Can a Trucking Company Be Liable for Negligent Hiring or Supervision in Texas?

Potentially, but a trucking company is not automatically liable simply because one of its drivers caused a crash. In Texas, a claim based on negligent hiring, training, supervision, or retention requires careful analysis of the employer's conduct, the driver's conduct, the applicable legal theory, and proximate causation. Texas law also contains specific rules for commercial motor vehicle cases under Chapter 72 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

The central question is not simply whether the trucking company made a mistake. The investigation must determine what the company knew or should have known, what it did or failed to do, whether the driver engaged in harmful or negligent conduct, and whether the alleged company negligence was a substantial factor in causing the injury.

Two Different Ways a Trucking Company Can Be Liable

It is important to distinguish liability for the driver's negligence from liability for the company's own conduct.

A person injured by a commercial truck does not necessarily have to prove negligent hiring to establish that a trucking company is responsible for its employee's negligence.

At the same time, a separate employer-negligence theory cannot simply be added because the trucking company has deeper financial resources. The particular theory must be supported by Texas law and evidence.

What Does Texas Law Require for Negligent Hiring?

The Texas Supreme Court has explained that, to the extent Texas recognizes a negligent-hiring claim, it involves negligence by the employer and harmful or negligent conduct by the employee. Both must proximately cause the injury.

In Endeavor Energy Resources, L.P. v. Cuevas, 593 S.W.3d 307, 311 (Tex. 2019), the Texas Supreme Court described negligent hiring as requiring negligence by two parties: the employer's negligence in hiring and the employee's subsequent negligent act or omission.

Read Endeavor Energy Resources, L.P. v. Cuevas

Texas law is more unsettled concerning negligent training and supervision as independent tort theories. In Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Blake, the Texas Supreme Court stated that it has not recognized negligent training or supervision as independent theories of tort liability. The Court's decision ultimately turned on proximate causation and did not resolve every issue concerning those theories.

That distinction matters because an article about negligent hiring or supervision should not tell readers that every employer-negligence theory is automatically available in every Texas truck case.

How Texas HB 19 Can Affect Claims Against the Trucking Company

Texas Chapter 72, enacted through HB 19, contains specific rules for qualifying commercial motor vehicle cases.

Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §72.052, a defendant may move for a bifurcated trial within the statutory deadline. The first phase addresses liability and compensatory damages, while the second phase addresses exemplary damages when applicable.

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 72

Section 72.054 is particularly important when an employer is sued because of the conduct of its employee. Subject to statutory exceptions, if the employer timely stipulates that the driver was its employee and was acting within the scope of employment, the employer's liability for damages caused by the employee's ordinary negligence is based on respondeat superior.

That does not mean Chapter 72 eliminates every claim against a trucking company. Section 72.054 preserves certain claims involving the employer's own conduct, including ordinary-negligence claims that do not require a finding that the employee was negligent as a prerequisite—for example, a negligent-maintenance theory.

The statute also contains provisions concerning what evidence may be presented in the first phase of a bifurcated trial in certain cases, including evidence concerning driver qualifications, disqualification, medical qualification, specified federal safety requirements, and drug-testing compliance.

Section 72.053 separately addresses evidence of regulatory violations. In a bifurcated case, such evidence is admissible in the first phase only when it tends to prove that the violation was a proximate cause of the injury or death and the regulation or standard specifically governs the defendant, its employee, or its property or equipment at issue.

This makes Chapter 72 essential to the analysis of a trucking-company claim. The question is not merely “Can I sue the company for negligent hiring?” It is also “What theory is being asserted, what stipulations have been made, and what evidence can be presented under the applicable statutory framework?”

What Werner Changes About Causation

The Texas Supreme Court's 2025 decision in Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Blake, No. 23-0493 provides an important warning about causation.

The Court held that proximate cause is not established merely because an injury would not have occurred without the defendant's negligence. The negligence must also be a substantial factor in causing the injury. The Court concluded that the evidence in that case did not establish the required substantial-factor causation and therefore rendered judgment for the defendants.

Read Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Blake — Texas Supreme Court

A practical example

Suppose a trucking company has an incomplete administrative record for a driver's file, but there is no evidence that the missing paperwork affected the driver's ability to operate the truck or contributed to the collision.

That deficiency may not establish causation.

Now consider a different situation: the company receives repeated documented reports that the driver has a serious safety problem, continues assigning the driver to operate a commercial vehicle, and the same type of unsafe driving contributes directly to the collision.

The second situation presents a much stronger causal connection because the alleged company conduct can be tied to the driver's conduct and the event that caused the injury.

The distinction is important: a company failure that exists somewhere in the background is not necessarily a substantial factor in causing the crash.

What Evidence Can Support or Test a Negligent-Hiring Claim?

The evidence should be organized around the alleged employer failure and the causal question.

The evidence should also test the claim rather than simply support it. A prior traffic violation, for example, does not automatically prove that the driver was unsafe for the particular assignment or that the violation caused the later crash.

Federal drug and alcohol testing rules can also matter. 49 CFR Part 382 contains specific requirements for controlled-substance and alcohol testing, including pre-employment testing under §382.301 and other testing requirements.

49 CFR Part 382 — Controlled Substances and Alcohol Use and Testing

What I Would Investigate in a Texas Trucking-Company Case

The first question I would ask is not simply whether the driver had a bad record. I would ask what the company knew before the crash and whether that knowledge connects to the event that actually occurred.

I would compare the driver's qualification file with the driver's actual history, then compare that history with dispatch records, electronic vehicle data, prior complaints, training records, disciplinary records, and communications between the driver and company personnel.

If the collision involves speed, fatigue, unsafe lane changes, distraction, weather, braking, or another specific driving issue, the investigation should determine whether the company had information about that particular risk before the trip.

Electronic records can be especially important. ELD information may establish duty status and driving periods. Vehicle event data may provide information about braking or other vehicle events. Telematics may provide location information. Dispatch systems and company communications can show what the carrier knew and when it knew it.

Those sources should not be treated as interchangeable. The records should be compared with the crash scene, vehicle damage, witness statements, and reconstruction evidence.

For a broader discussion of electronic evidence, see What Electronic Evidence Must Be Preserved After a Texas Truck Accident?.

Why Preservation and Corporate Discovery Matter

A negligent-hiring or supervision claim may depend on records controlled entirely by the trucking company.

Important records can include:

• Driver qualification files
• Employment applications and prior employment information
• Training and orientation records
• Driver performance reviews
• Safety complaints and disciplinary records
• Dispatch and scheduling records
• ELD and telematics information
• Drug and alcohol testing records
• Accident and incident reports
• Internal safety communications
• Policies and training materials

Preservation should identify the specific systems and records that may matter. A request for “all documents” may be less useful than identifying the driver's qualification file, particular electronic systems, specific communications, relevant time periods, and the custodians who control them.

The firm's Texas Truck Accident Litigation Hub provides a broader framework for investigating electronic evidence, driver qualification, company responsibility, preservation, and commercial-truck litigation.

What About Dallas Truck Accident Cases?

In a Dallas-area commercial collision, the investigation should focus on the facts of the particular crash rather than simply adding a list of local highways.

For example, if a truck accident involves allegations of fatigue or unsafe scheduling, the investigation may need to examine the driver's route, dispatch instructions, delivery deadlines, ELD records, and communications with the carrier. If the allegation involves inadequate training, the relevant evidence may be the driver's qualification and training history compared with the specific driving conduct involved in the collision.

That kind of investigation provides more useful local legal analysis than simply naming Dallas-area roads.

For information about investigating and pursuing a commercial truck claim, see the firm's Dallas truck accident lawyer resource.

How a Trucking Company May Defend a Negligent-Hiring Claim

A trucking company may argue that the alleged hiring or supervision problem did not cause the accident. It may also dispute whether it had knowledge of the alleged risk, whether the driver's prior history was relevant, or whether the employee's conduct was a substantial factor in causing the claimed injuries.

The company may also rely on Chapter 72 if the statutory requirements for a stipulation and bifurcation are satisfied.

These defenses reinforce why the case should be developed around evidence rather than labels. Calling a claim “negligent supervision” does not establish that the supervision was negligent or that it caused the crash.

Conclusion

A trucking company can potentially face liability based on its own conduct, but negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention claims require more than showing that an employee caused a truck accident.

The investigation should identify the company's specific alleged failure, the information available to the company before the crash, the driver's relevant conduct, and the evidence connecting those facts to the collision.

Texas Chapter 72 and HB 19 can also affect how employer liability and evidence are handled in qualifying commercial motor vehicle cases. And under Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Blake, proving that a company decision was part of the background of an accident is not enough; the alleged negligence must satisfy the requirements of proximate causation, including substantial-factor causation.

A strong investigation therefore asks three questions:

• What did the trucking company know or fail to do?
• What did the driver actually do?
• Can admissible evidence connect both to the injury claimed?

Those questions help distinguish a potentially viable employer-negligence claim from one based only on hindsight.

Frequently Asked Questions

Legal Sources

• Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 72 — Commercial Motor Vehicle Actions
• HB 19 — Texas Legislature
• Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Blake, No. 23-0493 — Texas Supreme Court
• Endeavor Energy Resources, L.P. v. Cuevas, 593 S.W.3d 307 (Tex. 2019)
• 49 CFR Part 382 — Controlled Substances and Alcohol Use and Testing
• FMCSA Regulations and Safety Resources

About Aaron A. Herbert

Aaron A. Herbert is a Texas attorney and is Board Certified in Personal Injury Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. He has been licensed to practice law in Texas since 2002 and represents injured clients in Dallas and throughout Texas.

His commercial truck accident work includes investigating driver conduct, company responsibility, electronic records, safety compliance, causation, and evidence preservation.

Attorney Review Date: October 8, 2026

For a truck accident involving questions about driver qualifications, hiring, supervision, or company responsibility, a case evaluation can focus on what the carrier knew before the crash, what the driver did, what records exist, and whether the evidence establishes a legally sufficient connection between the company's conduct and the injury.