• Vuk S. Vujasinovic; Vujasinovic & Beckcom LLP; Houston, TX, for minor child, widow, adult child 1, adult child 2, adult child 3
• Brian A. Beckcom; Vujasinovic & Beckcom LLP; Houston, TX, for adult child 1, adult child 2, adult child 3, minor child, widow

• Counsel not disclosed for Unnamed trucking co., Unnamed truck driver

The decedent's family sued the truck driver and his employer, a trucking company, claiming negligence and gross negligence. According to the plaintiffs, the truck driver was not paying attention and failed to control his speed.

The plaintiffs further alleged that the trucking company failed to supervise its driver. Their counsel argued that, through oral depositions and company documents, they showed that, several months before the crash, the company installed an on-board computer system designed to monitor its drivers, but failed to monitor the available data. The plaintiffs asserted that in discovery they obtained data that reflected habitual speeding by the truck driver in question.

The plaintiffs also asserted negligent entrustment, alleging that the company failed to obtain a full driving record of its driver, which would have reflected speeding and other moving violations. The plaintiffs further asserted spoliation of evidence, based on what they said was the company's failure to preserve materials pursuant to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.

The plaintiffs' liability experts were in accident reconstruction, human factors and traffic safety.

The defense argued that the plaintiffs' decedent should not have been stopped or driving so slowly on I-10 in the middle of the night, and the plaintiffs' accident reconstructionist did not dispute this contention. The defendants further alleged that the decedent's view was obstructed by papers and other materials inside his car. These materials, which were strewn about the highway after the crash, filled up 18 large trash bags.

The defendants further argued that the decedent should not have been on the road at all; he did not have a valid driver's license and had a poor driving record.

The plaintiffs also sought punitive damages, based on failure to monitor available computer data on drivers. According to the plaintiff's attorney, the company's manager of safety and risk admitted during his deposition that failing to monitor such data involves an "extreme degree of risk." The court allowed a deposition of a corporate representative on the company's net worth.

The defendants noted that the wife had filed for divorce two weeks before the crash. In the divorce petition, she alleged that her husband had committed "family violence," and she sought a temporary restraining order preventing him from having any contact with the children. Records from the Harris County Sheriff's Office reflected numerous visits by deputies to the plaintiffs' household, many involving altercations between the decedent and his wife. Discovery by the defendants established that the decedent had a girlfriend at the time of the crash. The defense argued that he was a habitual gambler and that any support would have been significantly reduced by his gambling. In the six months before the accident, he lost $30,000 at one Louisiana casino. The defendants deposed a casino host.