Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 72 lets a defendant in some commercial-truck crash cases split the trial if it moves in time. The first phase covers liability and compensatory damages, and exemplary damages wait for a second phase where both liability and amount are decided. The fights are over what evidence each phase gets to hear. The statute doesn’t ban corporate records outright, and it doesn’t treat every violation as negligence.
First determine whether Chapter 72 applies
Start with Subchapter B. It reaches bodily-injury and death claims that come out of a collision. The defendant has to have operated, owned or leased the commercial motor vehicle, or otherwise held or exercised legal control over the vehicle or its operator.
A “commercial motor vehicle” under the statute is one used for commercial purposes in interstate or intrastate commerce: hauling people or property, delivering goods, or providing services. If the vehicle was being used for personal, family or household purposes at the time, it’s out.
“Claimant” has its own wrinkle. It generally leaves out a passenger in the commercial vehicle, unless that passenger works for the vehicle’s owner, lessor, lessee or operator.
So the parties, the vehicle, the operation and the claims all matter. A logo on the tractor won’t settle who had control or who employed whom. Neither will a dispatch record or a contract. Find out who drove, who owned or leased the truck, who employed or directed the driver, and what each defendant actually did. That’s also the core of figuring out who can be held liable for a truck crash. Check the statute against the pleadings and facts. Don’t assume it applies because the word “truck” shows up.
Understand the two phases
Section 72.052 sets the deadline. A defendant can move to bifurcate up to 120 days after it files its original answer, or 30 days after a claimant files a pleading adding a claim against it, whichever is later. A motion filed in that window means the court must bifurcate. Phase one covers liability for and the amount of compensatory damages. Phase two covers liability for and the amount of exemplary damages.
Bifurcation decides when evidence is heard, not whether you gather it. Preservation and discovery should still track the claims, and counsel can work out which phase and purpose fit each record, witness and theory. A request for every company policy is a different problem. With no case-specific reason behind it, it mostly creates burden.
Regulatory evidence has a specific first-phase test
Section 72.053 is narrower than people think. Evidence that a defendant failed to comply with a regulation or standard comes into phase one only if it satisfies other law and tends to prove the failure was a proximate cause of the bodily injury or death claimed. The regulation or standard also has to be specific, and it has to govern (or be an element of) a duty applicable to the defendant, its employee, or its property or equipment at issue.
A rule number alone won’t get there. You need the duty, the actor or equipment it applied to, the record that shows what happened, and the link between that conduct and how the crash and injury happened. Our piece on using FMCSA and 49 CFR rules to prove negligence walks through that matching. A general safety statistic, a company policy or a training record may serve a different purpose and get a different admissibility analysis than a specific violation. Foundation, relevance, hearsay and the other evidence rules still apply.
Employer stipulations and separate conduct
Section 72.054 deals with an employer that stipulates the driver was its employee acting in the scope of employment. If the statute’s conditions are met, the employer’s liability for damages from the driver’s ordinary negligence rests only on respondeat superior, subject to the statute’s exceptions. In a bifurcated trial, that generally limits phase-one evidence on an ordinary negligent-entrustment claim that depends on first finding the employee negligent.
But the statute keeps certain categories of evidence in some cases against employers regulated by federal motor-carrier law or Texas Transportation Code Chapter 644. It also keeps certain claims based on the employer’s own conduct that don’t require a predicate finding that the employee was negligent. Negligent maintenance is one example. Exemplary-damages claims go to phase two.
Which piece applies turns on the defendant, the claim, the proof and any stipulation. An employee driver doesn’t make every claim against the employer disappear.
Build a claim-specific proof map
Write each theory down. Note who did what, where the proof is, who can sponsor it, how it ties to the crash, and what you want the jury to use it for.
An hours-of-service claim may come down to the driver’s duty status and supporting records laid against the trip timeline and the crash time. Maintenance is messier: you need the defect, the inspection or repair record, the person responsible, and some way to show how the condition contributed. Hiring and qualification claims run into the phase-one exceptions, so don’t assume the personnel file is admissible.
Get records preserved early, in a form you can review, with the source and time range noted. A record of something that happened is different from a policy about what should happen, so keep them apart. Witnesses should be able to say what a record means and where its information came from. Start with the electronic evidence to preserve after a Texas truck crash. Each item needs a live claim, a specific duty and a phase that allows it.
Common questions
Does HB 19 exclude all evidence about the carrier? Not at all. The trial is phased and some evidence is limited, but other categories of evidence and other claims are expressly preserved.
Does a regulation violation automatically prove negligence? It doesn’t. Section 72.053 wants a specific regulation that applied, proof tending to show proximate cause, and evidence that’s admissible under other law as well.
Does a stipulation end every claim against the employer? No. Section 72.054 only applies when its conditions are met, and even then it has exceptions. Negligent maintenance is one example of a claim against the employer that doesn’t need a predicate finding that the driver was negligent.
Should relevant evidence wait until the trial phase is known? No. Preserve and investigate now, and let counsel handle timing, admissibility and permitted use under the pleadings and orders.
Related reading
See the Texas Truck Accident Litigation Hub, the advanced litigation guide.
Founding Attorney
Aaron A. Herbert is a Texas attorney, Board Certified in Personal Injury Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.
For over a decade he has shown an unwavering commitment to clients who were seriously injured by major accidents and industrial catastrophes. During that time he has earned the reputation as one of America’s most aggressive trial lawyers by achieving noteworthy recoveries from judges and juries, as well as substantial settlements prior to trial, the majority of which contained negotiated confidentiality agreements at the request of the defense. When asked about these cases, Mr. Herbert has said that each case not only justified the recovery level, but that no one would trade places with any one of these victims in return for any amount of money, once they know the facts and severity of the injuries and tragedy involved. According to Mr. Herbert, “there can be no substitute for passion, preparation and persistence in the practice of law.” He is known not only for this tenacious preparation, but also for his imagination in the courtroom. He is passionate and persistent in seeking to obtain the maximum case value for each individual client at trial or through settlement, while reducing the stress of litigation on his clients.
Born and raised in Dallas, Texas, Mr. Herbert enlisted in the United States Marine Corps after high school and later received an Honorable Discharge. After the Marines, he obtained a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice from Texas A&M University, then a Juris Doctorate from the University of Oklahoma College of Law. There he graduated in the top of his class and became an eternal Sooners Football fan. Aaron has worked as a zealous advocate for injured clients at several boutique personal injury litigation firms where he amassed numerous jury verdicts. After spending a year as the top earning litigation attorney at a firm that frequently tops verdict search as one with the highest number of trial wins in Texas, Aaron accepted a position as the managing pre-litigation attorney at another Dallas personal injury firm. Over the next seven years he transitioned to the managing litigation attorney, and that firm grew to one of the largest personal injury firms in Dallas. In 2010 he formed the Law Firm of Aaron A. Herbert, to get back to a focus on developing each individual case and maximizing case value for each client.
Mr. Herbert practices law with the belief that a well taken care of, highly engaged and motivated team of employees working in a cooperative team environment will result in superior representation and great results for the firm clients. He believes in always setting a goal of achieving the best possible results for each and every client.
Education
- Texas A&M University (B.S. Criminal Justice, 1999)
- University of Oklahoma College of Law (J.D., 2002)
Professional Associations
- Licensed to practice in Texas (2002)
- Board Certified in Personal Injury Trial Law, Texas Board of Legal Specialization (2008)
Publications
- Litigating Dog Bite Cases, Texas Dog Law Seminar, Dallas 2009
Member
- State Bar of Texas
- American Bar Association
- American Trial Lawyer Association
- Texas Trial Lawyers Association
- Dallas Trial Lawyers Association
- Dallas County Bar Association
- Tarrant County Bar Association
- Million Dollar Advocates Forum
- National Trial Lawyers – Top 100 Trial Lawyers
Texas Bar #24036761 · The Law Firm of Aaron A. Herbert, P.C. · Dallas, Texas
General information, not legal advice. Applicability and admissibility depend on the claims, evidence and governing orders.