Jerry Stephens, Betty Stephens, Mallory Heffron Injured in 18-wheeler Accident in Seguin, TX

Basic Facts

Crash date: 3-19-2026

Crash location: I-10 near US 90, Seguin, TX

People involved:

• Jerry Stephens
• Betty Stephens
• Mallory Heffron
• Unidentified Male, 59
• Unidentified Male, 56
• Unidentified Male, 29

Do Authorities suspect alcohol played a role in this crash?: Unknown

Did authorities recommend criminal charges?: Yes

Do authorities suspect a product defect caused the crash?: Unknown

Accident Report

March 19, 2026, Jerry Stephens, Betty Stephens, and Mallory Heffron were injured due to an 18-wheeler accident at 2:26 p.m. on I-10.

Preliminary information from authorities said that the crash happened just off the I-10 and US Highway 90 interchange northeast of Seguin.

According to officials, Jerry Stephens, Betty Stephens, and Mallory Heffron were passengers in a Chevy Tahoe driven by a 59-year-old man. They were going eastbound at the time. While doing so, in events not entirely clear, authorities say that a Volvo semi-truck pulling a trailer failed to control speed. Doing so, a crash occurred involving the Chevy, the Volvo, and another 18-wheeler.

Due to the crash, Jerry Stephens, Betty Stephens, and Mallory Heffron all reportedly had serious injuries. No other injuries were reported. Authorities recommended charging the Volvo driver for failure to control speed.

How Did This Accident Occur?

With authorities reportedly recommending a charge for the truck driver allegedly failing to control speed, this question may seem asked and answered. To be clear, further investigations could show that police got the facts wrong or that there were extenuating circumstances the truck driver couldn’t avoid (for example, a manufacturing defect leading to brake failure). It’s important to keep an open mind until all the facts are clear. However, there’s a deeper question to consider even when truck drivers do cause a crash by failing to control their speed: Why did they fail to control their speed? That’s where authorities sometimes come up short.

In my experience, authorities are generally pretty good about answering the first question—how did the crash happen?. They can examine the scene, speak with witnesses, and look at any video footage to help show the physical series of events that led to a crash. But understanding why a mistake happened means digging deeper.

Was the driver on their phone? Were they fatigued after being behind the wheel too long? Were they rushing to meet an unreasonable deadline? Are they a driver with a history of reckless behavior? Are they an inexperienced rookie who was rushed through the training process? Was the failure to control speed due to worn brakes or tires because a company wasn’t maintaining the truck properly?

This all requires pulling company records, looking into driver history, examining data from the truck, physically inspecting the truck itself, pulling cellphone records, and otherwise taking action beyond the confines of the crash scene. Sometimes, it even means going through the courts or using legal tools that authorities can’t or don’t use themselves.

Not that long ago, for instance, I had a wrongful death truck accident case where we wrote a demand letter to a trucking company to preserve evidence for independent inspection. It turned out the trucking company was mere hours away from repairing and effectively destroying that evidence. The family was relieved but also shocked. That evidence was never even on the police’s radar. Had they waited just one more day to seek out a second opinion, that evidence could have been lost forever.

Sometimes, authorities have the dedicated team and resources needed for an in-depth truck accident reconstruction. A lot of the time, though, they don’t. So when folks are involved in a serious commercial truck wreck, it’s reasonable for them to consider having more than one set of eyes look things over. At worst, it may just affirm police did a good job on their own. That alone can be very reassuring. At best, though, it can preserve crucial evidence that may have otherwise slipped through the cracks.

Does that seem like an overabundance of caution? Do you think there’s such a thing as “too thorough”? Let me know your thoughts in the comments.