Training Gaps, Massive Verdicts

The Verdict That Followed a Mass-Casualty Crash

A 130-plus vehicle pileup in February 2021 that resulted in at least six fatalities became the ignition point for one of the most recent nuclear verdicts of 2025. On December 15, 2025, a Texas jury returned a $44.1 million verdict in a wrongful death action arising from the Fort Worth-area crash against New Prime, Inc. The verdict included $20 million in punitive damages and $24.1 million in compensatory damages, with 75% of fault attributed to the driver.

Failure to Train as the Primary Liability Theory

Central to the jury’s decision was the plaintiff’s argument that New Prime failed to provide adequate winter weather training. According to trial testimony, that lack of training led the driver to fail to exercise the level of caution required under hazardous conditions.

Roadway Conditions and Shared Responsibility

Notably, substantial rain was forecast for the area, and NTE Express—the entity responsible for roadway preparation—failed to identify a problem area within the TEXPress lanes. The elevated roadway required additional de-icing to provide sufficient traction, and that failure directly contributed to vehicles losing the ability to slow or stop before colliding with the growing pileup. Despite these contributing factors, the jury primarily assigned fault to New Prime.

What the Jury Did Not Rely On

Importantly, the verdict was not driven by allegations of deficient background checks or a lack of proper equipment. Instead, liability turned on the company’s failure to train its driver on how to operate in a torrential downpour.

Lessons for Virginia Employers

The implications for Virginia companies are clear: baseline regulatory compliance is no longer sufficient. Hours-of-service oversight, standard vehicle training, and generalized safety education may not provide the level of defense companies reasonably expect. In the current litigation climate, plaintiff’s counsel can successfully frame liability around preparedness for known hazards—such as winter or icy driving conditions—leading juries to reach extreme conclusions.

The Importance of Situation-Specific Training

The most effective defense, however burdensome it may seem, is the implementation of situation-specific training protocols. Whether the risk is weather-related or traffic-related (particularly in Northern Virginia), companies should engage drivers, dispatch teams, and other ground-level personnel who can identify recurring problem areas. Training should address those risks directly—even if driver-specific—and companies should document that such issues were discussed and addressed.

Preparing Now to Defend Future Claims

This type of planning is now an essential component of defending hypothetical future litigation. While no one enjoys adopting a pessimistic outlook, the current legal climate leaves little alternative. The best strategy is to control the narrative by demonstrating a culture of safety that extends beyond box-checking. Where possible, companies should anticipate situation-specific risks, train accordingly, and verify compliance through thorough documentation.

For questions about this article or strategies to protect against nuclear verdicts, contact Caleb Setliff at csetliff@setlifflaw.com or (804) 377-1267, or Steve Setliff at ssetliff@setlifflaw.com or (804) 377-1261.