In September 2021, Texas passed House Bill 19 which provides for the bifurcation of trials involving commercial motor vehicles. Importantly, HB 19 only applies where a Plaintiff alleges vicarious liability against a trucking company for its driver’s negligence. Pursuant to HB 19, codified as Section 72.052 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, a Defendant can request a bifurcated two-part trial.[1] In the first trial phase, the factfinder determines liability for and amount of compensatory damages. In the second trial phase, the factfinder determines liability for and amount of exemplary (punitive) damages.
This two-phase trial benefits trucking companies by decreasing the potential for nuclear verdicts or verdicts that are disproportionate to the Plaintiff’s actual injuries. Evidence presented during phase one of the trial must pertain only to the issue of liability. Meaning that sympathy for an injured party should play no role in the assignment of liability because evidence of the emotional or non-economic impact on the injured party should not be considered at the liability phase. The jury should consider only the driver’s negligence and the amount of damages required to make the Plaintiff(s) economically whole again.
Although HB 19 appears to be Texas’ legislature’s response to the trend of overwhelmingly large verdicts entered against trucking companies, its real impact remains unknown.[2] The Texas Supreme Court will soon decide a case that might evince the true impact of HB 19’s bifurcation section. Following a 2014 crash in Odessa, Texas, a jury awarded the injured party over $100 million against Wener Enterprises and its driver.[3] Despite a lack of evidence of the Werner driver’s fault, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict.[4] The Texas Supreme Court granted Werner’s petition for review and heard oral argument on December 3, 2024. The Court’s decision will likely demonstrate the future of the nuclear verdict trend and the indirect impacts of HB 19.
It is thought that the reason for the large verdict in the Werner case, given the lack of evidence regarding the driver’s fault, was the Plaintiff’s introduction of evidence regarding the company’s high turnover rate and alleged practice of hiring inexperience drivers.[5] Had HB 19 been in effect when the case went to trial, the jury would have been unable to consider such evidence when determining the driver’s fault. Thus, HB 19 likely would have led to a much lower verdict in this case and others like it.
Overall, Texas’ HB 19 benefits trucking companies by focusing fact-finding in the liability phase on the legal issues only. Commercial trucking litigators await the actual impact of HB 19 on nuclear verdicts and verdicts that are disproportionate to actual fault.
[1] Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 72.052.
[2] Ryan A. Robelot, The Reptile in the Room: How Bifurcation Benefits Both Sides in Trucking Cases, Texas Lawyer (Sep. 20, 2024, 11:30 AM), https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/2024/09/20/the-reptile-in-the-room-how-bifurcation-benefits-both-sides-in-trucking-cases/?slreturn=20241209161557
[3] Blake v. Ali, 2018 Tex. Dist. LEXIS 58274.
[4] Werner Enters. v. Blake, 672 S.W.3d 554 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2023).
[5] Ryan Cantu and Trek Doyle, Understanding HB 19, www.DoyleSeeklbach.com (Mar. 29, 2022), https://www.doyleseelbach.com/updates/2022/3/29/hb-19-guide-to-texas-landmark-new-trucking-law
