Rutherford County, TN — May 28, 2025, Michael Silver was killed and two others were injured in a truck accident sometime in the afternoon along Murfreesboro Road.

According to authorities, 66-year-old Michael Silver and a 41-year-old passenger were traveling in a northbound Ford Fiesta on Fergus Road at the Murfreesboro Road intersection when the accident took place.

The intersection is apparently controlled by a traffic signal. Officials indicate that, for as yet unknown reasons, an eastbound Volvo 18-wheeler that had been traveling on Murfreesboro failed to stop for the red light indicated by the traffic signal. A collision consequently occurred between the Volvo and the Fiesta.

Silver reportedly suffered fatal injuries as a result of the wreck. The person who had been with him in the Ford and the 37-year-old man who had been behind the wheel of the Volvo both sustained injuries of unknown severity, as well.

Preliminary reports say that authorities have recommended charges of vehicular homicide, vehicular assault and driving under the influence against the truck driver. 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 crash involves an 18-wheeler blowing through a red light, people understandably want to know: Was this a momentary lapse or a systemic failure? And when reports suggest impairment, the stakes become even higher—not just for the driver, but potentially for the company that put him behind the wheel.

It’s one thing for a commercial driver to make a poor decision. It’s another for a trucking company to miss—or ignore—clear signs that someone may not be fit to operate a vehicle of that size and danger. That’s where the real accountability questions start. Was this driver properly screened and supervised? Were any prior red flags overlooked? In my experience, impaired driving cases almost never come out of nowhere. They’re usually the result of shortcuts, blind spots, or willful neglect in the hiring or monitoring process.

A thorough investigation here should go far beyond the crash report. What did the driver’s personnel file look like? Was there a pattern of risky behavior? Did the company have a functioning drug and alcohol policy—and was it enforced? Technology may also play a role: many modern trucks are equipped with forward-facing cameras and systems designed to detect erratic driving. If those tools were in place but not acted on, that’s another layer of failure.

I’ve handled cases where all the warning signs were there, but nobody stepped in until it was too late. That’s why these incidents aren’t just about punishing one driver—they’re about finding out whether others enabled the risk that led to this outcome. Accountability has to be built on facts, not assumptions, which is why every piece of evidence matters—from call logs and toxicology reports to company records and internal protocols.

Key Takeaways:

• Allegations of impairment demand a closer look at the trucking company’s hiring, training, and oversight practices.
• Effective investigations examine not only what happened at the crash site, but also what was missed—or ignored—long before.
• In-cab tech and monitoring tools can help prevent crashes, but only if companies use them and respond to warning signs.
• Responsibility may not stop with the driver; systemic failures often play a hidden but decisive role.
• Accountability starts with evidence, and the right questions must be asked to uncover the full chain of events.