The Texas Supreme Court’s recent decision in Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Blake (No. 23-0493) clarifies proximate causation in personal injury cases ensuring an appropriate bar for proving the causation element of a negligence claim. The Court reversed a nearly $90 million jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, hinged on a holding that the substantial factor element of proximate causation was not met in a deadly collision where a vehicle carrying the plaintiffs lost control on an icy road, crossed a wide median into oncoming traffic, and collided with an 18-wheeler operated negligently by the commercial truck driver. “Proximate cause is not established merely by proof that the injury would not have happened if not for the defendant’s negligence,” but rather also requires “proof that the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the injury.” Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Blake No. 23-0493, 2025 WL 2239275, at *1 (Tex. June 27, 2025).
Case Background
In December 2014, Trey Salinas was driving an F-350 pickup with passengers Jennifer Blake and her three children in Odessa, Texas. A winter weather advisory was issued warning that ice could accumulate on the roads and cause hazardous driving conditions. While driving down the interstate, Salinas lost control of his pickup and spun across a 42-foot grassy median where his vehicle collided with a Werner Enterprises
18-wheeler driven by Shiraz Ali. The collision killed one of the Blake children and severely injured the three other Blake family members.
The Blake Plaintiffs sued Werner and Ali, claiming Ali’s operation of the 18-wheeler was negligent in that he was driving too fast for the road conditions and that Werner failed to properly train or supervise him. The jury found Werner and Ali liable, apportioning most of the fault to Werner, and awarded the plaintiffs nearly $90 million.
Werner and Ali appealed, in relevant part challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the jury’s liability findings as to Werner and Ali ultimately reaching the Texas Supreme Court. There defendants argued Ali’s negligence, if any, was not the proximate cause of the accident. The Texas Supreme Court agreed, finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden on the substantial-factor element of proximate causation. The Court reversed the judgment and rendered judgment in favor of Werner and Ali.
Key Takeaways as to Establishing Proximate Causation
- Proximate cause must have two elements proven: cause-in-fact and foreseeability. Pediatrics Cool Care v. Thompson, 649 S.W.3d 152, 158 (Tex. 2022).
- Cause-in-fact is made up of two components: but-for causation and substantial-factor causation.
- But-for causation, i.e. “proof that the injury would not have happened if not for the defendant’s negligence,” is essential to liability but alone is not enough. Werner,
2025 WL 2239275, at *2.
- “Substantial-Factor” causation takes the analysis a step further, such that “even if the defendant’s negligence is part of the causal chain of events that led to the injury, the
defendant is not liable if his involvement was a mere ‘happenstance of place and time.’”
Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Perez, 819 S.W.2d 470, 472 (Tex. 1991) (quoting Restatement (Second) Of Torts § 431 cmt. a (AM. L. INST. 1965)). In other words, cause-in-fact cannot be established where a defendant’s negligence simply furnishes a condition which makes the injuries possible. Substantial factor incorporates an idea of responsibility into the question of causation. Id.
- Here, Ali’s presence on the highway, combined with his speed, furnished the condition that made the plaintiffs’ injuries possible, but it did not cause the injuries. The sole proximate cause of the accident and injuries was the “sudden, unexpected hurtling of the victims’ vehicle into oncoming highway traffic, for which the defendants bore no responsibility.” The Texas Supreme Court further noted that anything Ali did or did not do to contribute to the possibility of an accident, such as the one at issue, was too attenuated to qualify as the substantial factor required to prove proximate causation.
Conclusion
This ruling is noteworthy for two reasons. First, it highlights the importance of distinguishing between the two components of the cause-in-fact element of proximate causation: but-for causation and substantial-factor causation. Second, this ruling makes it clear that proximate cause cannot be established without meeting the burden of proving both components of cause-in-fact, thus raising the bar for satisfying the elements of negligence claims in Texas. Happenstance of a defendant’s negligence playing a small part in a causal chain will not rule the day.
(Additional issues were raised at the Texas Supreme Court, however, this article focuses on the issue of proximate causation and are, thus, not discussed here.)
[View source.]
