Richland Township, KS — January 20, 2026, Margaret and Marvin Thompson lost their lives due to a truck accident shortly after 5:30 p.m. along SE 20th Street.

According to authorities, 68-year-old Margaret Thompson and 72-year-old Marvin Thompson were traveling in a westbound Chevrolet Malibu on SE 20th Street near the SE 110th Avenue intersection when the accident took place.

Officials indicate that, for as yet unknown reasons, the Malibu veered into the eastbound lane of the roadway. Following that, both the Malibu and an oncoming International 18-wheeler apparently made evasive maneuvers that brought them into the westbound lane. There, there were consequently involved in a head-on collision.

Neither Margaret Thompson nor Marvin Thompson survived the wreck, reports state. It does not appear that anyone else was hurt. 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 two vehicles collide head-on after both attempt evasive maneuvers, the question isn’t just who crossed the center line, but how both drivers responded once things began to go wrong. In this case, officials say the car initially veered out of its lane, but the fact that both it and the 18-wheeler ended up in the same lane suggests a split-second scenario where judgment, reaction time, and road conditions likely played major roles.

For investigators, the critical task is to reconstruct why the car veered, what the truck driver saw, and whether the response from either party made a collision more likely or less avoidable. That doesn’t mean assigning blame blindly—especially when the initial deviation came from the car—but it does mean taking a close look at what options were available to the truck driver once the threat appeared.

Key areas that will need to be examined include:

• ECM data from the truck, including brake pressure, throttle position, and steering input, to understand how the driver reacted;
• Tire marks and vehicle positions, which may indicate whether the truck’s evasive action was necessary—or whether staying in the original lane might have avoided the crash;
• Environmental factors, such as low visibility, sun glare, or narrow shoulders that could have influenced how much time either driver had to react;
• Mechanical condition of the car, in case the veer was caused by a tire blowout or steering failure rather than driver input;
• Any video evidence (dash cams or nearby surveillance), which could clarify whether the truck had enough time to assess the situation before moving.

In past cases I’ve handled involving evasive maneuvers, it’s not uncommon for drivers to make split-second decisions that unintentionally put them on a collision course—especially when both parties instinctively swerve in the same direction. The legal analysis, though, depends on whether that reaction was reasonable given the circumstances.

Even when one vehicle initiates the hazard, investigators still have to ask whether the other driver’s response helped avoid the crash—or accidentally made it worse.

Key Takeaways:

• The collision occurred after both vehicles made evasive moves, raising questions about reaction time and visibility.
• ECM and physical evidence will be key in determining whether the truck driver’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances.
• Investigators must examine whether the car’s initial veer was due to driver error or mechanical failure.
• Split-second decisions often define the outcome in head-on crashes—but the law still evaluates whether those decisions were justified.
• Responsibility in these situations often hinges on whether each driver responded in a way that minimized risk—or unknowingly contributed to it.