Asheville, NC — January 22, 2026, one person was injured due to a truck accident shortly before 6:00 a.m. along Interstate Highway 40.

According to authorities, one person was an occupant in an east-facing vehicle that was stopped due to apparent mechanical difficulties in the eastbound lanes of I-40 in the vicinity of the exit for Smokey Park Highway when the accident took place.

Officials indicate that, for as yet unknonwn reaons, the stalled vehicle was rear-ended by an eastbound 18-wheeler. The person who had been in the pasenger car reporteldy sustained injuries of unknown severity—though they were apparently non-life-threatening—due to the collision. They were taken to an area medical facility by EMS in order to receive necessary treatment.

Additional details pertaining to this incident—including the identity of the victim—are not available at this point in time. The investigation is currently ongoing.

Commentary by Attorney Michael Grossman

When a passenger vehicle stalls on the interstate and is subsequently rear-ended by an 18-wheeler, the central question becomes whether the truck driver had a realistic opportunity to avoid the collision. A disabled vehicle in an active lane of travel presents a serious hazard—but professional drivers are trained to scan far ahead and react to stopped traffic, especially in early-morning hours when visibility may be reduced and reaction time becomes even more critical.

In situations like this, the outcome often depends on how long the vehicle had been stopped, whether it had hazard lights activated, and how quickly the truck driver was able to detect and respond to the obstruction. Investigators will need to focus on:

• ECM (black box) data from the truck, showing speed, throttle position, and braking activity in the seconds leading up to the impact;
• Whether the stalled vehicle had hazard lights or flares activated, and how visible it would have been to a driver approaching at highway speeds;
• Lighting and weather conditions, especially given the timing of the crash just before dawn;
• Whether the truck driver was fatigued or distracted, reducing awareness of hazards in the roadway;
• How long the vehicle had been stopped, which could affect both visibility and the legal analysis of whether the driver of the truck had sufficient warning.

I’ve worked on cases where drivers failed to recognize stalled vehicles in time because they weren’t actively scanning the road ahead, and in others where a breakdown occurred around a blind curve or low-visibility zone, making a crash all but unavoidable. The difference between those cases isn’t luck—it’s evidence.

Key Takeaways:

• The critical issue is whether the truck driver had a chance to detect and avoid the stalled vehicle.
• ECM data and roadway conditions will help determine whether the driver's response met the standard of care.
• Visibility and hazard signaling from the stalled vehicle may factor into questions of shared responsibility.
• Early morning timing raises concerns about driver alertness and reaction time.
• Even when a vehicle is stopped in an active lane, commercial drivers are expected to anticipate and respond to potential hazards.