Supreme Court
Werner Enters., Inc. v. Blake
- Case number: 23-0493
- Legal category: Negligence
- Subtype: Causation
- Set for oral argument: December 3, 2024
Case Summary
This car-crash case involves arguments about the sufficiency of the evidence, charge error, and damages.
The December 2014 crash occurred on I-20 in Odessa, while a Winter Storm Warning issued by the National Weather Service was in effect. The warning cautioned that driving conditions would be extremely hazardous due to freezing rain and icy roads. Shiraz Ali, a novice driver employed by Werner Enterprises, was driving an 18-wheeler on I-20 westbound. He was accompanied by his supervisor, who was sleeping. In the eastbound lanes, Trey Salinas drove Jennifer Blake and her three children. Salinas hit black ice, lost control of his vehicle, and spun across the 42-foot-wide grassy median into Ali’s westbound lane. Ali promptly braked, but the vehicles collided, resulting in the death of one child and serious injuries to the rest of the Blakes.
The Blakes sued Ali and Werner for wrongful death and personal injuries. The trial court rendered judgment on the jury’s verdict, which found Ali and Werner liable and awarded the Blakes more than $100 million in damages. Sitting en banc, the court of appeals affirmed over two dissents.
Ali and Werner filed a petition for review. They argue that Ali did not owe a duty to reasonably foresee that the Blakes’ vehicle would cross the median into his path; that no evidence supports a finding that Ali’s conduct proximately caused the crash; that Werner cannot be held liable for derivative theories of negligent hiring, training, and supervision when it accepted vicarious liability for Ali’s conduct; that the court of appeals erred by rejecting petitioners’ claims of charge error on grounds of waiver; and that the jury’s comparative-responsibility findings are not supported by legally sufficient evidence.
The Supreme Court granted the petition.
Case summaries are created by the Court's staff attorneys and law clerks and do not constitute the Court’s official descriptions or statements. Readers are encouraged to review the Court’s official opinions for specifics regarding each case. Links to the full case documents are included above.