Southlake, TX — January 10, 2026, Trevon Hudlun lost his life due to a pedestrian versus truck accident at approximately 4:00 a.m. along S.H. 114.

According to authorities, 25-year-old Trevon Hudlun was traveling in a motor vehicle on S.H. 114 in the vicinity of Carroll Avenue when the accident took place.

Officials indicate that, for as yet unknown reasons, the vehicle was involved in a single-vehicle collision. After the collision, Hudlun apparently exited the vehicle and was attempting to cross the westbound lanes of the highway. There, however, reports state that he was struck by an 18-wheeler.

Hudlun —who had reportedly sustained fatal injuries due to the collision—was declared deceased at the scene. 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 someone survives a crash only to be struck and killed moments later, that raises serious questions—not just about what happened, but about what could have been done to prevent the second, fatal event. In this case, Trevon Hudlun was reportedly involved in a single-vehicle crash, exited his vehicle, and was then struck by an 18-wheeler while trying to cross the highway. That sequence suggests a situation made worse by poor visibility, limited reaction time, and possibly a breakdown in basic post-crash safety protocols.

We still don’t know why the initial crash occurred. But even more pressing is the question of how and why Mr. Hudlun ended up on foot in the path of oncoming traffic—and whether the truck driver had any realistic opportunity to avoid hitting him.

There are several critical points investigators should examine:

• Was the highway properly lit in that area? At 4:00 a.m., visibility is naturally low, and pedestrian presence on a highway is unexpected. If lighting was inadequate, even a fully attentive truck driver may not have had time to react.
• Was the truck speeding, distracted, or fatigued? Cell phone records, dash cams, and ECM data can help determine whether the driver was operating responsibly at the time of the crash.
• Did the victim attempt to cross at a dangerous point? High-speed, limited-access roads like S.H. 114 are not designed for pedestrian crossings. The presence or absence of barriers, shoulders, or embankments matters in determining how and where someone on foot might try to move across lanes.
• Did the truck take any evasive action? Skid marks, swerving patterns, and impact points can indicate whether the driver tried to avoid the collision or never saw the pedestrian at all.

I've handled cases where secondary collisions like this one were made worse by a lack of visibility, a delayed 911 response, or even by other drivers not recognizing that a wrecked vehicle meant someone might be nearby on foot. Truck drivers are trained to expect the unexpected, but they're also operating massive vehicles at high speeds—so their ability to avoid a pedestrian in a darkened roadway can be severely limited.

Still, that doesn’t excuse failing to see someone in the road—if they were visible. That’s why the physical evidence matters so much. This is one of those rare cases where both the initial crash and the response to it may need to be viewed as part of the same investigative picture.

Key Takeaways:

• The pedestrian was reportedly struck after exiting his vehicle following a crash, raising questions about visibility and driver awareness.
• It remains unclear whether the truck driver had any opportunity to avoid the collision or took evasive action.
• Evidence like ECM data, dash cams, lighting conditions, and roadway design will be central to determining fault.
• Highway pedestrian deaths often involve a mix of unpredictable behavior and preventable oversight.
• A full investigation must consider both the circumstances of the initial crash and the chain of events that followed.