The Wrong-Way Crash on SH 302: Two Young Lives Lost in the Permian Basin Darkness
If you are reading this because someone you love was in that Hyundai Elantra on State Highway 302 in the minutes before dawn on December 7, 2025, we want you to know three things before anything else. First, what happened to Sebastian Trevino and Juan Guerrero was not an accident in the sense that most people use that word — a wrong-way driver traveling westbound in the eastbound lanes of a rural state highway at 4:45 in the morning is a decision someone made, and the law treats it that way. Second, evidence that will decide this case is disappearing right now — skid marks are fading, surveillance footage is recording over itself, and the vehicles themselves may be sitting in a tow yard where they can be salvaged or crushed within weeks. Third, the DPS investigation that is underway is not your investigation — it answers a criminal question, not the civil question of what your family is owed, and the two are not the same thing.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We are a trial firm that takes Texas wrongful death and catastrophic injury cases. We are writing this for you, the person at the kitchen table at 2 a.m. with a folder of hospital papers and a phone full of missed calls from numbers you do not recognize. Everything that follows is what we would tell you if you were sitting across from us. It is legal information, not legal advice — but it is the information that matters right now, and the clock on some of it is measured in days, not years. If you want to talk to us after reading this, the call is free, it is confidential, and you do not pay us a dollar unless we win your case. The number is 1-888-ATTY-911. We answer 24 hours a day, and we have live staff — not an answering service.
What Happened on State Highway 302 Near FM 181
According to DPS, the crash happened around 4:45 a.m. on State Highway 302 near FM 181 when a 2014 Ford F-150 was traveling the wrong way, westbound in the eastbound lanes. A head-on crash happened with a 2017 Hyundai Elantra that was traveling eastbound just east of the FM 181 intersection.
State Highway 302 runs east-west through the heart of the Permian Basin in Ector County, connecting Odessa to the oilfield communities that surround it. If you have driven it, you know what it is — a rural state highway with long stretches of open road, the kind where you can see headlights coming from a distance and your brain registers them as traffic in the oncoming lane. Except at 4:45 a.m. on a Sunday, in the darkness before the West Texas sun cracks the horizon, those headlights were not in the oncoming lane. They were in your lane. And by the time anyone’s brain processed that wrongness, the closing speed between two vehicles heading toward each other on the same strip of pavement left no time to react.
The FM 181 intersection is a rural crossroads — the kind of farm-to-market junction common across West Texas, often marked by minimal signage, no center median barriers, and limited lighting. These are exactly the conditions that can facilitate wrong-way entry by a confused, fatigued, or impaired driver, especially in darkness. The 4:45 a.m. timestamp is not incidental to this crash. It is central. That hour — the hour when the bars have been closed for less than two hours, when oilfield shift changes have put tired workers on the road, when darkness compounds every other factor — is the hour that wrong-way crashes happen most frequently. And it is the hour that tells an investigator where to look first.
Two passengers in the Hyundai — 25-year-old Sebastian Trevino and 26-year-old Juan Guerrero — were pronounced dead at the scene. The Hyundai’s driver, who was wearing a seatbelt, was transported to Medical Center Hospital in Odessa with serious injuries. Both occupants of the Ford F-150 were also transported to Medical Center Hospital with serious injuries. Medical Center Hospital is the primary Level III trauma center serving Ector County and the surrounding Permian Basin — meaning the injured received regional trauma-level care, but catastrophic injuries may require transfer to a Level I facility in Lubbock or Fort Worth for the most complex interventions.
The Texas Department of Public Safety is investigating. The cause of the wrong-way entry remains, at this point, undetermined. But “undetermined” is a word that describes what DPS has not yet concluded — it does not describe what the evidence will show, and it does not mean the cause is unknowable. It means the cause has not yet been pinned down by the people currently looking for it. A parallel civil investigation, run by counsel with forensic resources, is what finds the evidence that DPS may not prioritize — because DPS is answering a different question than the one your family needs answered.
Wrong-Way Driving as Negligence Per Se Under Texas Law
Driving the wrong way on a highway is not a close call. Texas traffic law prohibits operating a vehicle against the designated flow of traffic on a directional highway, and the violation is straightforward: the Ford F-150 was traveling westbound in the eastbound lanes. That is a statutory breach of the duty every driver owes to every other person on the road, and in Texas it supports a theory called negligence per se — which means the violation itself establishes the breach of duty, without need for independent proof that the conduct was unreasonable.
Think of it this way: in an ordinary negligence case, you have to prove that the defendant did something a reasonable person would not have done. In a negligence per se case, the legislature already made that determination for you — they wrote a law saying “do not do this,” the defendant did it, and the breach is established by the violation itself. The remaining questions are causation (did the violation cause the harm?) and damages (what is the harm worth?) — not whether the driver was careless.
But wrong-way driving is also ordinary negligence independent of the statutory violation. Operating a vehicle head-on into oncoming traffic is a breach of the duty of reasonable care owed to all roadway users under any standard. This theory captures all of the factual circumstances — speed, visibility, whether any evasive action was attempted, and critically, the driver’s physical and mental condition at the time. Both theories can be pleaded together, and both point to the same defendant.
The Hyundai occupants’ fault exposure under Texas’s comparative negligence system is effectively negligible. Texas follows a modified comparative negligence standard with a 51% bar — meaning a plaintiff is barred from recovery only if found 51% or more at fault. The Hyundai was traveling eastbound in the eastbound lanes. The driver was wearing a seatbelt. The passengers were where they were supposed to be, in a vehicle going the right direction on the right side of the road. There is no realistic scenario in which the victims bear any meaningful share of fault, and the at-fault party’s insurance company knows this — which is exactly why their strategy will not be to blame the victims but to limit what they pay.
Gross Negligence and Exemplary Damages: The 4:45 a.m. Question
Here is where the 4:45 a.m. timestamp stops being background color and becomes the single most important fact in the case. A driver who is on the wrong side of a highway in the predawn darkness may have made a navigation error — but a driver who is on the wrong side of a highway at 4:45 in the morning raises a question that, once answered, can transform the entire case: was that driver intoxicated?
If toxicology or cell-phone records establish that the wrong-way driver was intoxicated, distracted, or had been awake for an extended period consistent with extreme sleep deprivation, the conduct may rise to gross negligence under Texas standards. Gross negligence in Texas means an act or omission involving an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others, of which the actor has actual, subjective awareness — but proceeds with conscious indifference to that risk. Driving the wrong way on a highway while intoxicated is, under most any jury’s understanding, a conscious disregard for the safety of everyone else on that road.
Why does this matter? Because Texas allows exemplary damages — what many people call punitive damages — when gross negligence is proven. Exemplary damages are governed by Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and they are available upon a showing of gross negligence. They exist to punish and to deter, not just to compensate — and they sit on top of the full compensatory damages a family is already owed. The availability of exemplary damages changes the leverage in the case, changes the value, and changes the way the at-fault driver’s insurance company evaluates the risk of going to trial versus settling.
This is why the single most important piece of evidence in this case may be the toxicology results — the blood alcohol concentration and drug screen for the Ford F-150 driver. If a blood draw was performed at Medical Center Hospital upon admission, the results are preserved in the medical record. If no draw was done, or if the results are not preserved, this evidence may be permanently lost. And if the toxicology is positive, the case moves from a standard negligence case to a gross negligence case with exemplary damages and a potential dram shop claim — dramatically expanding both the defendant pool and the available insurance coverage.
Dram Shop Liability in Texas: Tracing the Alcohol
If intoxication is established, Texas law opens a second door that most families never know exists. The Texas Dram Shop Act provides a cause of action against a licensed alcohol provider — a bar, restaurant, club, or any establishment with a TABC license — that served alcohol to a person who was obviously intoxicated to the point that they presented a clear and present danger to themselves or others, and that intoxication was a proximate cause of the crash.
The 4:45 a.m. timing creates a strong investigative lead. Bars in Texas must stop serving by 2:00 a.m. If the wrong-way driver was at a licensed establishment before the crash, credit card receipts, cell phone location data, surveillance footage, and witness statements can trace the trail backward from the crash scene to the bar stool where the over-service happened. A dram shop claim matters for two reasons: it expands the defendant pool beyond the at-fault driver, and it taps into a different insurance policy — the establishment’s liquor liability coverage — which may be far larger than the at-fault driver’s personal auto policy.
Lupe Peña, our associate attorney, spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm before he joined this side of the table. He sat in the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims — and dram shop claims are ones the insurance industry fights especially hard, because they pull a commercial defendant with commercial coverage into a case that the auto insurer thought it had contained. Lupe knows the plays because he used to run them. Now he uses that knowledge for injured people and grieving families. He is fluent in Spanish and conducts full consultations in Spanish without an interpreter — hablamos Español, and for the families in the Permian Basin community, that matters.
Who Can Be Held Responsible for This Crash
The defendant structure in a wrong-way crash case can be wider than it first appears. The primary tortfeasor is the driver of the Ford F-150 — the person who operated the vehicle westbound in the eastbound lanes in direct violation of Texas traffic law. But the investigation may reveal additional parties whose conduct contributed to the harm:
The Ford F-150 owner, if different from the driver. Texas recognizes negligent entrustment as a separate actionable tort. If the owner knew or should have known that the driver was unfit to operate the vehicle — through intoxication, fatigue, lack of a valid license, or prior similar conduct — and permitted operation anyway, the owner bears separate responsibility. Vehicle ownership can be confirmed through Texas DMV registration records, and the relationship between owner and driver is a threshold discovery question.
A potential alcohol provider. As discussed above, if intoxication is established and a licensed establishment served the driver to the point of obvious intoxication, the Texas Dram Shop Act provides a direct cause of action against that provider. This is not a theoretical claim — it is a statutory cause of action with its own evidence requirements, its own defendant, and its own insurance coverage.
An employer, if the F-150 was being operated in the course and scope of employment. The Permian Basin runs on oilfield traffic, and a 2014 Ford F-150 at 4:45 a.m. on SH 302 may be a personal vehicle or it may be a work vehicle. If discovery reveals the F-150 was being operated in the course and scope of oilfield employment or commercial activity at the time of the crash, the case profile shifts to include employer vicarious liability and potentially higher commercial insurance coverage. This is a question that must be answered early.
The defendant structure matters because it determines where the money is. A single wrong-way driver with a personal auto policy may carry only Texas’s legal minimum liability limits — and two wrongful deaths plus three serious injuries against a minimum policy means there is not enough money to go around. But a dram shop defendant, an employer, or a vehicle owner each bring their own insurance, and identifying every responsible party is how a case goes from a fraction of what the family is owed to something approaching full compensation.
Wrongful Death Claims in Texas: Who May File and What Is Recoverable
Texas wrongful death and personal injury claims are governed by the Texas Wrongful Death Act and general negligence principles found in the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The statute of limitations for both wrongful death and personal injury in Texas is generally two years from the date of the incident. That is the outer deadline — but the real deadline in this case is not measured in years. It is measured in the days and weeks during which evidence is still alive to be preserved.
Under the Texas Wrongful Death Act, the surviving spouse, children, and parents of the decedent may bring a wrongful death claim. If none of these statutory beneficiaries file within three months of the death, the executor or administrator of the decedent’s estate may file on behalf of the beneficiaries. The claim compensates the family for the losses they have suffered — loss of the decedent’s earning capacity, loss of companionship and society, mental anguish, and funeral expenses.
Texas also recognizes a separate survival claim, which belongs to the decedent’s estate. A survival claim carries forward the claim the decedent would have had if they had survived — including pain and suffering experienced between the impact and death, and pre-death medical expenses. Whether survival damages are available in this case depends on whether either decedent experienced conscious pain and suffering between impact and pronouncement at the scene. The head-on nature of the collision may have produced near-instantaneous death — a question that requires the trauma surgeon and crash reconstructionist to analyze the mechanism of injury, the force of impact, and the timeline between collision and death.
Texas does not impose statutory damage caps on wrongful death claims. This means a jury may award the full measure of economic and non-economic damages that the evidence supports — lost earning capacity over the decedent’s full expected work life, loss of companionship and society, mental anguish of the statutory beneficiaries, and funeral expenses. For two young men — 25 and 26 years old — the lost earning capacity component alone can be substantial, particularly in the Permian Basin economy where oilfield employment commands wages well above state and national averages. If either decedent worked in or was pursuing a career in the energy sector, the economic loss projection is significant.
The surviving Hyundai driver has their own personal injury claim — separate from the wrongful death claims of the Trevino and Guerrero families, but arising from the same crash and the same defendant. The driver’s cooperation with the families’ investigation can strengthen all claims against the common at-fault party, and the driver should be separately advised that they are a victim with their own significant claim. If you are the surviving driver, you need your own counsel — but your counsel and the families’ counsel should be coordinating, because the evidence that helps one claim helps all of them.
If your family has lost someone in a crash like this, our wrongful death claim lawyer practice page explains more about how these claims work in Texas.
UM/UIM Coverage: Why the At-Fault Driver’s Insurance Will Not Be Enough
Here is the reality that no one will explain to you at the hospital or the funeral home: the at-fault driver’s liability insurance is almost certainly insufficient to compensate the losses in this crash. Two wrongful deaths plus three serious injuries against what is likely a single passenger liability policy means the policy will be exhausted — and possibly exhausted many times over — before any single family sees full compensation.
Texas’s legal minimum liability coverage is $30,000 per person and $60,000 per incident. One night in a trauma center can pass that per-person limit. Two deaths and three serious injuries against a $60,000 per-incident policy is not a settlement — it is a fraction. And even if the at-fault driver carries more than the minimum — say $100,000 or $300,000 in liability coverage — the math still does not work. Five injured parties, two of them fatalities, against a single policy.
This is where uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage becomes the most important policy on the table. UM/UIM coverage is something the Hyundai owner or the occupants’ own families may carry on their own auto policies — and it steps in when the at-fault driver’s liability coverage is insufficient to compensate the losses. In Texas, UM/UIM coverage applies when the at-fault driver is uninsured or underinsured, and it can be stacked across multiple policies and multiple vehicles in a household to increase the available recovery.
Identifying every UM/UIM policy that may apply to the Hyundai occupants is a critical early step. This includes the vehicle owner’s policy, any policy covering a household family member, and any umbrella or excess policy that follows the underlying UM/UIM. The policies must be identified, the coverage must be confirmed, and the claims must be filed — because UM/UIM carriers step into the shoes of the at-fault driver for purposes of the claim, which means they will fight the claim as if they were the at-fault driver’s insurer.
The Texas Stowers doctrine is a powerful tool in this context. Under Stowers, when a claimant presents a reasonable settlement demand within the at-fault driver’s policy limits, the at-fault driver’s insurer has a duty to accept that demand — and if the insurer refuses and a later judgment exceeds the policy limits, the insurer may be liable for the full judgment amount, not just the policy limit. Serving a Stowers demand early creates bad-faith exposure for the at-fault driver’s insurer and can pressure settlement — but it must be done correctly, with a demand that is reasonable on its face and supported by the evidence available at the time. Meanwhile, UM/UIM claims are filed simultaneously with the Hyundai occupants’ own carriers, because those carriers owe a contractual duty to pay the covered losses.
For more on how vehicle crash claims work, our car accident lawyer practice page covers the process in detail.
The Medicine: What a Head-On Collision Does to the Human Body
A head-on collision is the worst-case scenario in crash physics. When two vehicles approach each other on the same lane, the closing speed is the sum of both vehicles’ speeds — meaning a Hyundai Elantra traveling 60 mph eastbound and a Ford F-150 traveling 60 mph westbound produce a closing speed of approximately 120 mph. The kinetic energy that must be absorbed in the impact is proportional to the combined closing speed, and the vehicle’s structure — crumple zones, frame rails, engine block — has milliseconds to convert that energy into deformation before the passenger compartment is compromised.
The F-150 is a full-size pickup truck with a mass advantage over a compact sedan like the Elantra. In a collision between two vehicles of unequal mass, the lighter vehicle undergoes the larger change in velocity — the larger delta-V — and delta-V is the single best available predictor of occupant injury severity. The Hyundai’s occupants absorbed more of the crash’s violent energy than the F-150’s occupants, which is consistent with the outcome: two fatalities in the Hyundai, survivable injuries in the F-150.
For the two passengers who were killed, the mechanism of injury in a high-speed head-on collision is typically some combination of blunt force trauma to the head, chest, and abdomen — the body decelerating against the seatbelt, the interior, or other occupants at forces the human body was not designed to withstand. A forensic reconstructionist and a trauma surgeon working together can analyze the impact dynamics, the vehicle deformation, and the injury patterns to determine whether death was instantaneous or whether there was a window of conscious suffering — a question that determines whether survival damages are available to the estates.
For the three surviving injured parties, the injury profile from a high-speed head-on impact likely includes some combination of traumatic brain injury, cervical and thoracic spinal trauma, internal organ injury from seatbelt and steering-column forces, and complex orthopedic fractures — particularly of the ribs, pelvis, and lower extremities. These injuries require surgical intervention, extended hospitalization, and months to years of rehabilitation. A traumatic brain injury can come with a perfectly normal initial CT scan — the damage is microscopic tearing of nerve fibers that standard imaging was not designed to see, and it may manifest as cognitive deficits, personality changes, and memory problems that the family notices across the dinner table before any scan confirms them.
The medical records from Medical Center Hospital are essential evidence — they document the full extent and mechanism of the injuries, the admission toxicology for all patients (which may independently confirm or contradict the at-fault driver’s level of impairment), the trauma activation records, and the treatment timeline. These records must be obtained through authorization as soon as the families retain counsel, because the early admission records are the most detailed and the most contemporaneous — and they are the records most likely to contain the toxicology results that can unlock the gross negligence and dram shop theories.
The Evidence Clock: What Is Disappearing Right Now
The DPS investigation is underway, and DPS will produce a CR-3 crash report — typically available within 10 to 14 days, though it may be delayed pending toxicology results. The CR-3 will include road conditions, witness statements, a diagram of the point of impact, and the investigating officer’s preliminary assessment of cause. But the CR-3 is only one piece of the evidence puzzle, and the most important pieces are on clocks that run much faster than 14 days.
EDR / Black Box data from both vehicles — CRITICAL. The 2014 Ford F-150 and the 2017 Hyundai Elantra both carry Event Data Recorders — the vehicle’s “black box” — that captured speed, braking input, steering angle, seatbelt status, and impact force data in the seconds before and during the collision. Federal regulations require these recorders to capture a pre-crash data window and to lock deployment-event data so it cannot be overwritten. But non-deployment event data can be overwritten by the next hard stop, and the physical module dies if the vehicle is salvaged, crushed, or the airbag control module is replaced. These vehicles are in tow yards right now, accruing fees, and they may be salvaged or destroyed within weeks. The EDR data must be imaged through a forensic download before any repair or disposal. This is the single most urgent preservation step in the case.
Toxicology / blood draw results for the Ford F-150 driver — CRITICAL. If a blood draw was performed at Medical Center Hospital upon admission, the results are preserved in the medical record. This is the single most important evidence for establishing intoxication, unlocking dram shop liability, and supporting gross negligence and exemplary damages. If no draw was done, or if the results are not preserved, this evidence is permanently lost — and with it, potentially the most valuable legal theories in the case.
Cell phone records for the Ford F-150 driver — HIGH. Call logs, text messages, data usage, and GPS location history during the period leading up to the crash can establish distraction, communication patterns, and potentially location data showing where the driver was before entering SH 302 — which is the thread that leads to a dram shop defendant. Carrier retention policies vary from 30 to 90 days for certain data types. Preservation letters must be sent to the carrier immediately, before the data cycles off.
Scene evidence — CRITICAL. Skid marks, gouge marks in the pavement, the debris field, and the signage conditions at the FM 181 / SH 302 intersection are physical evidence of vehicle paths, speed, point of impact, and whether inadequate signage or confusing intersection design contributed to the wrong-way entry. Rural highway scene evidence degrades rapidly — skid marks fade within days from weather and traffic, debris is cleared by DPS or TxDOT, and the scene returns to its pre-crash appearance with no visible record of what happened. A scene investigation should be conducted as quickly as possible, with photographs, measurements, and documentation of the signage and road conditions as they existed on the night of the crash.
Surveillance footage from nearby oilfield facilities — CRITICAL. The Permian Basin has extensive commercial surveillance infrastructure — pipeline facilities, pumping stations, equipment yards, and oilfield service companies line the highways of Ector County, and many of them have cameras that point toward the road. Footage from these cameras may capture the F-150’s wrong-way travel path, speed, and behavior before the collision, and may even show where the vehicle entered the highway going the wrong direction. Typical digital surveillance overwrite cycles run 7 to 30 days. Every day that passes without a preservation demand is a day closer to that footage being gone forever.
Dashcam footage from either vehicle — CRITICAL. If either vehicle had a dashcam, the footage is the most direct visual evidence of the collision and the moments leading up to it — it may show the wrong-way vehicle’s approach and the Hyundai driver’s reaction. The footage must be extracted before the vehicle is salvaged, and dashcam devices may be damaged or separated from the vehicle during towing.
Medical records from Medical Center Hospital — MODERATE. HIPAA requires six-year retention, but the early admission records are the most detailed and should be obtained through authorization as soon as the families retain counsel. These records document the full extent and mechanism of injuries, admission toxicology for all patients, trauma activation records, and treatment timelines.
The preservation letter — a formal demand that evidence be frozen and not destroyed — is the tool that stops these clocks. It goes to the at-fault driver, the vehicle owners, the tow yards, the cell phone carriers, the nearby businesses with surveillance cameras, and any potential dram shop defendant. The day a lawyer sends those letters is the day the evidence stops disappearing. Every day before that is a day the defense is counting on.
The Insurance Adjuster’s Playbook: What They Will Do and How to Stop It
Lupe Peña knows the insurance adjuster’s playbook because he used to write it. Before he came to this side of the table, he worked inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where claims like yours are priced, reserved, and processed through valuation software that discounts pain it cannot see. Here is what the at-fault driver’s insurance company is already doing, and here is how each play is countered:
Play 1: The friendly “just checking in” call. Within days, someone friendly will call the family — a “claim representative” who sounds sympathetic and asks the family to “just tell us what happened” on a recording. The call is engineered to get the family to say something — anything — that can be quoted later to minimize the claim. “I’m doing okay” becomes “the injuries weren’t that serious.” “I’m not sure what happened” becomes “even the family doesn’t know if our driver was at fault.” The counter is simple: do not give a recorded statement to the at-fault driver’s insurance company. Not now, not ever. You are not required to, and nothing you say will help your case — it can only hurt it. If they call, take their number and tell them your attorney will call them back. Then call us.
Play 2: The fast settlement check. A check may arrive quickly — sometimes within weeks — with a release printed on the back or attached to it. The release, once signed or endorsed, settles the entire claim for that amount, and the amount is almost always a fraction of what the case is worth. The insurance company sends this check before the medical records are complete, before the toxicology is known, before the full extent of the injuries is understood — because they know that once the family signs the release, the case is over, no matter what turns up later. The counter is absolute: do not sign anything, do not endorse any check, and do not agree to any settlement until you have consulted with a lawyer who has reviewed the full picture. A quick check is not generosity — it is procedure.
Play 3: The “pre-existing condition” argument. If the surviving injured parties have any prior medical history — a previous back injury, a prior concussion, a chronic condition — the insurance company will argue that the current injuries are not from the crash but from the pre-existing condition. This is the eggshell-plaintiff doctrine turned on its head, and the answer is that the law takes the victim as they are — a defendant who causes a crash that aggravates a pre-existing condition is responsible for the full extent of the aggravation, not just the portion that would have injured a perfectly healthy person.
Play 4: The surveillance and social-media watch. The insurance company may conduct surveillance on the injured parties and monitor their social media accounts. A photograph of the surviving driver smiling at a family gathering becomes “the injuries weren’t serious.” A post about going back to work becomes “they’ve fully recovered.” The counter is to assume you are being watched — because you may be — and to post nothing about the crash, the injuries, or the case on any social media platform. Assume every photograph and every post will be shown to a jury.
Play 5: The delay aimed at the statute of limitations. The insurance company may stall, request extension after extension, and drag out the negotiation process — aiming to run the two-year statute of limitations clock down to the point where the family feels pressured to accept whatever is offered. The counter is to have counsel who files the lawsuit before the deadline and who uses the Stowers doctrine to create bad-faith exposure that pressures the insurer to settle, not the family.
For more on how to handle communications with insurance companies, this video on what you should not say to an insurance adjuster covers the specific tactics in plain language.
How a Case Like This Is Actually Built
Here is how a wrong-way crash case is built, from the day a family calls to the day a number is put on the table:
Week one: preservation. The preservation letters go out — to the at-fault driver, the vehicle owners, the tow yards, the cell phone carriers, the nearby businesses with surveillance cameras, and any potential dram shop defendant. The vehicles are located and a forensic download of the EDR data from both vehicles is scheduled before either vehicle can be salvaged or destroyed. A scene investigation is conducted — photographs, measurements, documentation of signage and road conditions. The DPS CR-3 crash report is requested, and the medical records from Medical Center Hospital are obtained through authorization.
Weeks two through four: the toxicology question. The at-fault driver’s toxicology results — if a blood draw was performed at Medical Center Hospital — are obtained from the medical record. This is the pivot point. If the toxicology is positive for alcohol or drugs, the case transforms: a dram shop investigation traces the driver’s whereabouts in the hours before the crash, identifying establishments through credit card receipts, cell phone location data, and witness statements. If the toxicology is negative or was never done, the case proceeds on standard negligence and potentially gross negligence based on fatigue or distraction.
Months one through three: experts and reconstruction. An accident reconstructionist is retained to analyze approach speed, impact dynamics, the delta-V for each vehicle, and whether the Hyundai driver had any opportunity to avoid the collision. The reconstructionist works from the EDR data, the vehicle damage, the scene evidence, and the CR-3 diagram. A life-care planner may be retained for the surviving injured parties — building a document that prices out, year by year, every surgery, therapy session, medication, wheelchair, and caregiver hour the injured person will need for the rest of their life. A forensic economist reduces that cost stream to present value and projects lost earning capacity for both the deceased and the surviving injured.
Months three through six: discovery and depositions. The lawsuit is filed in Ector County — where the crash occurred and where a jury of the reader’s neighbors will decide what the case is worth. Discovery produces the at-fault driver’s cell phone records, the vehicle’s telematics data, the driver’s employment records (if the F-150 was a work vehicle), and any dram shop defendant’s sales records and surveillance footage. Depositions follow — the at-fault driver under oath, the investigating DPS trooper, the establishment’s bartenders and managers, and the defense’s retained experts.
The number. The number at the end is built from all of it — the EDR data that proved the speed, the toxicology that proved the impairment, the dram shop investigation that identified the bar, the reconstruction that proved the mechanics, the life-care plan that priced the future, and the economist who translated it all into a dollar figure a jury can understand. That number is not a guess. It is an arithmetic problem assembled from verified facts, and it is what the family is owed.
A jury in Ector County will understand the dangers of rural highway driving — they live with them. They will understand the oilfield shift-work culture and the prevalence of fatigue and substance abuse in the Permian Basin community. They will understand that a wrong-way driver at 4:45 a.m. is not an act of God. And they will understand what two young lives were worth — not just in paychecks, but in companionship, in presence, in the future that was taken.
The First 72 Hours: What Families Must Do
Medical first. If you are the surviving Hyundai driver or a family member of someone who was injured, your first priority is medical care — and not just the emergency care you have already received. Follow up with specialists. Get the imaging that the ER may not have ordered — the MRI that shows the spinal cord, the neuropsychological evaluation that measures the cognitive deficits the CT could not see. Symptoms lie in the first days after a crash — adrenaline masks pain, and injuries that seem minor on day one can declare themselves as catastrophic by day thirty. Document everything. Keep every appointment. The medical record is being built right now, and every gap in it is a gap the insurance company will exploit.
Do not sign anything. Do not sign a release. Do not endorse a check. Do not agree to a recorded statement. Do not accept a settlement offer. Do not sign anything from the at-fault driver’s insurance company, from the tow yard, or from anyone who is not your own lawyer. If someone puts a document in front of you and tells you it is routine — it is not routine. It is a release, and signing it may end your case before it begins.
Do not post on social media. Assume the insurance company is watching. Do not post about the crash, the injuries, the deaths, the funeral, or the case. Do not post photographs. Do not comment on other people’s posts about the crash. Every post is a potential exhibit.
Preserve the vehicles. If you have any control over the Hyundai — if you are the owner or the family of the owner — do not let the tow yard release it, sell it, or scrap it. That vehicle is evidence. The EDR data inside it is evidence. The physical damage pattern is evidence. It must be preserved until a forensic download can be performed and the vehicle has been documented by a reconstructionist. If the tow yard is charging storage fees, those fees may be recoverable as part of the case — but a scrapped vehicle is not recoverable at all.
Identify every insurance policy. Pull the Hyundai owner’s auto insurance policy — and the policies of every household family member. Look for UM/UIM coverage, medical payments coverage, and any umbrella or excess policy. These policies are the difference between a fraction of what the family is owed and something approaching full compensation. If you cannot find the policies, a lawyer can help you identify them through the carrier and the Texas Department of Insurance.
Call a lawyer. The preservation letters, the EDR downloads, the scene investigation, the toxicology records, the surveillance footage demands — all of these are time-sensitive, and all of them require a lawyer to execute. The two-year statute of limitations is the outer deadline, but the real deadline is measured in days for evidence preservation. The day you call is the day the clock starts working for you instead of against you.
This video on what to do after a car accident walks through the immediate steps in more detail.
What This Case May Be Worth
No honest lawyer can tell you a specific dollar value for this case at this stage — and any lawyer who does is either guessing or telling you what they think you want to hear. What we can tell you is the framework that will determine the value, and the range that the evidence, once developed, may support.
The damages in this case fall into several categories:
Wrongful death damages for the estates of Sebastian Trevino and Juan Guerrero. Lost earning capacity over their full expected work lives — two young men, 25 and 26, with decades of working years ahead of them. In the Permian Basin economy, where oilfield employment commands wages well above state and national averages, the earning-capacity projections for young workers in or pursuing careers in the energy sector can be substantial. Loss of companionship and society — the value of the relationship the surviving family members had with the decedent, and the loss of that relationship. Mental anguish of the statutory beneficiaries — the grief, the pain, the emotional toll of losing a son, a brother, a friend. Funeral expenses. These are not speculative categories — they are recognized, compensable losses under Texas law, and a jury in Ector County will understand them.
Survival damages, if applicable. If either decedent experienced conscious pain and suffering between impact and pronouncement at the scene, the estate may recover for that suffering. This requires medical and reconstruction analysis of the timeline.
Personal injury damages for the surviving Hyundai driver. Past and future medical expenses, lost wages, lost earning capacity, pain and suffering, and permanent impairment. A high-speed head-on impact produces injuries that may require surgical intervention, extended hospitalization, rehabilitation, and lifelong care — and the life-care plan and forensic economist translate those needs into a dollar figure.
Exemplary damages, if gross negligence is proven. If intoxication or extreme impairment is established, exemplary damages become available — and they sit on top of the full compensatory damages. The statutory cap framework for exemplary damages should be confirmed against current law, but the availability of exemplary damages changes the leverage and the value of the case.
The case value range we can honestly state, based on the facts known at this stage, is extraordinarily wide — from approximately $750,000 on the low end to $15,000,000 or more on the high end. The low end reflects a scenario where the at-fault driver carries only minimum Texas liability limits with limited UM/UIM coverage available to the victims and no dram shop or commercial coverage identified. The high end reflects intoxication established with a viable dram shop claim, substantial UM/UIM stacking across multiple victims, high earning-capacity projections for two young decedents in the Permian Basin economy, and exemplary damages for gross negligence. The extraordinary range width is driven by collectibility uncertainty — the liability and damages are both very strong, but the available insurance and defendant assets are entirely unknown pending investigation.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. What we can tell you is that the cases that reach the high end of their range are the ones where evidence was preserved early, where every defendant and every insurance policy was identified, and where the legal theories were developed fully — not the ones where the family waited and hoped for the best.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long do I have to file a wrongful death claim in Texas?
Texas generally imposes a two-year statute of limitations on wrongful death claims, running from the date of the death. However, the real deadline in this case is not two years — it is the days and weeks during which evidence is still available to be preserved. Vehicle data, surveillance footage, scene evidence, and cell phone records all have preservation windows far shorter than two years. Waiting to contact a lawyer until the statute of limitations approaches means the evidence that would have proven the case may already be legally destroyed.
Can I still recover compensation if the at-fault driver was drunk?
Yes — and if the at-fault driver was intoxicated, the case may be worth significantly more. Intoxication can support a gross negligence claim, which opens the door to exemplary (punitive) damages on top of full compensation. It may also open a dram shop claim against the establishment that served the driver to the point of obvious intoxication, which brings a separate defendant and separate insurance coverage into the case. The toxicology results are the key — and they must be obtained before they are lost.
What if the at-fault driver’s insurance is not enough to cover the losses?
This is the most common situation in a multi-victim crash, and it is why uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage is critical. UM/UIM coverage, carried on the Hyundai owner’s policy and potentially on policies covering household family members, steps in when the at-fault driver’s liability coverage is insufficient. Multiple UM/UIM policies can be stacked to increase the available recovery. Identifying every applicable policy is one of the first things a lawyer does.
Should I give a recorded statement to the insurance company?
No. You are not required to give a recorded statement to the at-fault driver’s insurance company, and nothing you say will help your case — it can only be used to minimize or deny your claim. If the insurance company calls, take their number and tell them your attorney will contact them. Then call a lawyer. This is not hostility — it is self-protection. The insurance company’s representative is trained to ask questions in a way that produces answers favorable to the insurance company, not to you.
What happens to the vehicles after the crash?
The vehicles are typically towed to an impound lot, where they accrue storage fees. They are evidence — the EDR (black box) data inside each vehicle recorded speed, braking, steering, and impact force in the moments before and during the collision. That data must be downloaded forensically before the vehicle is repaired, sold for salvage, or crushed. A preservation letter from a lawyer can freeze the vehicles in place until the data is extracted. If the vehicles are destroyed before the data is pulled, the single most important physical evidence in the case is gone.
Can the families of the passengers and the surviving driver all bring claims?
Yes. The families of Sebastian Trevino and Juan Guerrero have wrongful death claims. The surviving Hyundai driver has a personal injury claim. These claims arise from the same crash and the same at-fault party, but they are separate claims with separate damages. The families’ counsel and the surviving driver’s counsel should coordinate, because the evidence that helps one claim helps all of them — but each party should have their own independent representation to ensure their individual interests are protected.
What if the wrong-way driver was working for an oilfield company?
If the Ford F-150 was being operated in the course and scope of employment at the time of the crash — for example, if the driver was an oilfield worker commuting to or from a shift, or using a company vehicle — the employer may be vicariously liable for the driver’s conduct. This shifts the case from a personal auto policy to a commercial liability policy, which is typically far larger. The Permian Basin’s round-the-clock energy-industry shift work creates conditions where fatigue-related crashes are a known risk, and employer liability is a theory that must be investigated early. Our page on Permian Basin oilfield truck accidents covers this in more detail.
How much does it cost to hire a lawyer for a wrongful death case?
We work on a contingency fee — 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, and it is confidential. There is no upfront cost, no hourly billing, and no retainer. We advance the costs of the investigation — the EDR downloads, the expert fees, the filing fees — and those costs are recovered from the recovery, not out of your pocket. If there is no recovery, you owe us nothing for our time.
Will this case go to trial?
Most personal injury and wrongful death cases settle before trial — but the cases that settle for the most money are the ones where the insurance company knows the family is prepared to go to trial. A lawyer who is ready to put the case in front of a jury is a lawyer who never has to. The decision to settle or to try the case is always the family’s decision — our job is to make sure that decision is made from a position of strength, with the full picture of what the case is worth and what the risks are.
Why Attorney911
Ralph Manginello has spent 27+ years in courtrooms, including federal court. He is a former journalist who became a trial lawyer — which means he knows how to find the story the evidence tells, and he knows how to tell it to a jury. He is admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and is a member of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association. He handles cases personally — this is not a firm where the name on the door is not the lawyer in the room. You can read more about Ralph here.
Lupe Peña is a former insurance-defense attorney who spent years inside a national defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims exactly like yours. He knows how the insurance industry values claims because he used to do it. He knows Colossus, the software insurers use to calculate settlements. He knows how IME doctors are selected to produce the reports the insurance company wants. He knows the surveillance tactics, the delay strategies, and the recorded-statement traps — because he used them. Now he uses that knowledge for injured people and grieving families. He is fluent in Spanish and conducts full consultations in Spanish without an interpreter.
We are based in Houston with offices in Austin and Beaumont, and we take cases across Texas — including Ector County and the Permian Basin. The Manginello Law Firm has recovered over $50 million for clients across its practice, including a $5 million brain-injury settlement, a $3.8 million amputation settlement, and a $2.5 million truck-crash recovery. Those are the firm’s verified results, not a promise — every case is different, and past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
We do not get paid unless we win. The consultation is free. The call is confidential. And we answer 24 hours a day — not with an answering service, but with live staff who can take your information and get it to a lawyer immediately.
If your family was affected by the wrong-way crash on SH 302, the most important thing you can do right now is preserve the evidence before it disappears. The second most important thing is to understand your rights before the insurance company defines them for you. The third is to call someone who has done this before.
Call 1-888-ATTY-911. Free consultation. No fee unless we win. Hablamos Español.
The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC · Attorney911 · Legal Emergency Lawyers™
1177 West Loop S, Suite 1600, Houston, TX 77027
1-888-ATTY-911 (1-888-288-9911) · ralph@atty911.com
This page is legal information, not legal advice. Every case is different. Contacting the firm is free and confidential. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.