Attorney Amy Witherite Says: The Supreme Court’s Unanimous Ruling Preserves Texas Families’ Day in Court

DALLAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--On June 28, 2025, a fatigued truck driver fell asleep at the wheel on Interstate 20 near Terrell, Texas, and plowed into stopped traffic at highway speed without ever touching his brakes. Five people died, including a daughter, a son-in-law, a grandson, and a young mother. A fourth family member survived with serious injuries. Today, the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the families they left behind have the right to hold the logistics company that played a role in putting that driver on the road accountable in court. The 9-0 decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, held that federal law does not shield freight brokers from state-level negligent hiring lawsuits, preserving one of the most meaningful tools Texas families have when the system fails them.

That day, Anthony Epperson lost his daughter, his son-in-law, and his grandson in a catastrophic crash. His granddaughter survived with serious injuries. Nicole LaJeunesse Gregory, a mother, daughter, and sister, was also killed. A fatigued truck driver hauling U.S. Postal Service mail fell asleep at the wheel and plowed into stopped traffic at highway speed without ever touching his brakes. He now faces criminal charges, including manslaughter. The driver worked for Hope Trans LLC, a company that had at least 12 reportable crashes since 2021, a vehicle out-of-service rate nearly three times the industry average, and a pattern of falsified driver logs, all publicly visible in a federal database. A large logistics company had accepted the USPS contract and subcontracted the load to Hope Trans and is being sued for its role in assigning the load to Hope Trans.

“This decision recognizes the fact that a broker selected Hope Trans for the load despite the company’s bad record,” said Amy Witherite, founder of Witherite Law Group, which represents the Epperson and LaJeunesse families. “Brokers are a key link in the transportation chain, and the Court agreed that they share responsibility for avoiding fly-by-night trucking companies with questionable safety records. These companies often carry minimal insurance and hold limited assets, leaving families with catastrophic losses and nowhere to turn when an 80,000-pound truck collides with a passenger car.”

“It is important to be clear about what is not at stake in this Supreme Court decision,” said Witherite. “This is not a choice between federal regulation and state accountability; it is a false choice the industry wanted you to accept, and the Court unanimously rejected it.”

According to the National Safety Council, 5,340 people died in large-truck crashes in 2024, a 30% increase over the last decade, with 70% of those deaths being occupants of other vehicles, not truck drivers. Strong, well-funded, and rigorously enforced federal safety standards are essential. Nobody disputes that. But strong federal regulation and the right of innocent victims to seek full compensation in court are not substitutes for each other. One does not replace the other. Telling a grieving family that federal rules were supposed to protect them even when those rules demonstrably failed is not justice. It is an excuse. The right to hold negligent parties accountable in court does not undermine federal oversight. It complements it.

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a victory for the Epperson and LaJeunesse families and for every American family that deserves what they asked for: the right to go to court, present the evidence, and let a jury decide who bears responsibility for a preventable tragedy,” said Witherite. “The Court held unanimously that states retain authority to hold logistics companies accountable for negligent hiring decisions and that no federal shield protects brokers who ignore carrier safety records.”

“That ruling matters. But it is not the end of the work. We still need stronger federal enforcement, an end to the chameleon carrier loophole, and courts that remain open to families the system has already failed. Those goals are not in conflict with each other or with what the Court decided today. They are part of the same obligation.”