Trucking companies operating in McAllen and the Rio Grande Valley can be held directly liable for truck accidents caused by negligent hiring, negligent entrustment, inadequate driver supervision, and failure to maintain their commercial vehicles — independent of any negligence by the driver. Suing the trucking company, not just the driver, is often the most critical decision in an 18-wheeler injury case because it opens access to substantially greater insurance coverage and holds the party with the greatest ability to prevent the crash fully accountable.

Chris Sanchez is a personal injury attorney at The Relentless Lawyer, serving McAllen, Edinburg, Pharr, Mission, and the Rio Grande Valley, Texas.

The I-2/US-83 Corridor and Commercial Freight in the Rio Grande Valley

The Rio Grande Valley sits at a major intersection of international and domestic commercial freight. The I-2/US-83 corridor runs directly through McAllen, connecting to the World Trade International Bridge and Pharr International Bridge, two of the busiest commercial border crossings in the United States. Hundreds of commercial semi-trucks travel this corridor daily, transporting manufactured goods, agricultural products, retail merchandise, and industrial freight between Mexico and distribution points throughout Texas and the interior United States.

This volume of commercial traffic creates elevated risk for RGV residents. Drivers unfamiliar with local road conditions, under pressure from tight cross-border delivery schedules, and operating trucks that may have deferred maintenance are a constant presence on the highways and surface streets of McAllen, Edinburg, Pharr, Mission, and surrounding communities. When those trucks are operated by companies that cut corners on safety, the consequences for local families can be devastating.

Negligent Hiring

Before placing a driver behind the wheel of a commercial vehicle, a motor carrier is required by FMCSA regulations to conduct a thorough investigation of that driver’s background. Under 49 CFR Part 391, a motor carrier must:

Obtain the driver’s employment history for the preceding three years
Contact each prior employer to obtain safety performance history records
Review the driver’s motor vehicle record (MVR) from every state in which the driver held a license during the preceding three years
Verify the driver’s commercial driver’s license (CDL) status and medical certification
Conduct a road test or obtain a certificate of road test from a prior employer

When a trucking company skips or shortcuts these requirements — hiring a driver with a history of DUI convictions, prior serious accidents, disqualifying CDL violations, or a lapsed medical certificate — and that driver then causes an accident, the company faces a negligent hiring claim. The argument is straightforward: the company knew or should have known that the driver posed an unreasonable safety risk, and it hired them anyway.

Negligent Entrustment

Negligent entrustment is closely related to negligent hiring but extends throughout the employment relationship. Even a driver who was properly vetted at hiring can become an unsafe operator over time. A company that continues to allow a driver to operate commercial equipment after learning of a disqualifying violation, a positive drug test, a pattern of dangerous driving, or a physical condition that impairs driving can be liable for negligent entrustment of the vehicle to that driver.

Under Texas law, negligent entrustment requires proof that the owner permitted the driver to use the vehicle, that the driver was incompetent or unfit, that the owner knew or should have known the driver was incompetent, and that the driver’s incompetence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

Negligent Supervision and Training

A motor carrier’s duty does not end with the initial hiring decision. Carriers must monitor driver performance on an ongoing basis, enforce compliance with federal hours of service rules, respond to safety complaints, conduct periodic evaluations, and remove drivers who demonstrate unsafe behavior. A company that ignores ELD data showing repeated hours of service violations, disregards dispatcher reports of erratic driving, or fails to remove a driver who has accumulated disqualifying points on their CDL record is independently negligent for the resulting harm.

Training deficiencies are another source of direct carrier liability. A carrier that puts a newly licensed CDL holder behind the wheel of a heavy commercial vehicle with minimal mentoring and no on-the-road training program has created a foreseeable risk of harm.

Negligent Maintenance

Under 49 CFR Part 396, motor carriers must systematically inspect, repair, and maintain every commercial motor vehicle in their fleet. Drivers are required to conduct pre-trip and post-trip inspections and submit written vehicle inspection reports (DVIRs) whenever a defect is noted. Carriers are required to review those reports, acknowledge identified defects, and certify that repairs have been made before the vehicle is returned to service.

Common maintenance-related defects that cause or contribute to Texas truck accidents include:

Brake system failures — worn brake pads, air brake leaks, out-of-adjustment brake chambers
Tire failures — worn tread below minimum depth, underinflation, sidewall damage
Steering and suspension defects
Lighting failures — broken brake lights, turn signals, or clearance lights
Coupling and fifth-wheel defects that allow trailer separation

When maintenance records show that a defect was identified on a DVIR but the vehicle was returned to service without documented repair, the carrier faces direct and indefensible negligence exposure.

FMCSA Inspection Records Are Publicly Searchable

One of the most powerful tools available to truck accident attorneys and injured victims is the FMCSA’s publicly accessible Safety Measurement System (SMS). Available at safer.fmcsa.dot.gov, the SMS displays every carrier’s safety rating, out-of-service order history, roadside inspection results, and BASIC (Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories) scores across key safety dimensions, including:

Unsafe Driving — speeding, reckless driving, improper lane changes
Hours of Service Compliance — HOS violations, false log violations
Driver Fitness — license violations, medical certification failures
Controlled Substances and Alcohol — drug and alcohol test violations
Vehicle Maintenance — brake violations, tire violations, lighting defects
Cargo-Related — improper load securement violations

A carrier with BASIC scores in the intervention threshold for multiple categories — particularly Vehicle Maintenance and Hours of Service Compliance — has a documented history of systemic safety failures. This history is admissible evidence in a negligence case and can support claims for punitive damages based on gross negligence when the carrier ignored known safety problems that ultimately caused your injuries.

Why Suing the Company Matters for Your Recovery

The individual truck driver involved in your crash is almost certainly not in a position to personally compensate you for catastrophic injuries, permanent disability, or the wrongful death of a family member. Commercial motor carriers, on the other hand, are required by federal law to carry substantial liability insurance.

Under 49 CFR § 387.9, the minimum liability insurance for interstate carriers transporting general freight is $750,000. Carriers hauling hazardous materials must carry between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000. Large regional and national carriers often carry policies significantly exceeding these minimums, plus umbrella coverage that can push total available limits into the tens of millions of dollars.

Beyond insurance, the trucking company itself may have corporate assets available to satisfy a judgment. And when a carrier’s conduct rises to the level of gross negligence — such as knowingly deploying a fatigued, unqualified, or impaired driver on a public highway — Texas law allows the jury to award punitive damages designed to punish the conduct and deter similar behavior in the future.

Case Examples of Trucking Company Negligence

The following scenarios illustrate how carrier negligence commonly arises in Rio Grande Valley truck accident cases. These are hypothetical illustrations, not descriptions of actual cases.

A carrier operating on the I-2 corridor hires a driver with two prior DUI convictions disclosed on their motor vehicle record. The carrier fails to investigate the prior convictions, places the driver in a fully loaded 18-wheeler, and the driver causes a head-on collision with a family’s vehicle near Pharr. The carrier faces negligent hiring liability for failing to conduct the investigation required by 49 CFR Part 391.

A regional carrier’s fleet maintenance department receives repeated DVIR reports from drivers noting brake deficiencies on a specific tractor. The maintenance manager signs off on “no defect found” certifications without conducting a documented inspection to reduce downtime. The truck subsequently fails to stop at a signal on US-83 and strikes a motorcyclist. The carrier faces direct negligence liability for the falsified maintenance records and the resulting brake failure.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I sue the trucking company even if the driver was at fault?

Yes. In most Texas truck accident cases, you can sue both the driver and the trucking company simultaneously. The company may be liable under respondeat superior for the driver’s negligence, and independently liable for its own negligent hiring, supervision, entrustment, or maintenance failures. Naming the company as a defendant is critical because it carries substantially more insurance than the individual driver.

How do I find out if a trucking company has prior safety violations?

The FMCSA’s Safety Measurement System at safer.fmcsa.dot.gov is publicly accessible and displays carrier safety ratings, inspection histories, and violation records organized by safety category. Your attorney can obtain more detailed records, including specific inspection reports and prior accident data, through the FMCSA’s Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) during litigation discovery.

What is the difference between negligent hiring and negligent entrustment?

Negligent hiring refers to the failure to conduct an adequate background investigation before placing a driver in service. Negligent entrustment refers to allowing an incompetent or unfit driver to continue operating a commercial vehicle after the company knows or should know that the driver is unsafe. Both theories impose direct liability on the carrier and do not require proof of driver negligence.

Does the trucking company’s safety rating affect my case?

Yes. A carrier’s FMCSA safety rating and BASIC scores are relevant evidence in a negligence case. A carrier with an “Unsatisfactory” safety rating or BASIC scores in the intervention threshold — particularly in Vehicle Maintenance or Hours of Service Compliance — has documented, systemic safety failures that support a finding of negligence and potentially gross negligence.

What if the trucking company is based outside Texas?

Texas courts have personal jurisdiction over out-of-state carriers that regularly operate in Texas or that caused injury in Texas. Many of the commercial carriers operating through McAllen and the Rio Grande Valley are based in other states or in Mexico, but if the crash occurred on Texas soil, your case can be filed in a Texas court.

Can I sue a Mexican trucking company for an accident in Texas?

Yes, though the process is more complex. Commercial carriers operating on Texas roads under cross-border operating authority must comply with FMCSA regulations and carry insurance meeting U.S. federal minimums. If a Mexican carrier operating under a USDOT number caused your accident on Texas roads, your attorney can pursue claims against that carrier in U.S. courts. The investigation will include the carrier’s FMCSA filing history and any inspection records from U.S. ports of entry.

How long do I have to sue a trucking company in Texas?

Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 16.003, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two years from the date of the accident. However, the most critical evidence — ELD data, maintenance records, and dashcam footage — begins disappearing within days. Retaining an attorney immediately after the accident is essential to preserving the evidence needed to hold the trucking company accountable.

For a free consultation, contact Chris Sanchez at The Relentless Lawyer at therelentlesslawyer.com or call our McAllen office.