical-malpractice claims under the tort-reform framework, not to a DWI crash. This matters enormously: a jury in Ector County that hears the full record — the prior convictions, the wrong-way driving, the child in the car, the decision to drive toward a trooper — can return a verdict that includes a meaningful punitive component. The question is not whether the facts support punitive damages. They do. The question is whether there is a defendant who can pay them. And that question leads to the most important investigation in this case.
Dram Shop Liability: The Bar or Restaurant That Over-Served Him
This is the part that a generalist misses — and the part that can transform this case from a limited individual claim into a viable seven-figure action.
Texas dram shop law holds a licensed alcohol provider — a bar, restaurant, or retail establishment — directly liable to injured parties if it served alcohol to a person who was obviously intoxicated to the extent that he presented a clear danger to himself and others, and if that intoxication was a proximate cause of the damages. The standard is not whether the provider “should have known.” It is whether the patron was obviously intoxicated — visible signs that a trained server should have recognized — and the provider served him anyway.
The Texas dram shop standard requires proof that the provider served an obviously intoxicated person who presented a clear danger to self and others, and that the intoxication was a proximate cause of the damages.
Now look at the facts that make a dram shop claim plausible here. The driver is from Seminole, Texas. He was stopped on SH 191 between Midland and Odessa at 3 a.m. — meaning he had been drinking somewhere along that corridor or in the surrounding area. The distance from Seminole to the Midland-Odessa corridor means he likely drove a significant distance after leaving wherever he was served. The 3 a.m. timing is consistent with bar-closing service. A person with two prior DWI convictions who reached the level of intoxication required to drive the wrong way on a divided highway, fail to comprehend that a police officer was telling him to stop, and then have no concept of time or place — telling hospital staff he thought he was in San Angelo — did not become that intoxicated silently. Someone served him. And if he was visibly intoxicated when he was served, that provider is directly liable to the troopers and to the child.
The discovery priority is straightforward: serve subpoenas on every licensed establishment along the SH 191 corridor between Midland and Odessa and in the Seminole area, seeking point-of-sale records, surveillance video, and employee identification of the driver. Cell-site data from his phone will reconstruct his movements throughout the night and identify the establishments he visited. Credit card receipts will show what he purchased and when. Bar staff may identify him from a photograph. But every one of these evidence sources is perishable — most commercial surveillance systems overwrite within 7 to 30 days. POS records persist longer but must be requested before they are destroyed. If a dram shop defendant emerges, the case changes. If none emerges, recovery is limited to whatever auto liability and UM/UIM coverage exists. That is the honest math.
If the vehicle was owned by someone other than the driver — a family member, a friend, an employer — and that person knew or should have known of his two prior DWI convictions and his prior evading conviction, a negligent entrustment claim may reach that owner’s insurance. The knowledge element is satisfied by the prior convictions themselves: a person with two DWIs and an evading conviction is a person whose history of dangerous driving is a matter of public record. Entrusting a vehicle to that person is foreseeable misuse waiting to happen. The investigation must confirm who owned the vehicle and what they knew.
The Evidence Clock: What Exists and How Fast It Disappears
Every piece of evidence in this case is on a timer. Some of it is already gone. The rest is dying on a schedule that the law permits — unless a lawyer’s preservation letter freezes it first.
Blood toxicology results obtained via search warrant. These establish the driver’s blood-alcohol concentration and any drug presence at the time of the collisions. They are admissible in civil proceedings as evidence of intoxication and negligence per se. They sit in the criminal case file, but civil counsel should obtain an independent copy immediately — lab retention policies vary, and the criminal case can resolve or stall while the civil clock keeps running.
DPS patrol vehicle dashcam and bodycam footage. These capture the traffic stop, the driver’s direction of travel toward the first trooper, the pinning mechanism, and the head-on collision sequence. DPS evidence-retention policies preserve footage tied to active criminal cases, but a civil subpoena should be issued promptly to lock it down. This footage is the visual spine of the entire case — it shows the jury exactly what happened rather than asking them to imagine it.
The driver’s vehicle event data recorder — the black box. This records pre-collision speed, braking input, steering angle, and the delta-V — the change in velocity — for the head-on impact. That data is critical for accident reconstruction and biomechanical injury causation. The vehicle may be released from impound or salvaged within weeks. A preservation letter to the impound lot and a tow-and-hold order must go out immediately. Once the vehicle is crushed or sold for salvage, that data is physically destroyed.
Bar and restaurant surveillance video and point-of-sale records. These prove the dram shop claim by showing the driver’s visible intoxication level at the time of service and the volume of alcohol served. This is the most urgent evidence in the entire case. Most commercial surveillance systems overwrite within 7 to 30 days. Every day that passes without a preservation demand is a day the video may already be gone. POS records may persist longer but must be requested before destruction.
The driver’s cell phone location history. This reconstructs his movements throughout the night, identifies the establishments he visited, and may reveal communications relevant to vehicle ownership or prior plans. Carrier retention windows range from 6 to 18 months. A preservation letter to the carrier should be sent immediately.
The driver’s prior DWI and evading conviction court records. These establish the pattern of conduct supporting gross negligence, punitive damages, and the negligent-entrustment knowledge element. These are permanent public records — no urgency risk, but they should be compiled early for the demand package.
The 9-year-old daughter’s recorded hospital statement and Child Protective Services records. Her statement that her father was “drunk and crashing again” is powerful evidence of prior similar conduct and supports child-endangerment and emotional-distress damages. Hospital recordings and CPS intake records have limited retention windows. They must be requested through proper legal channels immediately.
When evidence is destroyed after a preservation letter is on file, the law answers: a court can give an adverse-inference instruction, meaning the jury may assume the lost record was as bad as the plaintiff says it was. The leverage begins the moment the letter is on file. That is why the day you call is the day the clock starts working for you instead of against you.
The Medicine: What These Troopers and This Child Are Going Through
The first trooper suffered a crush or pinch mechanism injury — her body trapped between her open patrol-car door and the vehicle’s interior. This is a torso compression injury pattern, and it is associated with rib fractures, lung contusions, and potential internal organ damage. The spleen, liver, and kidneys are all vulnerable to compression forces. A trauma-surgical evaluation with CT imaging is the standard of care — and the defense will try to minimize the injury if the imaging comes back “unremarkable.” But compression injuries can produce delayed complications: rib fractures that worsen with breathing, lung contusions that progress over 24 to 48 hours, and internal bleeding that may not declare itself immediately. The medical record needs to be built from the moment of injury forward, with every symptom documented and every image preserved.
The second trooper absorbed a head-on collision impact. This is one of the most dangerous crash mechanisms a human body can survive. The forces involved in a head-on collision depend on the closing speed — when two vehicles approach each other, the combined closing velocity is what matters. The delta-V — the change in velocity the trooper’s body experienced — is the single best predictor of injury severity. High delta-V head-on impacts create risk for cervical acceleration-deceleration injury (whiplash and worse), traumatic brain injury from the brain impacting the inside of the skull, facial fracture from steering-wheel or airbag interaction, and lower-extremity dashboard impaction injury. A “mild” traumatic brain injury can come with a perfectly normal CT scan — that is the standard presentation, not the exception. The damage is diffuse axonal injury: microscopic tearing of the brain’s white-matter tracts from rotational forces. Roughly one in seven people with a “mild” TBI still has symptoms three months later — the headaches, the lost words, the short fuse. The family may see it across the dinner table before any scan sees it.
The 9-year-old passenger experienced both the terror of witnessing her father’s impaired driving and the physical forces of a head-on collision. A child’s body is not a small adult’s body — the head-to-body ratio is different, the neck musculature is weaker, and the injury patterns diverge. She needs evaluation by a pediatric trauma specialist, and she needs psychological evaluation by a pediatric trauma psychologist. The emotional injury — witnessing a parent drive drunk, being endangered as a passenger, fleeing to strangers in the dark — is real, it is diagnosable under the DSM-5 criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder, and it is compensable. The defense will call it “subjective.” The science says otherwise: PTSD is a formal diagnosis with eight separate diagnostic criteria, and a survivor has to meet every one of them. The child’s outcry — “drunk and crashing again” — is both evidence and a symptom. It tells you this is not the first time she has lived through this, which means the psychological injury may be layered on prior trauma.
If either trooper’s injuries prove fatal, survival and wrongful-death claims attach. Texas law allows a wrongful-death action for the surviving family — spouse, children, and parents — and a survival action for the estate, carrying the claim the decedent would have had for the pain and suffering experienced between injury and death. Texas is one of the few states where a jury may compensate the value of a life itself — not just the paychecks that stopped. The insurance company’s lawyers know that. Now you do too. You can learn more about wrongful-death claims and how they work in Texas.
Insurance Coverage and the Money Reality
Here is the honest ladder, rung by rung.
The driver’s personal auto policy likely carries standard Texas limits. Texas requires a minimum of $30,000 per person and $60,000 per incident in liability coverage — though many drivers carry more. One night in a trauma center can pass the $30,000 per-person limit before the patient leaves the ICU. The federal minimum for commercial trucking is $750,000, but this is a passenger vehicle, not a commercial truck — so that floor does not apply.
The intentional-act exclusion is the deeper problem. Most auto liability policies contain a clause that excludes coverage for intentional acts — meaning if the driver’s conduct toward the first trooper is characterized as intentional (driving toward her deliberately), the insurer may deny coverage for that assault. The head-on collision with the second trooper, however, may fall within negligence coverage — because wrong-way DWI operation, while grossly negligent, may not constitute an intentional act in the insurance-law sense. This is a coverage fight that must be anticipated, not discovered. The theories should be pleaded in the alternative — negligence as the primary theory, with intentional tort pleaded as a backup — so that a coverage exclusion on the intentional theory does not wipe out the entire claim.
UM and UIM coverage — uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage — may be available to the troopers through their own policies or through the state’s coverage for its vehicles. If the at-fault driver’s limits are insufficient — and they almost certainly will be — UM/UIM coverage can bridge the gap. But UM/UIM claims require their own proof and their own process, and the troopers’ auto insurer will be looking for ways to minimize the payout.
Workers’ compensation will cover the troopers’ medical expenses and a portion of their lost wages — but workers’ comp is a benefit schedule, not a full tort recovery. It does not pay for pain and suffering, mental anguish, disfigurement, or the full loss of earning capacity. And the workers’-comp carrier will assert a subrogation lien against any third-party recovery — meaning it gets repaid out of whatever the troopers recover from the at-fault driver or a dram shop defendant. This is the work-injury fork that most families do not know exists: the comp lane is faster and no-fault, but capped and barred against the employer; the third-party tort lane reaches the at-fault driver and any bar that over-served him, for the full measure of human losses that comp never pays. A car accident settlement in a case like this is not a single negotiation — it is a multi-track process that must be coordinated so the comp lien does not eat the recovery.
If a dram shop defendant is identified, the coverage picture changes entirely. A licensed establishment typically carries a commercial general liability policy with substantially higher limits than a personal auto policy — often $1 million or more, with excess layers above that. The dram shop defendant is a different defendant with a different insurer and a different tower. That is why the dram shop investigation is not a side project. It is the case.
Case Value: The Honest Range
The forensic dossier puts the case value range at a low of $250,000 and a high of $3,500,000. Here is what drives each end.
The low end assumes no dram shop defendant is identified, the driver’s auto policy carries standard limits, the intentional-act exclusion eliminates coverage for the assault on the first trooper, and UM/UIM coverage is limited. In that scenario, the recoverable amount is whatever the auto liability and UM/UIM policies provide, minus the workers’-comp subrogation lien. That is a fraction of the actual loss.
The high end assumes a viable dram shop defendant with substantial insurance, catastrophic-impact mechanism injuries to both troopers, the peace-officer victim status, and a punitive-damages component supported by the prior DWI history and the child’s outcry. In that scenario, the recoverable range rises into seven-figure territory — but it depends almost entirely on the dram shop investigation succeeding.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. We are not telling you your case is worth a specific number — we are telling you what the variables are and which one matters most. The variable that matters most is whether someone can identify where the driver was drinking that night.
The Insurance Adjuster’s Playbook
Here is what is happening on the other side, right now, while you read this.
Play 1: The friendly “just checking in” call. Within days of the crash, someone will call the injured trooper or a family member and ask them to “just tell us what happened” — on a recording that is engineered to be quoted against them. The adjuster is not your friend. The call is not casual. Everything you say can and will be used to reduce or deny your claim. Counter: Do not give a recorded statement without counsel. You are not required to. The adjuster will frame this as routine — it is not routine, it is a trap designed to lock you into a version of events before the full medical picture is known.
Play 2: The fast settlement check with a release attached. A check may arrive quickly — before the MRI results, before the full extent of the injuries is documented, before anyone has investigated the dram shop question. The release printed on the back or attached to the check extinguishes all future claims. Counter: Never sign a release without understanding the full scope of your injuries and the full landscape of potentially liable parties. A quick check is almost always a fraction of what the case is worth once the real damages are quantified. The adjuster knows this. That is why the check arrives fast.
Play 3: The “pre-existing condition” argument. The adjuster will pull the injured person’s prior medical records and argue that the injuries were pre-existing — that the neck pain, the back pain, the headaches were already there before the crash. Counter: The eggshell-plaintiff doctrine is settled law in Texas and across the country. A defendant takes the victim as found. If the crash aggravated or activated a pre-existing condition, the defendant is liable for the full extent of the aggravation. A pre-existing vulnerability that made the harm worse does not reduce liability — it can enlarge damages.
Play 4: The symptom-gap attack. If there is a gap between the crash and the first documented medical complaint — the trooper who “felt fine” at the scene and went to the ER two days later when the neck pain became unbearable — the adjuster will argue the injury was not caused by the crash. Counter: Delayed onset of symptoms is the normal presentation of soft-tissue and brain injuries, not an exception. Adrenaline masks pain at the scene. The medical literature documents this. The gap is evidence of how the body works, not evidence of a fake claim.
Play 5: The lowball reserve set in the first 48 hours. This is the move that Lupe Peña — our associate attorney — saw from the inside during his years as an insurance-defense attorney at a national defense firm. The adjuster sets a low reserve in the first 48 hours, before the real injuries are diagnosed. That low reserve becomes the anchor for every subsequent negotiation. The claim is fed into valuation software that discounts pain it cannot see. Counter: The reserve can be moved — but only when the adjuster is confronted with evidence that makes the low number indefensible. That means medical documentation, expert opinions, and a demand package that makes the file look like what it actually is: a case that will cost the insurer far more at trial than at settlement. You can learn more about what not to say to an insurance adjuster in our video on the subject.
Texas also recognizes the Stowers doctrine — a rule that imposes a duty on liability insurers to accept reasonable settlement demands within policy limits when liability is reasonably clear. If the insurer refuses a reasonable demand and an excess verdict results — a verdict larger than the policy limits — the insurer can be held responsible for the full excess amount, not just the policy limit. In a case where the criminal charges and the prior DWI history make liability reasonably clear, the Stowers demand is a powerful tool. It converts the insurer’s own delay into leverage.
Texas Law: Your Rights and the Deadline
Texas applies a modified comparative negligence regime with a 51% bar. That means your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault — and if you are found 51% or more at fault, you are barred from recovery. In this case, comparative fault is not a concern for the troopers or the child. The defendant’s criminal conduct — wrong-way DWI, evading, aggravated assault against a public servant — makes any allocation of fault to the victims a non-issue.
Texas imposes no statutory caps on compensatory or punitive damages in ordinary personal injury or wrongful-death actions arising from vehicular negligence. The caps that exist in Texas apply to medical-malpractice claims. A DWI crash is not a medical-malpractice claim. The full measure of damages — economic and non-economic — is available.
The statute of limitations for personal injury and wrongful death in Texas is two years from the date of injury. For the troopers, the clock started the day of the crash. For the child, the limitations period is tolled — meaning it does not begin to run in the same way as an adult’s — but a guardian or next friend should not rely on the tolling alone. The evidence dies faster than the deadline. Confirm the current Texas rule at filing, because legislatures amend statutes and rules change.
First 72 Hours: What to Do Now
Hour 1 through 24: Medical first. If you are an injured trooper and you have not been evaluated by a trauma center, go now — not your primary-care doctor, not an urgent-care clinic. A trauma center has the imaging, the specialists, and the protocols to catch injuries that do not declare themselves immediately. If you were discharged from the ER and new symptoms have appeared — headaches that worsen, numbness or tingling, dizziness, changes in vision, abdominal pain — return immediately. Symptoms lie. The adrenaline that got you through the first night is gone, and the real injury picture is emerging.
Hour 24 through 48: Evidence preservation. This is where the case is won or lost. A preservation letter must go out to every entity that holds evidence: the impound lot holding the driver’s vehicle, the DPS evidence unit holding the dashcam and bodycam footage, the blood lab holding the toxicology results, every bar and restaurant along the SH 191 corridor, the cell phone carrier holding the driver’s location data, and the hospital holding the child’s recorded statement. Every one of these evidence sources is on a destruction clock. The preservation letter is the only thing that stops it.
Hour 48 through 72: Do not sign, do not record, do not post. Do not sign anything from any insurance company. Do not give a recorded statement to any adjuster — yours, the driver’s, or anyone else’s. Do not post about the crash on social media — the adjuster’s investigator is already looking at your accounts, and a photograph of you at a family event three days after the crash will be used to argue you are not really hurt, even if you were in agony when the photo was taken. If anyone from the driver’s insurance company contacts you, take their name and number and tell them your attorney will call them back. Then call 1-888-ATTY-911.
If a trooper’s injuries prove fatal: The family needs to understand that a personal representative must be appointed — the one person Texas law authorizes to bring the family’s wrongful-death case. The official crash report will be completed. The wrecked patrol vehicle must not be released or repaired — it is evidence. And the two-year clock is running from the date of death, which may be different from the date of the crash if the trooper survived initially and died later.
The Proof Story: How a Case Like This Is Built
Here is how a case like this is actually won — week by week, document by document.
Week one: The preservation demand goes out, freezing the logs, the footage, the blood toxicology, the vehicle data, the bar surveillance, the cell phone records. The driver’s vehicle is photographed and its event data recorder is downloaded before anyone can “service” it or release it from impound. The DPS dashcam and bodycam footage is subpoenaed and locked down. The criminal case file is opened — the blood-draw warrant, the arrest report, the field observations of intoxication.
Weeks two through four: The dram shop investigation begins. Subpoenas go out to every licensed establishment along the SH 191 corridor and in the Seminole area. Cell-site data is pulled and mapped — where was the driver’s phone pinging throughout the night? Credit card receipts are obtained — what did he buy, where, and when? If a bar or restaurant emerges, its surveillance video is demanded before it overwrites. A toxicologist is engaged to perform retrograde extrapolation from the warrant-drawn blood sample back to the time of driving, establishing peak intoxication at the time of the collisions.
Months two through three: An accident reconstruction expert is retained to analyze the EDR data, the vehicle damage profiles, and the roadway evidence from both impact sites — the pinning scene near mile marker 268 and the head-on scene near Faudree Road. This expert establishes the biomechanical mechanism of each trooper’s injuries and the forces involved. Medical records are compiled and organized. A life-care planner may be engaged to project future medical needs — surgeries, therapy, medication, equipment that wears out and is replaced.
Months three through six: The driver’s prior DWI and evading conviction court records are compiled into the demand package. The child’s CPS records and hospital statement are obtained through proper legal channels. Expert reports are finalized. Depositions are taken — the bar staff who served him, the first responders who treated the troopers, the investigating officers who observed his intoxication. The driver himself may be deposed, though his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination may limit the scope while the criminal case is pending.
Months six through twelve: The Stowers demand is deployed against any identified auto liability and dram shop insurers once damages are quantified and policy limits are confirmed. The criminal convictions and the prior DWI history make liability reasonably clear, triggering the insurer’s duty to settle within limits. If the insurer refuses a reasonable demand and an excess verdict results, the insurer bears the excess. The negotiation is not a single conversation — it is a multi-track process coordinated across the auto carrier, the dram shop carrier, the UM/UIM carrier, and the workers’-comp lien holder.
The number at the end is built from all of it — the blood toxicology, the dashcam footage, the EDR data, the bar surveillance, the medical records, the life-care plan, the expert reports, the deposition testimony, and the prior-conviction records. Every piece is a link in a chain. Every link must be forged before it rusts.
Who We Are
Ralph Manginello has spent 27-plus years in courtrooms, including federal court. He is our managing partner. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer, which means he writes the way a jury reads — plainly, with the evidence doing the heavy lifting. He is admitted to the State Bar of Texas and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. He has recovered millions for injured clients, including a $5M+ brain-injury settlement and a $2.5M+ truck-crash recovery. He is the lead counsel in the active $10M+ University of Houston hazing lawsuit. He takes the cases that are too important to lose and treats them that way from the first phone call. You can read more about Ralph Manginello on his attorney page.
Lupe Peña is our associate attorney. He spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue people exactly like the reader. He sat in the meetings where claims were priced. He knows how the reserve is set in the first 48 hours, how the recorded-statement call is engineered, and how the IME doctor is selected. He now uses that knowledge for injured clients. He is fluent in Spanish — he conducts full client consultations in Spanish without an interpreter. If your family speaks Spanish at the kitchen table, Lupe speaks your language. You can read more about Lupe Peña on his attorney page.
We work on contingency. That means 33.33% before trial and 40% if the case goes to trial. We do not get paid unless we win your case. The consultation is free. We have 24/7 live staff — not an answering service, but people who can talk to you right now. We send same-day spoliation letters. We have a 48-hour evidence-preservation protocol. Call 1-888-ATTY-911.
What a Crash Involving a Peace Officer Means for the Case
There is a specific dynamic in cases where the injured victim is a law-enforcement officer. The defense will try to separate the jury’s sympathy for the trooper from their assessment of damages — arguing that the trooper “knew the risks of the job” or that workers’ compensation is sufficient. The answer is that a peace officer on duty is still a person entitled to the full protection of the civil-justice system. The duty to drive safely does not disappear because the person you hit was wearing a badge. If anything, the facts of this case — a repeat DWI offender driving the wrong way, pinning an officer between her own car door, and then hitting another head-on — are the kind that make a jury understand exactly what “full and fair compensation” means. You can learn more about what happens when you are in a wreck with a police officer in our video on the subject.
For the troopers, there is also the question of whether the state’s own coverage and the workers’-comp system are the only avenues — they are not. A third-party civil action against the at-fault driver and any dram shop defendant is a separate, independent path to full tort recovery, including pain and suffering, mental anguish, and the human losses that comp never pays.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the criminal case against the driver compensate the injured troopers?
No. The criminal prosecution can result in prison time, fines paid to the state, and a permanent record — but none of that money goes to the victims. A civil action is a separate lawsuit with a separate purpose: compensating the injured person for medical bills, lost wages, pain, suffering, and future care. The criminal case and the civil case run on parallel tracks, and the civil case must be filed within Texas’s two-year statute of limitations.
Can I sue the bar that served the drunk driver?
Yes, if the bar served him while he was obviously intoxicated to the extent that he presented a clear danger to himself and others, and his intoxication was a proximate cause of the crash. Texas dram shop law holds licensed alcohol providers directly liable in those circumstances. The key is proving that the driver was visibly intoxicated when he was served — and that requires surveillance video, point-of-sale records, and witness testimony from the establishment’s staff, all of which are perishable evidence that must be demanded before it is destroyed.
What if the drunk driver does not have enough insurance?
This is the most common and most important question. If the driver’s auto policy limits are insufficient — and in a crash this severe, they almost certainly will be — there are several potential paths: UM/UIM coverage through the victims’ own policies, a dram shop claim against the bar that over-served him, a negligent-entrustment claim against the vehicle’s owner if different from the driver, and excess coverage layers if any exist. The honest answer is that collectibility is the dominant factor in this case — and identifying a dram shop defendant is the single most consequential step in the investigation.
How long do I have to file a lawsuit?
Texas imposes a two-year statute of limitations on personal injury and wrongful-death claims. For a child, the limitations period is tolled — but a guardian should not rely on tolling alone, because the evidence dies faster than the deadline. The real deadline is not the filing deadline. The real deadline is the evidence-preservation deadline: bar surveillance overwrites in days to weeks, cell phone data is on a carrier retention clock, and the vehicle’s black box can be lost when the car is released from impound. If you are within two years of the crash, you are within the filing window. If you are within two weeks of the crash, you are in the evidence-preservation window — and that window is the one that matters most.
Can the 9-year-old child have her own claim?
Yes. The child was a passenger in a vehicle operated by an intoxicated parent who drove the wrong way on a divided highway and caused two collisions. She has her own claim for the physical forces of the head-on collision and for the emotional distress of witnessing and experiencing the event. Her hospital statement — that her father was “drunk and crashing again” — is admissible evidence of prior similar conduct. A parent, guardian, or next friend can bring the claim on her behalf, and the court must approve any settlement of a minor’s claim to ensure it is in the child’s best interest.
What if the insurance company says the driver’s actions were intentional and excluded from coverage?
This is a real risk for the assault on the first trooper — the deliberate act of driving toward her. Most auto policies contain an intentional-act exclusion. The answer is to plead the theories in the alternative: negligence as the primary theory (wrong-way DWI operation is grossly negligent, not intentional in the insurance-law sense), with the intentional-tort theory pleaded as a backup. The head-on collision with the second trooper is more likely to fall within negligence coverage. A coverage lawyer must analyze the specific policy language early, because a coverage denial can be challenged — and sometimes the insurer’s own delay in investigating coverage becomes bad-faith leverage.
Will the troopers’ workers’ compensation cover everything?
No. Workers’ compensation covers medical expenses and a portion of lost wages — but it does not pay for pain and suffering, mental anguish, disfigurement, physical impairment, or the full loss of earning capacity. It is a benefit schedule, not a full tort recovery. The workers’-comp carrier will also assert a subrogation lien against any third-party recovery, meaning it gets repaid from the civil settlement or verdict. The third-party civil action — against the at-fault driver and any dram shop defendant — is the path to the full measure of damages that comp never pays.
How much is a case like this worth?
The honest range, based on the facts known so far, runs from approximately $250,000 on the low end to $3,500,000 on the high end. The low end assumes no dram shop defendant is identified and recovery is limited to auto liability and UM/UIM coverage. The high end assumes a viable dram shop defendant with substantial insurance, catastrophic injuries, peace-officer victim status, and a punitive-damages component. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. The variable that matters most is whether the dram shop investigation identifies where the driver was drinking that night. You can learn more about how personal-injury case value is calculated in our video on the subject.
Can I still recover if the driver goes to prison?
Yes. The civil case is independent of the criminal case. A defendant’s incarceration does not eliminate his civil liability or his insurance coverage — though it may make collecting from him personally more difficult, which is another reason the dram shop investigation matters so much. The bar that over-served him is not in prison. The bar’s insurance is not in prison. The bar’s assets are not in prison. That is where the real recovery lives.
What should I do right now?
Three things. First, get medical care and follow through on every recommendation — the medical record is being built right now, and gaps in treatment become the defense’s favorite argument. Second, do not sign anything, do not give a recorded statement, and do not post about the crash on social media. Third, call a lawyer who can send preservation letters the same day — because the bar surveillance video that proves the dram shop claim is being overwritten tonight, and the vehicle’s black box is sitting in an impound lot that can release it to a salvage yard next week. Call 1-888-ATTY-911. We answer 24 hours a day. Hablamos Español.
Why the First Call Matters More Than the Last
The criminal case will take months. The civil case will take longer. The insurance adjuster has already started working on the day of the crash. The bar surveillance video has already started overwriting. The vehicle is already accruing impound fees. The cell phone carrier is already on its retention clock. The medical record is already being written — and every gap in it is a gap the defense will drive a truck through.
The day you call is the day the preservation letters go out. The day you call is the day the evidence stops disappearing. The day you call is the day the adjuster’s lowball reserve meets the first resistance it has faced. Everything that happens before that call is happening to you. Everything that happens after that call is happening for you.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We are Legal Emergency Lawyers. We do not get paid unless we win your case. The consultation is free. The phone is live. 1-888-ATTY-911. Hablamos Español.
This page is legal information, not legal advice, for your specific case. Contacting the firm is free and confidential. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.