An 18-wheeler moves into the next lane on I-45 and strikes a car beside its trailer. The truck driver says the car was in a blind spot. The insurance adjuster asks why the car’s driver stayed next to the truck.
That explanation leaves out the central question: What did the truck driver do before moving into an occupied lane? Commercial trucks have real visibility limitations. Truck drivers are expected to account for those limitations when operating their vehicle.
Our earlier article on drivers who say they did not see the other vehicle explains the broader issue. Commercial truck cases require a closer look at the maneuver, the truck’s equipment and the evidence supporting each driver’s account.
Where are a commercial truck’s blind spots?
A truck’s blind spots are areas the driver cannot see from the driving position through the windows or available mirrors. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, or FMCSA, warns motorists about these areas, often called “no-zones.”
- In front: The elevated cab and hood can obstruct the driver’s view of a smaller vehicle or person close to the truck.
- Behind: A trailer or enclosed cargo body can block the direct rearward view.
- Along the left side: A vehicle can move outside the coverage of the driver’s mirrors.
- Along the right side: Visibility limitations can extend alongside the truck and into adjacent lanes.
These areas vary with the truck’s design, mirror configuration and adjustment, seat position and any camera equipment. FMCSA’s research on truck mirrors explains how mirror design changes the field of view.
The issue also extends beyond 18-wheelers. Delivery trucks, dump trucks and moving trucks can have substantial visibility limitations. As our guide to box trucks and CDL requirements explains, licensing requirements depend on the vehicle and its use. A driver without a CDL requirement still has a duty to drive safely.
Who has the duty to pay attention?
The driver making the maneuver has responsibilities
Texas Transportation Code Sections 545.060, 545.103 and 545.104 require safe lane movements and turns, along with appropriate signals. A turn signal announces an intention; it does not establish that the adjacent lane is clear.
Truck drivers also need to monitor traffic before beginning a maneuver. FMCSA’s guidance on inadequate surveillance tells commercial drivers to check mirrors regularly and before changing lanes, turning or merging. Those repeated checks help a driver track vehicles that later move out of view.
That distinction matters. A driver might not see a car at the instant of impact but may have had an opportunity to see it approaching seconds earlier. The inquiry includes whether the driver watched surrounding traffic, used the available equipment and waited when there was uncertainty about clearance.
The legal standard is reasonable care under the circumstances. The size, handling and known visibility limits of a commercial truck are part of those circumstances.
Other drivers also have a duty to use reasonable care
Motorists should leave adequate space, avoid tailgating and avoid lingering beside a truck when they can safely move away. FMCSA advises passing on the left and avoiding the gap beside a truck making a wide right turn.
Traffic can also keep a car beside a trailer. A driver stopped in congested traffic may have no safe opportunity to move forward or fall back. Evaluating that situation requires more than identifying where the car was when the vehicles collided.
How are blind spot claims handled and decided?
The real legal claim behind blind-spot crashes involve negligence: a failure to use reasonable care that caused injury, or reckless driving.
During an insurance claim, both parties create narratives of the crash, examine the available evidence and evaluate responsibility and damages. The insurer might accept liability, dispute it or argue that both drivers contributed to the accident.
If the dispute proceeds to a lawsuit, the parties can obtain evidence through discovery, including sworn testimony and company records. Settlements resolve the claim by agreement. If it goes to trial, the jury—or the judge in a trial without a jury—decides the disputed facts. The ordinary negligence claim generally requires proof that the allegations are more likely true than not.
The questions depend on the maneuver:
| Crash situation | Questions that help determine fault |
|---|---|
| A truck moves into a car’s lane. | Which vehicle crossed the lane line? How long had the car been alongside? What checks did the truck driver make? |
| A car moves in front of a truck. | Did the car leave enough space? Could the truck driver reasonably detect and respond to the movement? |
| A truck makes a wide right turn. | Was the car already beside the truck, or did it enter the gap after the turn began? What were the signals, lane markings and vehicle paths? |
| A truck backs into a vehicle or person. | Did the driver inspect the path? Was visibility adequate? Were available helpers, mirrors or cameras used appropriately? |
For turning collisions, our wide-turning truck accident page explains the risks created by the truck and trailer’s different paths.
Texas can divide responsibility
Under Chapter 33 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, responsibility can be allocated among people whose conduct caused the harm. An injured person’s damages are reduced by that person’s percentage of responsibility. A person found more than 50% responsible cannot recover damages under that framework.
For example, if an injured driver is assigned 20% responsibility and damages are $100,000, the fault reduction leaves $80,000 before other applicable adjustments. Being assigned exactly 50% responsibility does not itself bar recovery; being assigned 51% does.
An argument that the motorist “should have known better” needs evidence of conduct that contributed to the crash.
What evidence tests a blind spot explanation?
A useful investigation reconstructs the seconds before impact. The goal is to establish where the vehicles were, what changed and what the driver could reasonably detect.
- Video: Dashcams, truck cameras and nearby security cameras may show lane positions, movement and timing. A camera facing the road does not necessarily show whether the driver checked a mirror.
- Damage and scene evidence: Contact marks, debris, roadway measurements and photographs can help a reconstruction expert evaluate the competing accounts. A damage photograph alone may not establish the entire sequence.
- Witnesses and driver statements: Independent accounts can help establish whether a vehicle changed lanes, whether a signal was used and when the conflict became apparent.
- The actual visibility equipment: Mirror placement, damage, adjustment and camera configuration can help test whether the claimed blind spot existed at the relevant position.
- Training and maintenance records: These can identify instructions the driver received, reported equipment problems and the company’s response.
Federal rules also distinguish having equipment from using it. 49 C.F.R. Section 392.7 requires drivers of covered vehicles to be satisfied that listed equipment, including rear-vision mirrors, is in good working order and to use it when needed. Section 393.80 establishes rear-vision mirror requirements, subject to specified exceptions.
For backing, the CDL manual published by FMCSA recommends checking the intended path, using both mirrors, rechecking when unsure and using a helper when possible. Those practices can inform the analysis of a backing collision; they do not make a helper a universal legal requirement for every movement.
Electronic records also have limits. FMCSA explains that electronic logging devices record duty-status information and data such as time, location, engine hours and vehicle miles. An ELD alone does not establish whether a driver looked in a mirror. Other truck systems may record additional information, depending on the equipment installed.
A police report can provide useful observations and statements, but it does not conclusively determine civil liability. Whether particular statements or opinions can be used at trial depends on the evidence rules and the circumstances.
What have Texas courts said?
Two Texas decisions illustrate why the evidence matters. They do not establish a typical settlement amount or a guaranteed result.
A blind spot explanation did not prevent recovery
In Rayner v. Dillon (2016), a tractor-trailer struck a car while changing lanes on Interstate 30. The truck driver said the car was in his blind spot.
The driver and trucking company accepted responsibility for the crash and paid the actual-damages judgment. Their appeal concerned gross negligence and exemplary damages. The appeals court affirmed the judgment after examining evidence of driving-log violations and the company’s knowledge of the driver’s conduct.
The decision illustrates that a blind spot explanation can coexist with responsibility for a crash. It also involved additional evidence supporting the punishment-related damages; it did not hold that every blind spot collision warrants them.
A company training claim needed a causal connection
In JBS Carriers, Inc. v. Washington (2018), the Texas Supreme Court considered a fatal pedestrian collision involving a turning truck. The family argued that the company had failed to train the driver about a front blind spot.
The court rejected the direct negligent-training claim because the evidence did not establish that the alleged training omission caused the collision. It remanded the driver-negligence claim and the related claim seeking to hold the employer responsible for the driver’s conduct for further proceedings.
The practical distinction is between identifying a possible safety failure and proving that it caused the injury. A claim against the driver and a separate claim about company training require attention to their respective evidence.
Frequently asked questions
Is the truck driver automatically at fault for a blind spot accident?
No. The claim requires evidence of negligent conduct that caused injury. A truck moving into an occupied lane raises different questions from a car suddenly moving into the truck’s path.
Can I pursue a claim if I was beside the truck?
Yes. Being beside a truck does not automatically defeat a claim. Your lane position, how you arrived there, the truck’s movement and whether either driver could reasonably avoid the collision all matter.
Does a “stay out of my blind spots” sticker decide fault?
No. The warning may be relevant to what a motorist knew, but it does not establish negligence, causation or the percentage of responsibility.
Does the police report settle the claim?
No. Insurers and courts can consider other evidence. A report may contain observations, driver statements and conclusions with different evidentiary significance. Its contents should be compared with the rest of the record.
Talk to a Houston truck accident lawyer
If a commercial truck driver says a blind spot caused your crash, the next step is to examine the evidence behind that explanation. That includes the truck’s movement, the driver’s visibility checks and any company conduct connected to the collision.
Hilda Sibrian has served Houston for 22 years, and has helped thousands of families obtain compensation for their loss. Our legal team will review the evidence of your case and explain your options. Hilda Sibrian serves the Houston metropolitan area, including Sugar Land, Missouri City, La Porte, Beaumont, Pasadena, The Woodlands, The Heights, Bellaire, Kingwood, Baytown and of course Houston proper.
Consultations are quick, confidential, and always free. Contact us today by calling our office or filling out our online contact form.
