In a time when powerful interests often shape policy behind closed doors, standing up for what’s right takes courage, conviction, and an unwavering commitment to justice. At Kherkher Garcia, that fight extends far beyond the courtroom. Our firm is taking a bold stand against harmful legislation in Texas – laws that threaten the rights of everyday people, weaken consumer protections, and tip the scales in favor of corporations and political elites. We are committed to fighting for victims’ rights.
This article explores Kherkher Garcia’s ongoing efforts to challenge these unjust measures, protect victims, and ensure that the legal system remains a place where every voice can be heard and every injury can be addressed.
Current Legislation Challenges Victims’ Rights
In 2021, the Texas Legislature passed House Bill 19 (HB 19), a law that significantly altered the landscape for victims seeking justice after commercial vehicle accidents. While proponents argued that the bill would curb frivolous lawsuits and stabilize insurance rates, critics contended it hampers the ability of victims to hold negligent trucking companies accountable. Now, Senate Bill 39 (SB 39) seeks to expand upon that law and further limit victims’ ability to pursue justice and compensation after truck accidents caused by negligence.
SB 39
Texas SB 39 is a proposed piece of legislation designed to reshape how lawsuits involving commercial truck accidents are handled in the state. Introduced by Senator Brian Birdwell, the bill focuses on altering what evidence can be introduced during the first phase of a trial. Under SB 39, only information directly related to fault and compensatory damages would be allowed initially. The goal, according to its sponsors, is to make legal proceedings more efficient by narrowing the scope of evidence early in the process, potentially shortening trial durations and limiting what juries see upfront. However, this approach also raises concerns about transparency and whether plaintiffs will be able to fully demonstrate patterns of negligence or unsafe practices by commercial trucking companies.
SB 30
Another piece of legislature that is making waves is Senate Bill 30 (SB 30). SB 30 aims to standardize and cap damages for personal injury or wrongful death in civil lawsuits, regardless of the extent of injuries or losses suffered. Proponents argue that SB 30 is a means of reducing the likelihood of “nuclear verdicts”, or verdicts considered by some to be exceptionally large. Opponents argue that such verdicts are rare, and that further limiting victims’ recourse would be detrimental.
HB 4688
House Bill 4688 updates Texas civil law regarding lawsuits involving commercial motor vehicle accidents. It clarifies when evidence can be used in court, allowing proof of a company’s failure to follow safety regulations only if it directly caused the injury or death. The bill also states that employers can only be held liable for their employees’ actions under the rule of “respondeat superior” – meaning the employee must have been working within the scope of their job during the incident. In trials that are split into two phases, the bill limits what can be shown in the first phase. Victims can’t bring negligence claims against the employer unless the driver is first found at fault.
These are a few examples of the types of legislation that some Texas lawmakers are proposing. Such laws would continue to diminish the significant weight of victims’ rights and burdens. Instead these laws would focus on aiding trucking companies in escaping liability. They would also limit insurance companies’ ability to help victims.
Victims Voicing Concerns Over Trucking Laws
Critics of the bill argue that it creates new legal obstacles that make it more difficult for injured parties to present evidence of a company’s broader negligence. Under the proposed structure, information about a company’s hiring practices or failure to properly vet drivers would not be considered during the initial phase of a trial. Such evidence would only be introduced in a second phase – after a jury first finds the driver at fault.
Truck Driver Runs Stop Sign
In a recent hearing, victims Jessica and Jason Sprague from Houston, shared the heartbreaking loss of their young son, Colton, who died after a truck driver ran a stop sign and crashed into their vehicle. As they testified holding their son’s portrait, they expressed frustration that supporters of SB 39 left the room before hearing from grieving families. The Sprague’s testified that a jury in their case might never have learned the full circumstances behind her son’s death under SB 39. In similar cases, the jury may not be aware of the company’s failure to adequately investigate the driver’s background, if SB 39 passes. Mrs. Sprague emphasized that the crash was not simply the result of a driver running a stop sign, but a reflection of a company’s negligent practices. Critics fear that allowing companies to shield this type of evidence from juries could ultimately reduce accountability and make roads less safe.
Distracted Truck Driver Enters Oncoming Traffic
Another victim spoke of her own experience when a distracted truck driver caused serious injuries to her daughter. Amy Bolding, a writer from Boerne, Texas, shared the devastating account of how her 5-year-old daughter was severely injured when an 18-wheeler driver, distracted by a cellphone, veered into oncoming traffic. Her daughter now lives with extensive physical scars, chronic pain, and a future filled with uncertainty, including the likelihood of not finishing school or achieving financial independence. Bolding emphasized that the driver’s actions were not only reckless but also avoidable. She expressed concern that the proposed legislation would make it more difficult for victims like her daughter to receive the support and care they desperately need.
Kherkher Garcia’s Legislative Advocacy
Kherkher Garcia, a prominent Houston-based law firm, has been at the forefront of opposing trucking laws including HB 19 and SB 39. The firm argues that the legislation disproportionately favors trucking companies at the expense of accident victims. By limiting the evidence juries can consider and restructuring trial procedures, SB 39 may impede the ability of plaintiffs to present a comprehensive case. Kherkher Garcia emphasizes the importance of holding companies accountable for systemic safety failures, not just individual driver errors. Kherkher Garcia’s attorneys are regularly taking their fight for victims’ rights directly to legislators:
Kherkher Garcia Speaks Up for Victims’ Rights
At a Senate Committee on State Affairs Meeting in March 2025, Kherkher Garcia Partner, former Judge Mike Engelhart testified in opposition to Senate Bill 30 stating that “nuclear verdicts” were a rare occurrence during his 16 years on the Bench as Judge in Harris County. Attorney Engelhart further believes that SB 30 would limit Judges’ discretion to allow relevant evidence and exclude irrelevant evidence in civil lawsuits.
At a Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence regarding HB 4688, Kherkher Garcia Partner, Matt Martin, testified on behalf of his clients, the aforementioned victims Mr. and Mrs. Sprague, who lost their infant son due to a negligent truck driver. Attorney Martin pointed out that SB 39 would have hidden the full truth from the jury in their case. During the trial, they discovered that while Colton was fighting for his life, the truck driver was receiving text messages about faking a drug test. Further investigation revealed the driver had previously been fired for refusing a drug test, but was rehired by a company that failed to properly check his background. Attorney Martin stated his belief that under SB 39, a jury would only have heard that the driver ran a stop sign – not the company’s negligence in hiring the driver, which would undermine accountability and justice. The Co-chair of the Committee then asked Attorney Martin to use his experience and expertise to help clarify the language and confusion related to the bill.
Kherkher Garcia also supported their client, D’Arcy Maiangowi as he testified at the Senate Committee on State Affairs in regard to SB 30. Mr. Maiangowi testified in opposition to SB 30. He explained his belief that the insurance companies are using legislation to do what they should be doing. With his hands shaking, Mr. Maiangowi told his story. He explained how Kherkher Garcia hired experts and dug into the facts when the insurance company did not.
The Broader Implications
Texas has one of the highest rates of commercial vehicle accidents in the nation. In 2020 alone, there were over 32,000 crashes involving commercial vehicles in the state, resulting in 581 fatalities. Critics of these laws, including consumer watchdogs like Texas Watch, argue that passing such legislation would reduce incentives for trucking companies to adhere to safety standards, potentially exacerbating the issue.
Kherkher Garcia Advocates In and Out of the Courtroom
Current legislation represents a significant shift in Texas’s approach to commercial vehicle litigation. While aimed at reducing litigation costs for businesses, it raises concerns about justice and accountability for accident victims. Firms like Kherkher Garcia continue to advocate for the rights of these individuals, striving to ensure that the legal system remains a venue where all parties can seek fair and comprehensive redress. For questions about our legislative efforts or victims’ rights, or for a consultation regarding a potential claim, do not hesitate to contact us. Call us at 713-333-1030. You can also reach out to us online via our confidential contact form.
Image by freepik
