Quick answer

In Texas, trucking companies sued over a commercial vehicle crash may force a trial to be split in two under Chapter 72 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Phase one decides fault and compensatory damages only. Most evidence about how the company hired and supervised its driver, and any claim to punish it, waits for a second phase that happens only if the first succeeds.

A serious truck crash can raise two very different questions.

The first is what the truck driver did: Was the driver speeding? Following too closely? Distracted? Too tired to keep driving safely?

The second is what the trucking company did before the driver ever reached the highway: Did it properly investigate the driver’s history? Did it provide adequate training? Did supervisors ignore safety problems? Did the company allow unsafe practices to continue?

In a Texas courtroom, a jury may not hear the answers to both questions at the same time.

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 72 allows defendants in many commercial motor vehicle cases to divide a trial into separate phases. When a trucking company also admits that its driver was an employee acting within the scope of employment, the law can sharply restrict evidence about the company’s own conduct during the first phase.

That means jurors may be asked to decide a truck accident case while knowing relatively little about the company that put the truck and driver on the road.

And depending on what the jury decides in that first phase, some of that evidence may never be heard at all.

On This Page

What is Texas Chapter 72?

The commercial vehicle provisions are contained in Subchapter B of Chapter 72 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Sections 72.051 through 72.055.

The Texas Legislature added those provisions through House Bill 19 in 2021. They apply to covered civil actions commenced on or after Sept. 1, 2021. The Legislature later amended portions of the chapter in 2023.

Although commonly discussed as a trucking law, Chapter 72 uses a broader definition of “commercial motor vehicle.” It generally includes a motor vehicle being used for commercial purposes to transport property or passengers, deliver goods or provide services. Vehicles being used for personal, family or household purposes are excluded.

For trucking cases, one of the law’s most important provisions is Section 72.052.

It gives a defendant the right to request a bifurcated trial. If the request is timely, the statute says the court “shall” divide the trial into phases. The motion generally must be filed by the later of 120 days after the defendant’s original answer or 30 days after the claimant adds a new claim against that defendant.

This is not simply a procedural technicality. It can determine what the jury is permitted to learn about a trucking company’s conduct and when jurors are permitted to learn it.

How Chapter 72 divides a truck accident trial

Section 72.052 establishes two phases.

In Phase 1, the jury determines liability for ordinary negligence and the amount of compensatory damages.

In Phase 2, the jury determines liability for exemplary damages and the amount of those damages. Texas appellate courts have interpreted this division to place gross-negligence issues in the second phase.

Consider a collision in which a tractor-trailer driver allegedly failed to slow for stopped traffic.

The first phase may focus on questions such as:

  • How fast was the truck traveling?
  • When did the driver apply the brakes?
  • Was the driver distracted?
  • Did the driver violate an applicable safety rule?
  • Did the driver’s negligence cause the collision?
  • What injuries and losses resulted?

Those questions concern the collision itself.

But a plaintiff may also have evidence that the trucking company hired a driver with a troubling history, provided inadequate training, failed to supervise the driver or repeatedly ignored dangerous conduct.

Chapter 72 can keep much of that second category of evidence separate from the first.

The trucking company’s admission can change the case

Section 72.054 gives an employer another significant protection.

A trucking company can stipulate that the driver was:

  1. its employee; and
  2. acting within the scope of employment when the collision occurred.

If the company makes that stipulation within the statutory deadline, liability for damages caused by the driver’s ordinary negligence is generally based on respondeat superior.

Respondeat superior is the legal rule that can make an employer responsible for an employee’s negligence committed within the scope of employment.

The admission therefore sounds favorable to an injured person: The trucking company is acknowledging that it can be held legally responsible if its driver was negligent.

But the admission has another effect.

When the trial is bifurcated, Section 72.054 generally prevents the claimant from using Phase 1 to present ordinary-negligence evidence against the company when the company’s liability requires an initial finding that the driver was negligent. The statute specifically uses negligent entrustment as an example.

In practical terms, the trucking company can say:

If our driver was negligent, we accept responsibility for that negligence. But the jury should not hear broad evidence about how we hired, trained or supervised the driver while deciding the first phase.

What the jury may not hear in the first phase

A truck crash may be the final result of decisions made weeks, months or years earlier.

A company may have hired the driver. It may have reviewed—or failed to review—the driver’s history. Supervisors may have trained the driver, evaluated performance, enforced company rules and responded to previous safety incidents.

Those facts can help answer a different question from whether the driver made a mistake immediately before the crash:

Was this collision the product of a larger safety failure?

Under Chapter 72, evidence supporting claims such as negligent entrustment, negligent hiring, negligent training and negligent supervision may be reserved for Phase 2 when the statutory requirements are met.

A 2025 Texas appellate proceeding involving Montgomery Transport illustrates the division. The plaintiffs alleged negligent entrustment, hiring, training, supervision and retention against the motor carrier. The eventual bifurcation order placed those claims, along with gross negligence and exemplary damages, in the second phase. Phase 1 was primarily limited to the driver’s negligence, compensatory damages and specific statutory exceptions.

The distinction matters because jurors do not decide cases in a vacuum. The evidence they are permitted to hear defines the story they are permitted to evaluate.

A jury that hears only about a driver’s conduct may reasonably view a crash as one person’s mistake.

The same jury could view the collision differently if it also learned that managers allegedly knew about a recurring safety problem and failed to address it.

Chapter 72 can require those two stories to be told separately.

What evidence can still reach the jury

Chapter 72 does not create an absolute shield around trucking companies.

Several important exceptions remain.

Contact UsContact Us

Independently negligent company conduct

Section 72.054 expressly allows ordinary-negligence claims against an employer that do not depend on first proving the driver’s negligence.

The statute identifies negligent maintenance as an example.

If defective brakes, worn tires or another maintenance problem allegedly contributed to a crash, evidence concerning the company’s own maintenance failures may therefore be relevant during Phase 1.

Specific regulatory violations

Section 72.053 also permits evidence that a defendant violated a regulation or safety standard when:

  • the evidence tends to show that the violation was a proximate cause of the injury or death; and
  • the regulation or standard is sufficiently specific and applies to the defendant, employee, property or equipment involved.

That requirement limits attempts to introduce broad statements about general industry practices while preserving evidence of specific safety requirements connected to the collision.

Certain motor-carrier safety evidence

Section 72.054(c) identifies particular evidence that may be introduced in Phase 1 against regulated motor carriers in appropriate cases.

The list includes issues such as whether the driver:

  • had the required license;
  • was disqualified from driving;
  • was subject to an out-of-service order;
  • violated certain license restrictions;
  • had the required road-test documentation;
  • was medically qualified;
  • exceeded certain hours-of-service restrictions;
  • was improperly texting or using a handheld phone; or
  • had provided the required employment application.

The statute also permits certain evidence concerning the employer, including particular drug-testing, driver-investigation, hours-of-service and out-of-service requirements.

These exceptions are important. Chapter 72 limits the presentation of company evidence; it does not categorically erase the trucking company from Phase 1.

Why the second phase may never happen

This is where Chapter 72 has its greatest practical consequence.

Section 72.052 allows a Phase 1 finding that the driver was negligent to become the predicate for certain claims against the employer in Phase 2, including claims such as negligent entrustment.

But that also means the first verdict can determine whether there is anything left to present.

Suppose a plaintiff alleges that a trucking company negligently entrusted an 18-wheeler to an unsafe driver. The evidence may include previous driving incidents, company hiring records, safety evaluations or failures in supervision.

If those issues are deferred, the first jury decision may occur without much of that evidence.

If the plaintiff fails to establish the driver’s required negligence predicate, the derivative company claim may fail with it.

Likewise, evidence that exists principally to establish gross negligence and exemplary damages belongs in Phase 2 under the statute and current Texas appellate interpretation. If the case never reaches a viable exemplary-damages phase, the jury may never hear that evidence.

That is why saying that Chapter 72 merely changes the “order” of evidence understates its effect.

Sometimes it changes the order.

Sometimes the first phase determines that the second story never gets told.

Texas courts enforcing the separation

The appellate decisions issued since House Bill 19 took effect show that courts are treating Chapter 72’s bifurcation provisions as substantive trial protections.

In re Southwestern Motor Transport

In In re Southwestern Motor Transport, Inc., a case arising from Harris County, the First Court of Appeals addressed whether evidence and jury questions concerning a truck driver’s alleged gross negligence could be presented during Phase 1.

The court said no.

It held that Chapter 72 places ordinary negligence and compensatory damages in Phase 1 while gross negligence and exemplary damages belong in Phase 2. The appellate court concluded that allowing gross-negligence evidence during the first phase would defeat the separation created by the statute.

The court also explained that when the employer makes the Section 72.054 stipulation, evidence supporting claims such as negligent entrustment generally cannot be presented against the employer during Phase 1, subject to statutory exceptions.

In re Khalaf

A 2026 decision from the Fourth Court of Appeals went further in explaining who can invoke the statute.

In In re Sufian Khalaf, the court held that Section 72.052 does not limit the right to request bifurcation to the trucking company. A defendant driver may also make the request.

Because the driver had filed a timely motion, the appellate court held that bifurcation was mandatory.

That decision reinforces an important point: A plaintiff cannot necessarily avoid Chapter 72’s phased trial simply because the employer itself does not request it.

Chapter 72 does not necessarily prevent discovery

Keeping evidence from a jury during Phase 1 is different from preventing a plaintiff from obtaining the evidence.

That distinction was reinforced in a 2026 Dallas appellate proceeding involving Old Dominion Freight Line.

The trucking company had stipulated to respondeat superior and requested a bifurcated trial. The plaintiff nevertheless sought personnel-related documents concerning supervisors involved in driver supervision, including training, orientation and performance records.

The Fifth Court of Appeals declined to overturn the discovery order. It explained that because the plaintiff had asserted gross negligence and sought exemplary damages, evidence concerning direct corporate negligence could still be admissible during Phase 2.

Chapter 72 therefore should not be confused with a blanket rule preventing investigation of a trucking company’s conduct.

The documents may still be discoverable , and witnesses may still be questioned.

The larger dispute is often when and for what purpose the jury can hear that evidence.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Chapter 72 apply to every Texas truck accident?

No. Chapter 72 applies to civil actions fitting the statutory definition involving commercial motor vehicles and bodily injury or death. Whether the statute applies depends on the vehicle’s use and the circumstances of the case. The commercial vehicle provisions apply to covered actions commenced on or after Sept. 1, 2021.

Can a trucking company automatically split the trial into two phases?

A defendant must make a timely motion under Section 72.052. When the statutory requirements are satisfied, the law says the court shall provide a bifurcated trial. Texas appellate courts have treated that language as mandatory.

Can jurors hear evidence that a trucking company broke federal safety rules?

Sometimes. Section 72.053 permits evidence of regulatory or safety-standard violations in Phase 1 when the particular standard applies and the violation tends to prove a proximate cause of the injury or death. Section 72.054 also specifically identifies certain motor-carrier violations and qualification issues that may be presented in Phase 1.

Can a plaintiff still sue a trucking company for negligent maintenance?

Yes. Section 72.054 expressly preserves ordinary-negligence claims against an employer that do not require first establishing employee negligence. The statute specifically gives negligent maintenance as an example.

Does Chapter 72 prevent plaintiffs from obtaining trucking company safety records?

Not necessarily. Restrictions on what a jury hears in Phase 1 do not automatically make company records undiscoverable. In a 2026 proceeding involving Old Dominion Freight Line, a Texas appellate court allowed discovery of certain supervisor employment, training and performance materials because the evidence could be relevant to direct corporate negligence and a potential Phase 2 exemplary-damages claim.

Why might a jury never hear evidence about negligent hiring or training?

If that evidence is excluded from Phase 1 under Chapter 72, it may be reserved for a later phase. Whether that later phase occurs can depend on the Phase 1 findings and the claims remaining in the case. If a required predicate such as driver negligence is not established, some derivative claims against the trucking company cannot proceed. Gross-negligence evidence likewise belongs in Phase 2 under current Texas appellate authority.

Contact a Truck Accident Attorney in Houston, Texas

Hilda Sibrian has represented truck accident victims in Houston for over 22 years. If you or someone you love have been seriously injured as the result of a truck company’s negligence, you need to call an experienced Houston attorney as soon as possible. Our team is here to review your case, explain your legal options, and fight for the compensation you deserve.

The Law Offices of Hilda Sibrian serve all of Houston and Texas, including Sugar Land, Missouri City, La Porte, Beaumont, Pasadena, The Woodlands, The Heights, Bellaire, Kingwood, Baytown and of course Houston proper.

Call the Law Offices of Hilda Sibrian today for a free consultation, or fill out our online contact form.