Side Underride Crashes in El Paso: What the Missing Federal Rule Means for You
Key Takeaways: Yes, you may still have a claim after a side underride crash even though no federal rule requires side underride guards. Federal standards FMVSS No. 223 and No. 224 cover only rear impact guards, and federal rulemaking on side guards has not produced a final rule. Under Texas Chapter 72, a claim generally can’t rest on breaking a side guard rule, because no such rule exists. Evidence of other federal trucking violations, such as hours-of-service, drug testing, and driver licensing violations, may still be admissible if certain conditions are met. Texas also generally keeps ordinary negligence claims, like negligent maintenance, poor trailer lighting, unsafe turns, and disabled rigs left without warning devices. Parked or stalled trailers may still count as "operated" commercial vehicles, and the trucking company can ask the court to split the trial into two phases. Punitive damages may be possible, but Texas sets procedural hurdles, so every case depends on its own facts.
The short answer is yes: you may still have a claim even though no federal rule requires side underride guards. Federal safety standards require rear impact guards on most trailers, but no final federal rule requires guards along the sides. That gap matters, but it does not always rule out a claim. Texas law generally still lets injured people and grieving families pursue claims based on negligence, unsafe driving, poor maintenance, and violations of other trucking safety rules.
If you or someone you love was seriously hurt in a crash on I-10 or anywhere in the El Paso area, Carter Law Wins can help you understand where you stand. You can reach the team at 915-400-9467 or schedule a conversation to talk through your situation in English or Spanish.
Understanding the Federal Gap on Side Underride Guards
Federal regulators have set standards for the back of trailers but not for the sides. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 223 and No. 224. FMVSS No. 223 sets strength and energy-absorption requirements for rear impact guards, and FMVSS No. 224 requires most trailers and semitrailers to have a guard that meets them. Neither standard sets a matching rule for side underride guards.
Where Federal Rulemaking Stands Today
Work on a side guard rule has moved slowly and has not produced a final rule. Congress directed NHTSA to study side underride guards in the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. NHTSA has opened related dockets, including docket NHTSA-2023-0012, which addresses underride protection for heavy trucks and trailers. Safety advocates have petitioned the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and NHTSA for years. Even so, as of this writing, no final federal rule requires side underride guards on large trailers.
This history may still matter in a lawsuit. Years of public comments, petitions, and crash data may show that the trucking industry has long known about side underride risks. Depending on the evidence rules, a court may consider that evidence when deciding what a reasonable carrier should have known. NHTSA’s 2014 grant of a petition for rulemaking on rear impact guards initiated the process that eventually led to a 2022 final rule amending FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224, underscoring the difference between what is required at the rear and what remains missing on the sides.
Why the Difference Matters for Your Claim
The difference between rear and side rules shapes how a lawyer builds the case. In a rear underride crash, a missing or defective guard may support a claim based on a specific rule. In a side underride crash, there is no guard rule to point to, so the claim generally has to rest on other legal theories.
| Issue | Rear Underride Guards | Side Underride Guards |
|---|---|---|
| Federal standard | FMVSS No. 223 and No. 224 | No final federal rule |
| Rule-based claim | May be possible if the guard failed to meet standards | Generally not available for the guard itself |
| Other paths to a claim | Negligence, maintenance, driver conduct | Negligence, maintenance, driver conduct, other safety rule violations |
How Texas Law Shapes an Underride Truck Accident Claim
Texas has its own rules for lawsuits over commercial vehicle crashes. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Chapter 72, Subchapter B, governs civil actions for bodily injury or death caused by a collision with a commercial motor vehicle. Texas added the commercial vehicle statute in 2021 through H.B. 19 and amended it in 2023 through H.B. 2190.
Trailers and Stopped Trucks Fall Under the Statute
Side underride crashes often involve a trailer that is turning, crossing, parked, or stalled. Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 72.051, a "motor vehicle" includes a trailer or semitrailer used with a self-propelled vehicle. The same section defines "operated" broadly, covering stopping, parking, or otherwise using the vehicle, even when it is disabled.
These definitions matter because many families assume a parked or stalled truck is not covered. A trailer blocking a dark road near an I-10 truck stop or a distribution center in East El Paso may still count as an operating commercial vehicle. The defendant may include anyone alleged to be liable who operated the truck or who owned, leased, or otherwise controlled the truck or its driver.
The Two-Phase Trial Process
If the trucking company files a timely motion, the court must split the trial into two phases. Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 72.052, Phase 1 decides liability and compensatory damages, and Phase 2 decides exemplary damages. The defendant must file its motion by the later of the 120th day after filing its original answer or the 30th day after the claimant adds a new claim against it. Some claims against the employer, such as negligent entrustment, hiring, or training, require a Phase 1 finding that the employee driver was negligent. Once the jury makes that finding, those claims may move forward in Phase 2.
When There Is No Rule to Break: The Evidence Problem
The biggest legal hurdle in a side underride case is how Texas treats rule violations. Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 72.053, evidence that a defendant failed to comply with a regulation or standard is admissible in Phase 1 only if two conditions are met. The evidence must tend to show the failure to comply was a proximate cause of the injury or death. And the regulation or standard must be specific and must govern, or be an element of a duty of care applicable to, the defendant, its employee, or its property or equipment when at issue in the action.
Because no federal rule requires side underride guards, a claim cannot rest on breaking a guard rule. That does not end the analysis. A claimant may still seek exemplary damages under Chapter 41 for a failure to follow other applicable regulations or standards, and that evidence may come in during Phase 2.
Federal Safety Rules That Still Apply
Other trucking rules may support an underride truck accident claim even without a side guard rule. Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 72.054, if the carrier is regulated under the federal Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 or Texas Transportation Code Chapter 644, a party may present certain evidence in Phase 1 when it is relevant to the claim, including:
- Driver licensing, disqualification, and medical certification problems
- Out-of-service orders and hours-of-service violations
- Texting or handheld phone use while driving
- Refusals to take drug tests
- An employer letting a driver operate in violation of hours-of-service or drug and alcohol rules
- Gaps in drug testing or background checks on new hires
💡 Pro Tip: Driver logs, electronic logging device data, and dispatch records can be overwritten or lost over time. Sending a written preservation letter early may help protect this evidence.
Negligence Claims That Survive Without a Guard Rule
Texas law expressly keeps certain direct negligence claims against the trucking company. Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 72.054, claims like negligent maintenance, and any other claim that does not first require proof that the driver was negligent, may be presented in Phase 1. Claimants may also seek exemplary damages under Chapter 41 for the employer’s own conduct related to the collision.
In practice, many side underride claims focus on what happened before and during the crash. Was the trailer poorly lit or missing required reflective tape? Did the driver make an unsafe turn across traffic at night? Did someone leave a disabled rig without warning devices? Each of these questions may point to negligence whether or not guards were required. A trucking accidents lawyer can review whether these facts fit your case.
Pursuing Punitive Damages Against a Trucking Company
Exemplary damages are possible in some underride cases, but Texas sets high standards and procedural hurdles. A claimant generally must prove fraud, malice, or gross negligence by clear and convincing evidence, and Texas caps these damages in most cases. Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.0115, a party may ask the court to allow discovery of a defendant’s net worth. After a motion and hearing, the court may allow it only by an order finding a substantial likelihood of success on the exemplary damages claim, and only by the least burdensome method.
There is also a trade-off. Once a party moves for net worth discovery, the law presumes the claimant has had enough time to discover facts about exemplary damages. That presumption may let the defendant file a no-evidence summary judgment motion on the punitive claim. Careful timing of this request may help protect the claim.
💡 Pro Tip: Serious side underride crashes often cause head and neck injuries. Memory gaps, mood changes, or sleep problems after a crash may signal a traumatic brain injury, even without a direct blow to the head. Medical records of these symptoms may become important evidence.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Does the lack of a side guard rule mean the trucking company is off the hook?
Not necessarily. Texas law, including Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 72.054, keeps negligence claims such as negligent maintenance. Driver conduct and other safety violations may also support liability.
2. What if the trailer was parked when the crash happened?
A parked or disabled truck may still count as "operated" under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 72.051. Liability depends on the facts, such as lighting, warning devices, and where the truck was parked.
3. Can families bring claims after a fatal underride crash?
Chapter 72 applies to civil actions for bodily injury or death. Surviving family members may have options under Texas wrongful death and survival laws, subject to specific requirements and deadlines. In most cases, the deadline is two years.
4. Will the trial always be split into two phases?
Not always. Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 72.052, the court must split the trial only if the defendant files a timely motion.
5. Could a future federal rule help my case?
A new rule generally would not apply to a past crash. However, the existing regulatory record may still help show that the industry knew about underride risks.
Holding Carriers Accountable Despite the Regulatory Gap
The lack of a side guard rule changes the legal path but does not always close it. Texas law generally still lets victims pursue claims based on negligence, maintenance failures, unsafe driving, and other trucking safety violations. For more on related trucking topics, see our truck accident legal resources. Every case turns on its own facts, so a careful review matters.
If you are trying to make sense of a side underride crash and what comes next, the team at Carter Law Wins is ready to listen. You can call (915) 400-9467 or reach out online to start a conversation at your own pace, in English or Spanish.
Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Every case is unique, and results may vary. Consult an attorney about your specific circumstances.