Fayette County, PA — November 10, 2025, three people were killed in a truck accident at about 5:30 p.m. on U.S. Route 40 near Markleysburg.

Authorities said an eastbound semi-truck crashed into a Ford pickup after crossing into the westbound lanes near Dark Hollow Road. The pickup also collided head-on a Chevrolet Express van.

The semi driver, the pickup driver and a passenger in the van died at the scene of the Henry Clay Township crash, according to authorities. Their names have not been made public yet.

Five other people in the van were hospitalized with unspecified injuries after the crash, authorities said.

Authorities have not released any additional information about the Fayette County crash at this time.

Commentary by Attorney Mike Grossman

When people hear about a crash like this, where an 18-wheeler reportedly veered into oncoming traffic, killing three and injuring several more, the natural reaction is to wonder: How could something like this happen? A semi-truck crossing into opposing lanes isn’t just a mistake; it’s a catastrophic breakdown in either human judgment, mechanical function or company oversight. Maybe all three.

At this point, officials have said that an eastbound truck crossed over into the westbound lanes, crashing head-on into a pickup, which then collided with a van. But what they haven’t said is why the truck left its lane in the first place. That’s the critical piece of information that will determine where accountability lies. And as is often the case, we’re not getting that answer, at least not yet.

Was the truck driver distracted or fatigued? Was there a medical issue? Was the truck improperly maintained? Was another vehicle involved that caused the truck to swerve? These are not small details. They’re the foundation for understanding whether this was the result of personal negligence, company failure or both. Without answers, speculation runs the risk of missing who actually bears responsibility.

This is exactly why truck crash investigations need to go far beyond the accident report. For example:

• Did the truck have an engine control module (“black box”) that recorded its speed, steering and braking right before the crash?
• Were there in-cab cameras running that could show what the driver was doing at the time?
• Was the driver using a cell phone or radio?
• What do the truck’s maintenance and inspection logs show?

And perhaps more important than anything else: What kind of vetting and training did the trucking company provide this driver? In past cases I’ve handled, it’s not unusual to find that a company handed the keys to someone with a spotty driving record, minimal training or even prior terminations from other jobs. When that’s the case, the crash starts to look less like a random tragedy and more like the outcome of decisions that were always bound to end badly.

There are still a lot of unanswered questions about this crash, including whether the truck was in motion at the time it crossed over, whether weather or road conditions were a factor and how much time the pickup and van drivers had to react. But until someone gets access to the truck’s data, the driver’s logs and the company’s records, we’re just working with surface-level information.

Key Takeaways:

• The central question — why the truck crossed into oncoming traffic — remains unanswered and will determine where accountability lies.
• Critical evidence includes ECM (“black box”) data, in-cab camera footage, driver cell phone records and maintenance logs.
• A thorough investigation must examine both driver behavior and the trucking company’s hiring and oversight practices.
• Public reports alone rarely explain the full picture. Real answers require independent investigation.
• Accountability depends on facts, not assumptions, especially in complex multi-vehicle crashes like this one.