Harris County, TX — January 16, 2026, Edgar Valles was injured due to a truck accident shortly before 10:30 p.m. along Pasadena Freeway (S.H. 225).

According to authorities, 24-year-old Edgar Valles was traveling in a southeast bound GMC Sierra pickup truck on Pasadena Freeway in the vicinity northwest of Sens Road when the accident took place.

Officials indicate that, for reasons yet to be confirmed, a collision took place between the front-end of the pickup truck and the rear-end of a Freightliner. Valles reportedly sustained serious injuries as a result of the wreck.

Additional details pertaining to this incident are not available at this point in time. The investigation is currently ongoing.

Commentary by Attorney Michael Grossman

When a passenger vehicle rear-ends an 18-wheeler at highway speeds, the first assumption is often that the smaller vehicle was at fault. But in cases I’ve worked on, that assumption doesn’t always hold up under scrutiny. The more important question is whether the truck was clearly visible and lawfully positioned in the lane at the time of the crash.

Rear-end collisions involving trucks often come down to visibility—or the lack of it. If the truck had non-functioning taillights, minimal reflective tape, or was moving unusually slowly without warning, then even a fully attentive driver may not have had time to avoid a crash.

Investigators should focus on:

• Whether the Freightliner was moving or stationary at the time of impact, and if stationary, whether it had proper warning devices deployed;
• The truck’s lighting and reflectivity, especially under low-light nighttime conditions;
• ECM data from the truck, which could show whether it was braking, accelerating, or idling at the time of impact;
• Whether traffic in the area was congested, requiring slower speeds or sudden stops;
• Any evidence of distraction, fatigue, or impairment affecting either driver.

In one past case I handled, a truck was technically “moving” but had slowed to a crawl due to a mechanical issue—and had no hazard lights or warning triangles deployed. The result was nearly identical to a stopped vehicle in a live lane. The key distinction wasn’t who hit whom—it was whether the truck presented a foreseeable hazard that the driver of the trailing vehicle couldn’t have reasonably avoided.

Key Takeaways:

• Rear-end crashes involving trucks may still involve liability on the part of the truck driver or carrier if visibility was compromised.
• The truck’s speed, lighting, and use of hazard signals will be central to understanding whether the pickup driver had a fair chance to react.
• ECM and physical evidence will clarify the truck’s position and behavior before the crash.
• Time of day and roadway lighting are critical in assessing how visible the truck truly was.
• Determining accountability requires looking beyond who struck whom—and focusing instead on what each party did to prevent a collision.