Will a Texas bill shield trucking companies from crash lawsuits? It depends on who you ask
A Buda educator who was injured last year when a concrete pump truck crashed into a school bus is among more than two dozen survivors and family members who are opposing a bill that could change how and when commercial vehicle companies are liable for such collisions.
'I closed my eyes, and I held my daughter really tight,' Victoria Limon, a special education aide and mother at Tom Green Elementary, told members of the Senate Transportation Committee on Wednesday as she recalled the school bus crash in which she was injured and which also killed a 5-year-old child and a 33-year-old doctoral student.
'If the trucking company had only done its due diligence and known to do a background check and known that its driver was on drugs that day,' Limon added.
Critics of Senate Bill 39, including the Texas Trial Lawyers Association and the consumer watchdog group Texas Watch, argue that the legislation would allow trucking companies to avoid liability by hiding behind their drivers. But proponents, including the trucking industry and the influential group Texans for Lawsuit Reform, say the bill protects trucking companies from frivolous and costly lawsuits that have risen dramatically in recent years.
The bill repeals an amendment to a 2021 law that was intended to be a compromise among trial lawyers, victims and the trucking industry on civil lawsuits. House Bill 19 allowed trucking companies to request civil lawsuits filed against them to be split into two parts. In the first, a jury rules on the negligence of the driver and the company, and decides on compensatory damages, which are meant to cover the plaintiff's medical and psychological costs. In the second part, the jury rules on punitive damages, which are meant to punish a company if it is found to have recklessly or intentionally cut corners.
The compromise amendment allowed plaintiffs' lawyers to present evidence to juries about a driver's condition — like being drunk or ineligible to drive — as proof of a company's negligence.
But the trucking industry has argued that if companies are paying compensatory damages based on their drivers' missteps, their own safety records should not be introduced until the second part of the trial.
'We have companies that are pulled into these lawsuits where they were not at fault, but it doesn't matter,' Texas Trucking Association President John Esparza told the American-Statesman.
The bill's author, Sen. Brian Birdwell, a Granbury Republican, did not respond to a request for comment.
Former state Rep. Eddie Lucio III, the sponsor of the bill amendment that SB 39 would repeal, has said he supports the new legislation. Now a paid lobbyist for Texans for Lawsuit Reform, Lucio said in his Wednesday testimony that he believes his past legislation had an adverse effect on small-business owners, largely by contributing to crippling insurance rates.
Insurance rates have increased by 73% for commercial vehicles since 2017, a rate very similar to the increase for all vehicles during that same span, according to a Texas Department of Insurance 2024 report.
The trial lawyers association has rejected the claim that civil suits are the cause for the state's insurance rate inflation, attributing the blame to climate change, rising vehicle costs and malpractice within the insurance industry itself.
'We are on decade three or four of tort reform in Texas,' Texas Trial Lawyers Association president Jack Walker said. 'Never ever do we see insurance rates go down.'
Instead, Walker argues that the bill would let trucking companies escape financial liability for any misdeeds by removing possibly damning evidence until the second phase of the trial, thus centering the question of responsibility on drivers.
'It would let the bad trucking companies escape liability almost completely,' Walker said.
After the school bus crash, Limon and other parents filed multiple civil lawsuits against the company that owned the concrete pump truck that an investigation found caused the accident, accusing it of negligence.
The truck driver, 42-year-old Jerry Hernandez, is facing a negligent homicide charge. At the time of the crash, Hernandez had a suspended driver's license due to a failed drug test. He told investigators that he had smoked marijuana and done 'a small amount' of cocaine the night before the crash.
All cases remain pending.
Scott Hendler, the attorney representing Limon, said SB 39 would hinder a crash victim's ability to hold trucking companies fully accountable in court by allowing the omission of crucial evidence that demonstrates how the company operates.
'There are more bad actors than just the drivers,' he said. 'All the bad actors that contribute should be on the verdict form and assigned some amount of responsibility.'
If the bill doesn't limit a victim from going after a negligent company, 'then that language should be in the bill,' Hendler said.
Mark Macias, the attorney for Hernandez's employer, did not respond to a request for comment. Justin Fohn, the attorney for Hernandez, declined to comment.
The debate over the bill also comes a month after a semi-truck crashed into merging traffic on Interstate 35 in North Austin, killing five people and sparking several lawsuits against the driver and the trucking company he worked for. A preliminary report released Thursday by the National Transportation Safety Board concluded that the crash occurred because the driver failed to slow down.
"All aspects of the crash remain under investigation while the NTSB determines the probable cause, with the intent of issuing safety recommendations to prevent similar events,' the report said.
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Texas Senate Bill 39 could change how truck crash lawsuits work
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
GOP's food stamp plan is found to violate Senate rules. It's the latest setback for Trump's big bill
In another blow to the Republicans' tax and spending cut bill, the Senate parliamentarian has advised that a proposal to shift some food stamps costs from the federal government to states — a centerpiece of GOP savings efforts — would violate the chamber's rules. While the parliamentarian's rulings are advisory, they are rarely, if ever, ignored. The Republican leadership scrambled on Saturday, days before voting is expected to begin on President Donald Trump's package that he wants to be passed into law by the Fourth of July. The loss is expected to be costly to Republicans. They have been counting on some tens of billions of potential savings from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, to help offset the costs of the $4.5 trillion tax breaks plan. The parliamentarian let stand for now a provision that would impose new work requirements for older Americans, up to age 65, to receive food stamp aid. "We will keep fighting to protect families in need," said Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, which handles the SNAP program. "The Parliamentarian has made clear that Senate Republicans cannot use their partisan budget to shift major nutrition assistance costs to the states that would have inevitably led to major cuts," she said. The parliamentarian's ruling is the latest in a series of setbacks as staff works through the weekend, often toward midnight, to assess the 1,000-page proposal. It all points to serious trouble ahead for the bill, which was approved by the House on a party-line vote last month over unified opposition from Democrats and is now undergoing revisions in the Senate. At its core, the goal of the multitrillion-dollar package is to extend tax cuts from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire if Congress fails to act. It also adds new ones, including no taxes on tips and or overtime pay. To help offset the costs of lost tax revenue, the Republicans are proposing cutbacks to federal Medicaid, health care and food programs — some $1 trillion. Additionally, the package boosts national security spending by about $350 billion, including to pay for Trump's mass deportations, which are running into protests nationwide. Trump has implored Republicans, who have the majority in Congress, to deliver on his top domestic priority, but the details of the package, with its hodge-podge of priorities, are drawing deeper scrutiny. All told, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the package, as approved by the House, would add at least $2.4 trillion to the nation's red ink over the decade and leave 10.9 million more people without health care coverage. Additionally, it would reduce or eliminate food stamps for more than 3 million people. The parliamentarian's office is tasked with scrutinizing the bill to ensure it complies with the so-called Byrd Rule, which is named after the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, and bars many policy matters in the budget reconciliation process now being used. Late Friday, the parliamentarian issued its latest findings. It determined that Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee's proposal to have the states pick up more of the tab for covering food stamps — what Republicans call a new cost-sharing arrangement — would violate the Byrd Rule. Many lawmakers said the states would not be able to absorb the new requirement on food aid, which the federal government has long provided. They warned many would lose access to SNAP benefits used by more than 40 million people. Initially, the CBO estimated savings of about $128 billion under the House's proposal to shift SNAP food aid costs to the states. Cost estimates for the Senate's version, which made changes to the House approach, have not been publicly available. The parliamentarian's office rulings leave GOP leaders with several options. They can revise the proposals to try to comply with Senate rules or strip them from the package altogether. They can also risk a challenge during floor voting, which would require the 60-vote threshold to overcome. That would be unlikely in the split chamber with Democrats opposing the overall package. The parliamentarian's latest advice also said the committee's provision to make certain immigrants ineligible for food stamps would violate the rule. It found several provisions from the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which is led by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to be in violation. They include one to provide $250 million to Coast Guard stations damaged by fire in 2025, namely one on South Padre Island in Texas. Some of the most critical rulings from parliamentarians are still to come. One will assess the GOP's approach that relies on "current policy" rather than "current law" as the baseline for determining whether the bill will add to the nation's deficits. Already, the parliamentarian delivered a serious setback Thursday, finding that the GOP plan to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was a core proposal coming from the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, would violate the Byrd Rule. The parliamentarian has also advised of violations over provisions from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that would roll back Environmental Protection Agency emissions standards on certain vehicles and from the Senate Armed Services Committee to require the Defense secretary to provide a plan on how the Pentagon intends to spend the tens of billions of new funds. The new work requirements in the package would require many of those receiving SNAP or Medicaid benefits to work 80 hours a month or engage in other community or educational services.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Republicans' loan plan presents new obstacles for low-income students
A series of changes to long-running federal student loan programs tucked into the Republican tax plan has doctors panicked and struggling to find GOP allies. The Senate education committee's portion of President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill includes a new cap on how much people can borrow for medical school and other professional programs that is well below the sticker price most students are facing. Lawmakers are also proposing to nix a class of federal loans graduate students use to cover housing and other non-tuition expenses. For low-income and first-generation college students with aspirations of becoming physicians, these plans, if enacted, could squash their dreams, according to medical college leaders. As the full Senate irons out the bill and Trump rattles school finances with funding freezes, doctors' groups are asking Congress to preserve the more generous loan options or risk a sharp drop in who's studying medicine — a profession that's already facing a shortage. While part of the stress on poorer students comes from the ever-increasing cost of higher education, the bill would likely push more of them toward private loans that require a co-signer, which are out of reach for many, and come with steeper interest rates. 'A lot of our medical schools, mine included, have a lot of first-generation college students. When they come into medical education, more times than not, they don't have co-signers,' said John L. Hummer, president of Burrell College of Osteopathic Medicine, a school with campuses in New Mexico and Florida for which 81 percent of students depend on the federal Grad PLUS program Republicans are looking to eliminate. The Senate education tax bill establishes a $200,000 ceiling on federal student loans for professional degrees, like medicine. But the median cost of attending four years of medical school for the class of 2025 is $286,454 for public institutions and $390,848 for private schools, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. It's a range that exceeds the costs many doctors now serving in Congress paid when they earned their degrees. Many did not respond to inquiries from POLITICO about how the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would affect medical school enrollment — and those that did were not sympathetic about student debt. 'You're looking at a person, a first-generation college student, who went to medical school, and didn't borrow money,' Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), who sits on the Senate HELP Committee, said. 'I worked my tail off. Anyone who is paying more than $100,000 to go to school is making a huge mistake.' Marshall graduated from the University of Kansas School of Medicine in 1987, when the average in-state tuition for a public medical school nationally was around $4,696. That sum in today's dollars is about $13,300 — far less than what the Kansas program costs in 2025. Members of the medical community believe limits on federal loans or steering students to borrow from private lenders will exacerbate a long-running national physician shortage the Association of American Medical Colleges projects could be as high as 86,000 doctors by 2036. David Bergman, senior vice president of government relations and health affairs at the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine, said students at medical schools his group represents have said it's been difficult to access private loans. Some lenders, like PNC Bank, hold student debt for which about 90 percent of private loans have a co-signer, while others had interest rates as high as 16 percent — nearly twice that of a Grad PLUS loan. 'The consequence of all this, of course, is that it's the low-income students who are going to suffer the most,' Bergman said. 'They may not have great credit, so then they may not be able to get the loans. Or they may get higher rate loans that put them further in debt.' One former Trump administration official shares this concern. 'I do worry about the assumption that the private sector is going to step in,' said Diane Jones, a former Education Department official from Trump's first term. 'Maybe they would, but I'm not sure they would step in to make loans available to low-income students.' Even some people in the lending business are skeptical the industry's bigger players will change their rules around co-signers. 'It just takes a lot more energy because it's riskier. Period. Banks aren't in the business of doing riskier products,' said Ken Ruggiero, co-founder and CEO of Ascent, a private loan company that will lend to applicants without a co-signer. 'They are in the business of talking to a person who has a very good income and credit score and letting the student sign the agreement.' The House version of the bill would also shut down Grad PLUS and put a cap on lending to graduate students for professional programs, putting pressure on the Senate to change course. But HELP Committee Chair Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said there needs to be more accountability for the high tuition prices writ large that aren't exclusive to medical schools. 'There should be some ratio between earning potential and what it costs,' Cassidy said. 'I met with neurosurgeons and cosmetologists and they had the same discussion about the cost of education.' Jason Goldman, president of the American College of Physicians, which represents internal medicine doctors, related specialists and medical students, is skeptical that capping loan amounts would force medical schools to immediately lower tuition. Over the span of 21 years, medical school tuition has gone up 81 percent, outpacing inflation, according to AAMC. 'The reality is it's very expensive to train a physician — the amount of hours that go into lectures, labs, professors and housing and everything it takes to graduate is expensive,' Goldman said. He fears that some students may be dissuaded from becoming primary care doctors, a specialty where shortages are profound, especially in rural areas. Some in Congress have pushed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to address proposed limits to federal lending for student borrowers pursuing health care-related degrees. During a House Appropriations Committee hearing in May, Rep. Lois Frankel (D-Fla.) asked McMahon to take a look at aid programs that help students complete their degrees. 'We do know we have a shortage of nurses and doctors,' McMahon said. 'I think there are a lot of programs we can look at to train nurse technicians to get them into the marketplace faster.' Other Congress members have proposed student loan changes outside of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to address health care shortages. Sens. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Jackie Rosen (D-Nev.) introduced legislation in April that would create a student loan repayment program for specialists within medical professions who practice in rural areas. They also introduced the Specialty Physicians Advancing Rural Care Act in previous legislative sessions citing a dearth of providers in rural communities. 'The entire nation is dealing with a physician shortage, and rural communities in Mississippi have been particularly affected,' Wicker said in a statement. 'Congress can help provide a solution.' Jones, the official from Trump's first term, also worries that some students may have to forgo medical school because they won't be able to secure financial assistance. She attended medical school in the 1980s when the loan program she was using was suspended, ultimately leading her to drop out because she could no longer afford the program. 'I didn't have a parent who could co-sign for a private loan, and I didn't have access to any other resources,' she said. 'I personally lost the opportunity to pursue the career that I wanted, that I had earned the right to pursue.'
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
GOP's food stamp plan is found to violate Senate rules. It's the latest setback for Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON (AP) — In another blow to the Republicans' tax and spending cut bill, the Senate parliamentarian has advised that a proposal to shift some food stamps costs from the federal government to states — a centerpiece of GOP savings efforts — would violate the chamber's rules. While the parliamentarian's rulings are advisory, they are rarely, if ever, ignored. The Republican leadership was scrambling on Saturday, days before voting is expected to begin on President Donald Trump's package that he wants to be passed into law by the Fourth of July. The loss is expected to be costly to Republicans. They have been counting on some tens of billions of potential savings from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, to help offset the costs of the $4.5 trillion tax breaks plan . The parliamentarian let stand for now a provision that would impose new work requirements for older Americans, up to age 65, to receive food stamp aid. 'We will keep fighting to protect families in need,' said Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, which handles the SNAP program. 'The Parliamentarian has made clear that Senate Republicans cannot use their partisan budget to shift major nutrition assistance costs to the states that would have inevitably led to major cuts,' she said. The parliamentarian's ruling is the latest in a series of setbacks as staff works through the weekend, often toward midnight, to assess the 1,000-page proposal. It all points to serious trouble ahead for the bill, which was approved by the House on a party-line vote last month over unified opposition from Democrats and is now undergoing revisions in the Senate. At its core, the goal of the multitrillion-dollar package is to extend tax cuts from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire if Congress fails to act. It also adds new ones, including no taxes on tips and or overtime pay. To help offset the costs of lost tax revenue, the Republicans are proposing cutbacks to federal Medicaid, health care and food programs — some $1 trillion. Additionally, the package boosts national security spending by about $350 billion, including to pay for Trump's mass deportations , which are running into protests nationwide. Trump has implored Republicans, who have the majority in Congress, to deliver on his top domestic priority, but the details of the package, with its hodge-podge of priorities, is drawing deeper scrutiny. All told, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the package, as approved by the House, would add at least $2.4 trillion to the nation's red ink over the decade and leave 10.9 million more people without health care coverage. Additionally, it would reduce or eliminate food stamps for more than 3 million people. The parliamentarian's office is tasked with scrutinizing the bill to ensure it complies with the so-called Byrd Rule, which is named after the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, and bars many policy matters in the budget reconciliation process now being used. Late Friday, the parliamentarian issued its latest findings. It determined that Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee's proposal to have the states pick up more of the tab for covering food stamps — what Republicans call a new cost-sharing arrangement — would be in violation of the Byrd Rule. Many lawmakers said the states would not be able to absorb the new requirement on food aid, which has long been provided by the federal government. They warned many would lose access to SNAP benefits used by more than 40 million people. Initially, the CBO had estimated about $128 billion in savings under the House's proposal to shift SNAP food aid costs to the states. Cost estimates for the Senate's version, which made changes to the House approach, have not yet been made publicly available. The parliamentarian's office rulings leave GOP leaders with several options. They can revise the proposals to try to comply with Senate rules or strip them from the package altogether. They can also risk a challenge during floor voting, which would require the 60-vote threshold to overcome. That would be unlikely in the split chamber with Democrats opposing the overall package. The parliamentarian's latest advice also said the committee's provision to make certain immigrants ineligible for food stamps would violate the rule. It found several provisions from the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which is led by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to be in violation. They include one to provide $250 million to Coast Guard stations damaged by fire in 2025, namely one on South Padre Island in Texas. Still to come are some of the most important rulings from the parliamentarian. One will assess the GOP's approach that relies on 'current policy' rather than 'current law' as the baseline for determining whether the bill will add to the nation's deficits. Already, the parliamentarian delivered a serious setback Thursday, finding that the GOP plan to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was a core proposal coming from the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, would be in violation of the Byrd Rule. The parliamentarian has also advised of violations over provisions from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that would rollback Environmental Protection Agency emissions standards on certain vehicles and from the Senate Armed Services Committee to require the defense secretary to provide a plan on how the Pentagon intends to spend the tens of billions of new funds. The new work requirements in the package would require many of those receiving SNAP or Medicaid benefits to work 80 hours a month or engage in other community or educational services. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
