Madera County, CA — December 31, 2025, Isabella Nevarez and one other person were killed and three others were injured in a truck accident at about 11 a.m. on Road 23 near Madera.

Authorities said a Honda CR-V was heading west on Avenue 13 when it collided with a semi-truck hauling two trailers. The SUV overturned in the shoulder after the crash.

Two passengers in the Honda, 21-year-old Isabella Marlene Nevarez and a man whose name has not been made public yet, were pronounced dead at the scene of the crash, according to authorities.

The driver and two other passengers were hospitalized with moderate to major injuries, authorities said.

The truck driver was not injured, according to authorities.

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

Commentary by Attorney Michael Grossman

When people read about a crash like the one in Madera County that left two dead and three others hurt, they naturally want to know: How did this happen? Was the truck at fault? Did the SUV cause the collision? Are we getting the whole story?

At this point, the public statements don’t give us enough to draw conclusions. We know a semi-truck hauling two trailers and an SUV collided, resulting in catastrophic consequences for those in the SUV. But that’s about all we know, and that leaves some major questions unanswered.

For instance, it’s not clear who hit whom. Did the SUV pull into the truck’s path, or did the truck drift out of its lane? Was the truck turning or crossing through traffic? Depending on whether the truck was in motion, stopped or making a maneuver, very different questions arise about who might be responsible.

In order to figure that out, we’d need to examine what objective evidence exists. Did the truck have a dash camera or in-cab video system? Was the engine control module (the “black box”) downloaded to determine how fast the truck was going, when the brakes were applied or whether the driver tried to steer away? Was the trucker on his phone, fatigued or distracted in some other way? The only way to know is to pull his call logs and electronic logging device data.

On top of that, there’s a question of whether the truck itself was being operated responsibly. What were the trucking company’s hiring and training policies? Was this a competent, well-vetted driver or someone the company hired without properly evaluating? I’ve had cases where companies ran 20-minute test drives and called it “training,” even though they were putting drivers behind the wheel of 80,000-pound vehicles.

There’s also the issue of vehicle positioning. The report says the SUV “overturned in the shoulder,” but doesn’t say whether the truck veered into the SUV’s path or vice versa. If there was a center-line crossover, that puts heavy scrutiny on the truck driver. But if the SUV made an improper movement, then the fault might lie there. Again, the only way to answer these questions is through a real investigation that goes beyond what’s in the police press release.

To the public, these crashes often seem straightforward. But in my experience, they almost never are. The difference between assumption and accountability is the evidence; and that means every available tool, from ECM data to hiring records, has to be put under the microscope.

Key Takeaways:

• It’s still unclear which vehicle caused the collision; available reports leave critical facts unanswered.
• Objective evidence like dash cam footage, ECM data and cell phone records will be key to understanding what really happened.
• Investigators should examine not just the crash scene but also the truck driver’s training, driving history and the company’s hiring practices.
• The SUV’s final position on the shoulder raises questions about vehicle movements and point of impact that still need to be answered.
• Without a thorough investigation, it’s impossible to say who’s responsible, but the tools to find out are readily available.