CK Newberry & Rush Enterprises Drive Shaft Lawsuit
Truck Accident Attorneys File Lawsuit Against CK Newberry and Rush Enterprises Following I-37 Drive Shaft Crash
A Texas motorist has filed suit in San Patricio County against CK Newberry, LLC and Rush Enterprises, Inc. after a drive shaft allegedly detached from a commercial asphalt truck on Interstate 37 and slammed into the motorist’s vehicle. The lawsuit claims the company that operated the truck and the company that serviced it both failed to keep the driveline safe for the road.
What the Lawsuit Says Happened on I-37
According to the petition, the crash happened on April 10, 2025, on I-37 in San Patricio County, as the plaintiff drove south from San Antonio toward Corpus Christi. A CK Newberry employee was allegedly driving a company asphalt truck ahead of the plaintiff on the same highway.
The lawsuit alleges that the truck’s drive shaft detached and ejected from the underside of the vehicle while it was moving. That drive shaft then slammed into the plaintiff’s car, blowing out both front tires, splitting both rims, and tearing out the undercarriage before the drive shaft careened onto the median and ignited a brush fire. A responding sheriff’s deputy allegedly tracked the drive shaft back to the disabled asphalt truck and identified it as the source.
The plaintiff suffered severe injuries to the back and other parts of the body and required substantial medical treatment.
Who Was Sued and Why
Two companies are named as defendants, and each faces a distinct theory of liability. The case pins fault on both the operator of the truck and the business that allegedly serviced it.
CK Newberry, LLC is the company that allegedly owned and operated the asphalt truck. Public records describe CK Newberry as a Karnes City-area highway and heavy-construction contractor that also runs a small commercial trucking operation. The petition alleges the driver worked within the course and scope of employment, which is what makes the company answerable for the driver’s conduct.
Rush Enterprises, Inc. is the company the lawsuit alleges recently inspected, repaired, serviced, and/or sold the truck. Rush is the largest commercial vehicle dealer group in North America, headquartered in New Braunfels and operating more than 200 dealership and service locations under the Rush Truck Centers brand. The lawsuit alleges Rush returned a truck to the road with a driveline that was not safe.
The operator’s negligence
Against CK Newberry, the suit pleads ordinary negligence built on several familiar duties a motor carrier owes the public. Those include hiring and training competent drivers, supervising them, and maintaining and inspecting their vehicles. The petition also pleads negligent entrustment. Under Texas law, negligent entrustment means the owner handed the vehicle to a driver it knew, or should have known, was unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless, and that the driver’s negligence then caused the crash. In short, the theory targets the company’s choices, not just the moment of the failure.
Negligence per se
The petition also pleads negligence per se against the operator. Negligence per se lets a plaintiff borrow a safety statute to set the standard of care. If a defendant broke a law written to protect people like the plaintiff, and the violation caused the kind of harm the law was meant to prevent, the violation itself can establish negligence. Here the lawsuit points to the Texas Transportation Code, including Section 547.004 and the inspection requirements of Chapter 548, along with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations at 49 C.F.R. Sections 392.7, 396.3, 396.7, and 396.17. Those federal rules require carriers to verify that parts are in working order before a trip, to systematically inspect and maintain vehicle components, and to keep unsafe vehicles off the road.
The service company’s negligence
Against Rush, the suit pleads negligent undertaking. Texas recognizes that a business which takes on a job, such as servicing or inspecting a truck, must perform that job with reasonable care. When a shop’s negligent work leaves a vehicle more dangerous and a third party gets hurt as a result, the shop can be liable to that third party. The petition alleges Rush negligently serviced, maintained, and inspected the truck’s drive shaft, universal joints, carrier bearing, and related driveline parts, then returned the vehicle to service without catching the danger.
Res ipsa loquitur and seller liability
The lawsuit also invokes res ipsa loquitur, a doctrine whose name means “the thing speaks for itself.” It allows a jury to infer negligence when the harm does not ordinarily happen without someone being careless, and the object that caused it was under the defendants’ control. A drive shaft ejecting from a moving truck, the petition argues, is exactly that kind of event.
The suit also raises nonmanufacturing seller liability against Rush. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 82.003 generally shields a seller that did not manufacture a product, but it lists exceptions. A seller can still be liable if it altered or modified the product, made an express factual representation about its safety, installed a component negligently, or had actual knowledge of the defect. The petition alleges one or more of those exceptions apply.
What This Means If You Were Hurt in a Similar Highway Crash
A part flying off a commercial truck is not a fender-bender, and the case behind it rarely comes down to one careless moment. When a drive shaft, wheel, tire, or piece of cargo separates from a truck and hits another vehicle, responsibility can reach past the driver to the company that ran the truck and the shop that last serviced it. Sorting out who is on the hook takes fast, careful work.
Expect the defense to argue the failure was a fluke, that a hidden manufacturing defect caused it, or that no one could have seen it coming. Those arguments rise or fall on the records. Maintenance logs, inspection reports, repair invoices, and parts histories often show whether a driveline was serviced correctly, whether warning signs were missed, and who touched the truck last. That paper trail is where a “freak accident” defense usually breaks down.
If a truck part ever strikes your vehicle, a few steps protect your rights:
- Get medical care right away, and keep every record. Back and spine injuries from a violent impact can worsen for weeks. Documentation ties the injury to the crash.
- Preserve the physical evidence. The failed part itself, along with your damaged vehicle, is critical proof. Do not let an insurer scrap or repair anything before it is inspected.
- Get the official documents. Request the crash report, any responding-agency records, photographs, and dashcam or nearby surveillance video before they disappear.
- Do not give a recorded statement to the trucking company’s insurer before talking to your own attorney.
- Act well before the deadline. In Texas, the statute of limitations on most injury claims is two years from the crash under Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 16.003. Truck maintenance and inspection data can be overwritten or lost long before that, so early action matters.
A case like this needs a lawyer who can read maintenance and inspection records, work with driveline and trucking-safety experts, and pursue every responsible company, not just the driver.
If a truck part or a mechanical failure has hurt you or someone in your family, Greenberg Streich Injury Lawyers offers a free, confidential consultation, and the firm charges no fee unless it wins. The firm’s lawyers have recovered results in serious trucking cases, including a $35 million trucking wrongful-death settlement. Call 832-583-3471 or visit contact us to speak with an attorney.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long do I have to sue after a Texas truck accident? Two years from the date of the crash, under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 16.003. Evidence like maintenance and inspection records can vanish long before then, so contact an attorney early.
Can I sue the shop that serviced a truck, not just the driver? Yes. In Texas, a repair or service company that performs its work negligently can be liable to a third party who is hurt when the vehicle later fails. Service and inspection records are key proof.
What is negligence per se in a truck case? Negligence per se means a defendant broke a safety law, such as an FMCSA inspection rule, that was written to protect people like you. If the violation caused your injury, the violation itself can establish negligence.
What evidence matters most after a truck part failure? The failed part, your damaged vehicle, and the truck’s maintenance, repair, and inspection records. Photos, the crash report, and any video also help. Preserve everything before an insurer can dispose of it.
Who can be held responsible when a part flies off a commercial truck? Potentially the driver, the trucking company that operated and maintained the truck, and any shop that serviced or inspected it. More than one company can share fault under Texas law.
Do I need a specialist for a commercial truck case? Yes. Truck cases involve federal safety regulations, corporate defendants, driveline and maintenance experts, and fast-disappearing records. General practice attorneys rarely handle these issues, and the difference shows in the outcome.
Hit by a Truck Part or Mechanical Failure in Texas? Talk to Greenberg Streich.
Drivers hurt when a drive shaft, wheel, tire, or other truck component breaks loose on a Texas highway should speak with counsel who handles commercial vehicle cases. Greenberg Streich Injury Lawyers will review your case for free and in confidence, and you pay nothing unless the firm wins. Reach an attorney directly at 832-583-3471 or online.
The allegations described in this post come from the petition filed with the court. They are allegations, not findings of fact. A Texas court will decide the merits of the case.
