Glendale, AZ — July 11, 2025, Daniel Sargent was killed in a truck accident at about 9 a.m. on U.S. Route 60/Grand Avenue near Royal Palm Lane.

Authorities said a semi-truck was backing into a business at mile marker 153 when a car crashed into it. The car reportedly drove through cones that had been set up while the truck was maneuvering.

The driver of the car, Daniel Scott Sargent, 51, died at the scene of the crash despite the efforts of bystanders and emergency personnel, according to authorities.

No other injuries were reported.

Authorities have not released any additional information about the Maricopa County crash at this time. The accident is still under investigation.

Commentary by Attorney Michael Grossman

When people hear about a fatal crash involving a car and a semi-truck, like the one in Glendale where a driver was killed after hitting a truck that was backing into a business, they understandably want answers. How did this happen? Who made what decisions, and were those decisions reasonable? Right now, the story being told is that the car drove through cones while the truck was backing up, but that version raises just as many questions as it answers.

For starters, it's not clear how the truck was positioned at the time of the collision. Was it already blocking the road? Was it fully in motion or partially parked? That matters a lot. Depending on how far the truck had moved into the traffic lane, drivers approaching the scene might not have had a clear or timely opportunity to react.

And those cones; who placed them, and were they visible and properly spaced? In my experience, companies will sometimes rely on minimal, makeshift setups to warn traffic while a truck maneuvers in or out of a property, especially if they think they’ll only be in the way for a short time. But “quick” doesn’t mean “safe.” Even if cones were present, that doesn’t automatically absolve anyone of responsibility. The law requires that reasonable steps be taken to warn oncoming traffic and to avoid creating a hazard in the first place.

Then there’s the question of whether the truck should have been backing in at all during active traffic hours. Depending on the size of the lot and surrounding roadway, it may have been safer — and more in line with industry best practices — to coordinate that movement outside peak hours, or to have someone on foot act as a spotter to guide both the truck and any approaching vehicles.

None of this is to say the driver of the car is necessarily blameless. If someone ignored clearly marked warnings or made an unsafe maneuver, that’s part of the picture too. But the bigger issue is: we don’t yet have a full picture. And unless someone retrieves dashcam footage, cell phone records, the truck’s engine control module data and surveillance video from nearby businesses, we may never get one.

In other cases I’ve handled, what initially seemed like a simple “driver made a bad call” story turned out to involve deeper problems: drivers without adequate training, companies using flawed safety procedures and a lack of proper oversight. A crash like this deserves that same level of scrutiny.

Key Takeaways:

• It’s not clear whether the truck was actively moving or already blocking the roadway when the crash occurred.
• The presence of cones doesn’t guarantee proper safety precautions were taken.
• Evidence like dashcam footage, ECM data and nearby surveillance video will be critical to determining fault.
• Questions remain about whether the truck’s maneuver was appropriate during daytime traffic hours.
• Thorough investigation is needed before drawing conclusions about responsibility.