What is an Unavoidable Accident?
Picture this: You’re cruising down a foggy highway, staying alert and following the rules. Then out of nowhere, a tire blows. The vehicle spins out, blocks the lanes, and another driver collides with you. Whose fault is it — or is no one at fault at all?
That’s the essence of the unavoidable accident doctrine — a legal concept that recognizes not every mishap stems from carelessness or negligence.
At its core, an unavoidable accident occurs when a collision happens without negligence on the part of anyone involved. Negligence boils down to not acting as a reasonably prudent person would under the circumstances. If all parties were driving responsibly, keeping their vehicles in shape, and an unforeseen event like a mechanical glitch or harsh weather intervenes, liability doesn’t attach.
This isn’t an excuse for reckless behavior; it’s reserved for situations where prevention was genuinely impossible despite due care.
Historical Development of the Unavoidable Accident Doctrine in Texas Law
Before diving into its modern application, it’s important to understand where the unavoidable accident doctrine comes from and how it has evolved in Texas law. This doctrine didn’t appear overnight — it developed over decades through judicial interpretation and practical necessity. By tracing its historical roots, we can better appreciate why it remains a nuanced but significant aspect of negligence law in Texas.
Early Origins and Evolution
Texas courts have grappled with this idea for more than a century. It first appeared as a jury instruction, designed to help fact-finders weigh whether an incident was truly faultless when assessing blame. Early rulings, such as those involving train wrecks and industrial accidents, highlighted that some events unfold without human error.
Modern Refinements
By the late 20th century, particularly in Reinhart v. Young, the Texas Supreme Court, cautioned against overusing these jury instructions, noting they might muddle jurors into viewing it as a standalone defense rather than an aspect of the negligence inquiry. The Court emphasized limiting its use to cases with specific evidence of unforeseeable, unavoidable events. Today, it’s treated as an inferential rebuttal defense — challenging the plaintiff’s proof of fault without shifting the entire burden to the defendant.
How the Doctrine Works in Practice
Here’s the practical side: The injured party must demonstrate the defendant’s carelessness. When a defendant invokes unavoidability, it’s essentially a challenge: “Show me how this could have been prevented through reasonable actions.”
Applications include sudden health issues behind the wheel or wildlife darting into traffic. Judges seldom issue specific instructions now to prevent confusion. It overlaps with concepts like sudden emergency — reacting to an abrupt threat — or acts of God, but the crux is unforeseeability without underlying neglect.
How Lozada v. Posada Changes the Unavoidable Accident Doctrine
Case Overview
Fast-forward to a recent Texas Supreme Court decision that refines and sharpens the unavoidable accident doctrine: Osvanis Lozada and TELS, Inc. v. Cesar R. Posada, handed down per curiam on June 20, 2025.
This pivotal ruling provides long-awaited clarification on how Texas courts should handle unavoidable accident claims at the summary judgment stage. It demystifies the evidentiary and procedural standards, offering valuable guidance for laypeople facing post-crash litigation and a strategic blueprint for attorneys navigating early dismissals.
The Plaintiff’s Position
The dispute centered on a highway collision between two tractor-trailers. Plaintiff Cesar Posada alleged defendant Osvanis Lozada negligently operated his rig, leading to a jackknife that blocked Interstate 10. Posada claimed violations of traffic statutes on safe speeds and roadway clearance, seeking to pin vicarious liability on Lozada’s employer, TELS, Inc.
Central to Posada’s theory was the contention that Lozada drove at an unsafe speed given the poor visibility and road conditions — clocking in at 72 mph in dense fog, though technically below the posted limit of 75 mph. He argued these circumstances raised fact questions about whether Lozada adhered to the reasonable prudent driver standard, with the jackknife creating an unavoidable roadblock that directly caused the ensuing crash with Posada.
Posada further alleged that under Texas Transportation Code provisions, particularly those governing safe following distances and driving at speeds appropriate for existing conditions, Lozada had a statutory duty to operate his vehicle with heightened caution—especially in adverse weather.
The Defense’s Position
Lozada and TELS countered that the incident was unavoidable. Lozada described a rapid deflation of a seemingly sound, new tire that yanked the truck rightward, triggering the jackknife despite his efforts to regain control — all while under the speed limit and avoiding other vehicles in the fog.
They emphasized that the tire failure was sudden, without warning, and completely unforeseeable— a classic mechanical failure scenario beyond human anticipation or prevention. The defense underscored that Lozada had performed pre-trip inspections and adhered to all relevant safety protocols, eliminating any inference of negligence on his part.
Relying on Texas jurisprudence recognizing mechanical failures as potential unavoidable accidents, they maintained this was a pure mechanical surprise, not negligence. Leveraging traditional and no-evidence summary judgment motions, they argued Posada lacked proof of breach or proximate causation, and emphasized the accident’s excused, unavoidable nature, asserting that Posada bore the burden to introduce affirmative evidence of Lozada’s fault—something he failed to do at the summary judgment stage.
Lozada v. Posada: From Trial Court to Supreme Court
To fully grasp the significance of Lozada v. Posada, it’s essential to trace the case’s journey through the Texas court system — highlighting how the handling of evidence and legal standards evolved at each stage. This progression reveals not only the shifting interpretations of the unavoidable accident doctrine but also underscores the evidentiary hurdles plaintiffs face when trying to survive summary judgment in negligence cases.
From initial dismissal to appellate reversal, and ultimately to the Texas Supreme Court’s decisive intervention, the case illustrates the modern litigation landscape surrounding unavoidable accidents in Texas.
Initial Proceedings
In the trial court, Lozada and TELS, Inc. sought summary judgment, arguing the crash resulted from an unavoidable tire blowout, not negligence. Posada pushed back, claiming the defense had to affirmatively disprove fault through traditional summary judgment, not simply assert unavoidable accident.
His response relied on two main points: brief excerpts from Lozada’s deposition noting foggy conditions and speed, and crash photos showing the truck blocking the roadway. Posada argued these allowed a jury to infer Lozada drove too fast for conditions.
The trial court disagreed, ruling Posada’s evidence lacked concrete proof of negligence. Without expert testimony or clear factual disputes, the court found Posada’s claims speculative and granted summary judgment, dismissing the case.
The Appeals Court Split
On appeal, the case landed before the El Paso Court of Appeals, where the justices split in a 2-1 decision. The majority overturned the trial court’s dismissal, holding that Posada’s limited evidence — specifically the deposition snippets and crash-site photos — created enough of a factual dispute to warrant a jury trial. The majority reasoned that even with the sudden tire failure, a reasonable juror could still question whether Lozada’s speed or actions contributed to the jackknife, especially given the foggy conditions.
In contrast, the dissent strongly disagreed. The dissenting justice argued that Posada’s evidence amounted to little more than conjecture, with no expert analysis or concrete proof that Lozada acted unreasonably or that his speed caused the wreck. The dissent warned that allowing the case to proceed would undermine summary judgment standards by letting weak inferences survive dispositive motions.
This split created a clear legal question about how courts should handle unavoidable accident claims at summary judgment, prompting the Texas Supreme Court to accept the case for review.
Detailed Facts of the Accident
The collision occurred on a foggy, early morning along I-10 near El Paso. Lozada was driving eastbound from Houston, traveling at 72 mph — below the posted limit of 75 mph — when his truck’s tire unexpectedly failed, “popping off the rim” and causing the vehicle to jackknife across multiple lanes.
Lozada managed to bring the truck to a stop without hitting other vehicles initially, but moments later, Posada’s vehicle collided with the obstructed trailer. While both sides agreed on the sudden and unpredictable nature of the tire failure, the dispute centered on whether Lozada could have taken preventive steps — such as reducing speed in poor visibility or regaining control more quickly — to avoid blocking the roadway.
Evidence Issues
During summary judgment proceedings, Posada’s evidence was notably limited. He relied primarily on short excerpts from Lozada’s deposition and several photographs of the crash scene. There was no expert testimony on tire failure mechanics, no weather analysis, and no eyewitness accounts beyond the parties involved. The trial court ruled this evidence insufficient, concluding that it failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on negligence or causation.
On appeal, however, the majority of the El Paso Court of Appeals found these minimal pieces of evidence enough to justify sending the case to a jury. They believed a jury could reasonably infer that Lozada’s handling, particularly his speed in foggy conditions, contributed to the incident. The dissent disagreed, calling Posada’s case speculative and unsupported, emphasizing the absence of detailed evidence pinpointing Lozada’s alleged negligence.
The Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision in Lozada v. Posada
The Texas Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s decision, reinstating the trial court’s dismissal. While crediting Posada’s evidence at face value, the Court ruled it fell below the legal “scintilla” threshold—too insubstantial to create a genuine fact issue. The Court reaffirmed a key principle: not every accident implies negligence. Without concrete evidence of negligent driving, an improper response to the tire failure, or a failure to adjust speed to conditions, Posada’s claims rested on speculation. The Court noted that crash-scene photos showed only the outcome of the incident, not its cause.
Clarifying The Burden of Proof
At the heart of the decision was a significant clarification of burden allocation. The Court confirmed that plaintiffs carry the responsibility to prove the accident was not unavoidable and that any statutory violations were unexcused. This ruling validated the use of no-evidence summary judgment motions by defendants, rejecting Posada’s argument that unavoidable accident claims required traditional, affirmative proof from the defense.
Treatment of Testimony
The Court also addressed how a plaintiff may—or may not—rely on a defendant’s own testimony. Since Posada’s argument hinged entirely on Lozada’s clear, uncontested account of events, the Court held that a plaintiff cannot create a fact issue by merely speculating about a defendant’s truthful testimony in the absence of contradictory evidence. Without expert opinions or alternative factual narratives to challenge Lozada’s version, the Court concluded there was no viable evidence of negligence, eliminating any need to address causation or employer liability.
Historical Context and Legal Framework
Fitting Into Texas Jurisprudence
Lozada v. Posada fits squarely within the evolution of Texas unavoidable accident jurisprudence. It reinforces the doctrine’s role as a rebuttal mechanism focused on excusing accidents caused by non-human factors—like mechanical failures or natural events. Historically, Texas courts have acknowledged unavoidable accidents to prevent unfair liability, particularly in early transportation cases. Over time, however, the courts narrowed its use, warning against confusing juries with unnecessary instructions. Lozada continues this refinement, extending those principles into modern mechanical failure contexts without inviting jury speculation.
Related Legal Doctrines
The ruling aligns closely with the sudden emergency doctrine, where drivers reacting reasonably to unforeseen crises are excused from liability. It diverges from product liability theories, where defective design or manufacturing remains actionable, and from contributory negligence, which apportions blame. Legal scholars view unavoidable accident claims as an important filter within negligence law—forcing courts and juries to distinguish between preventable and purely accidental events.
Practical Implications
For Everyone
For the average driver, this decision raises the standard of proof in auto accident claims involving mechanical failures or hazardous conditions. Plaintiffs must produce specific evidence of fault, making it harder to pursue claims without clear-cut negligence. This protects responsible drivers but may pose hurdles for accident victims without access to costly investigations.
For Legal Professionals
Defense attorneys gain a sharper tool in no-evidence summary judgments, particularly in industries like trucking where mechanical failures are common defenses. Conversely, plaintiffs’ attorneys must now proactively gather and present evidence early—including inspection records, black-box data, and expert reports—to avoid dismissal.
Broader Legal System Impact
On a systemic level, Lozada promotes judicial efficiency by clearing weak claims early, reducing unnecessary trials. However, it also raises concerns about access to justice, as legitimate cases might be prematurely dismissed when plaintiffs lack immediate access to in-depth technical evidence. In insurance litigation, the ruling may tighten payouts in cases involving mechanical failures or unpredictable events.
Looking Forward: Expected Changes in Litigation
Lozada is expected to lead to more early dismissals in cases involving mechanical failures or adverse weather, as defendants push no-evidence motions more aggressively. It raises the bar for plaintiffs, requiring clearer proof of preventable fault to survive.
While it overlaps with visible hazard doctrines, Lozada sharpens focus on whether defendants could have prevented the initial danger—not just reacted to it—streamlining roadway liability disputes.|
Applying Lozada to Camp Mystic Flood Litigation
The recent deadly floods at Camp Mystic, a Texas summer camp on the Guadalupe River, highlight how Lozada’s unavoidable accident principles could influence legal defenses claiming an “act of God.” In July 2025, a flash flood claimed lives and prompted legal action alleging negligence by the camp, local authorities, or the state — focusing on possible failures such as ignored weather warnings, inadequate monitoring, or poor evacuation despite historical flood risks.
Defendants could argue that the flood was unavoidable, akin to an act of God: a sudden, unforeseen natural event beyond their control, with no negligence in preparations. Under Lozada, they wouldn’t have to affirmatively prove the flood was unavoidable. Instead, plaintiffs bear the burden to show it wasn’t unavoidable. This means producing evidence that the camp breached duties — like failing to heed decades-old warnings about the site’s vulnerability, not monitoring overnight weather alerts that could have prompted evacuation, or lacking robust emergency protocols despite recent inspections.
For instance, if proof emerges of disregarded forecasts or radios, it could demonstrate foreseeability and breach, negating unavoidability — similar to how poor tire maintenance evidence might defeat a mechanical failure defense in a vehicle case. However, thin evidence — like mere flood occurrence — would likely fail summary judgment, per Lozada’s scintilla standard. Waivers signed by families might offer limited shield, but negligence trumps them if proven.
This application could strengthen defenses in natural disaster suits, requiring plaintiffs to present concrete proof of negligence early. It protects entities from blame in truly freak events but underscores accountability where risks were apparent. For Camp Mystic litigants, Lozada serves as a reminder: Claims of divine acts or natural forces demand rigorous rebuttal to reach a jury.
