Ford F-250 Wrongful Death Lawsuit Settlement, Roy “Mack” Irwin Case Settled Before Trial in Texas

The family of Roy “Mack” Irwin, a 79-year-old New Braunfels, Texas, man who died after being run over by his 2023 Ford F-250, has settled a wrongful-death lawsuit against Ford Motor Company, the Bluebonnet Ford dealership and an automotive-accessory business, according to an October 15, 2026 San Antonio Express-News report. The settlement amounts have not been disclosed, and the trial that had been set for the week of October 12, 2026 did not go forward.

Irwin died on June 18, 2024. His daughter, Shelby Lane Reynolds, alleged the truck began moving even though he believed it was in Park, and that a defective transmission, inadequate dealer servicing and an aftermarket grille guard contributed to his death. The defendants denied the allegations. No verdict or court finding of defect was reported.

This is an individual lawsuit, not a class action. There is no settlement website, public claim form or claim deadline for other Ford F-250 owners.

Quick Facts: Roy Irwin Ford F-250 Lawsuit

Detail	Information
Official settlement website	None. Private case with no settlement site
Claim form	None. No claim form link exists
Decedent	Roy “Mack” Irwin, 79
Plaintiff	Shelby Lane Reynolds, his daughter
Vehicle	2023 Ford F-250 Super Duty
Incident	June 18, 2024, New Braunfels, Texas
Defendants (per reporting)	Ford Motor Company; Bluebonnet Ford/Kahlig Enterprises; NAW-Northwest Automotive Warehouse Inc.
Court	State district court in Bexar County, Texas
Case caption and cause number	Not independently verified from the court record
Main allegations	Defective transmission, failure to warn, negligent dealer servicing, aftermarket grille guard interfering with pedestrian detection
Amount originally sought	More than $75,000 (described by plaintiff’s attorney as the minimum jurisdictional amount, not the claim’s full value)
Settlement status	Settlements reported before trial
Settlement amounts	Not disclosed
Final dismissal orders	Not visible on the court website as of the afternoon of October 15 (per the report)

What Happened on June 18, 2024

According to the lawsuit and related reporting, Irwin drove his 2023 F-250 to a friend’s home in New Braunfels. The complaint alleges he shifted into Park and got out while the engine was running and the air conditioning was on, with his partner in the front passenger seat. The truck allegedly moved forward and backward, then rolled backward faster, and Irwin tried to get back into the driver’s seat.

A police report described in the news coverage said Irwin lost his footing and was pulled under the front driver’s-side wheel. He suffered fatal head and torso injuries, and his death certificate reportedly lists blunt-force trauma. These are the lawsuit’s allegations and press accounts, not judicial findings about the mechanical cause.

What the Lawsuit Alleged

Ford: Transmission Defect and Failure to Warn

Reynolds alleged the truck had a defective transmission that could allow unintended movement when the selector appeared to be in Park, and that Ford should have designed a system to alert the driver if Park was not securely engaged.

Bluebonnet Ford: Servicing and Repair

The complaint reportedly alleged the truck had earlier been taken to Bluebonnet Ford because it would not stay in Park, and that the dealership failed to fix the problem or warn Irwin it remained unresolved. Ford and Bluebonnet denied the allegations, argued the truck met federal safety standards and that Irwin bore some responsibility. Bluebonnet also asserted protection as a non-manufacturing seller.

NAW-Northwest Automotive Warehouse: Grille Guard

The San Antonio accessory business was accused of installing an aftermarket grille guard that allegedly interfered with the pedestrian-detection or pre-collision system, limiting its ability to detect pedestrians or activate automatic braking. The company generally denied the allegations and argued damages should be apportioned among responsible parties.

The grille guard theory is separate from the transmission theory, and the settlement does not establish that either caused the death.

How the Case Settled

Defendant	Reported development
NAW-Northwest Automotive Warehouse	Separate settlement in June 2026; dismissal with prejudice requested
Ford and Bluebonnet Ford	Jointly told the court on July 31, 2026 that they had settled all disputes and asked for dismissal
Court status, October 15, 2026	No dismissal orders yet visible on the court website
Amounts	Not disclosed

An agreement to settle and a dismissal order are different. The case stays open on the docket until the judge enters the required orders. These dates come from newspaper reporting and should be checked against the official docket.

Did Ford admit the F-250 was defective? No admission has been verified. Ford denied the allegations, and settlement terms are not public. How much did Ford pay? Unknown. The “more than $75,000” figure was the minimum jurisdictional amount in the petition, not the settlement.

Texas Law Behind the Case

This is general legal information about the Texas laws typically involved. The settlement agreements, not these statutes, control the outcome here.

Product Liability (Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 82)

• § 82.001: Defines a products liability action, covering claims for personal injury or death allegedly caused by a defective product, whether based on strict liability, negligence or other theories.
• § 82.005 (design defect): A claimant generally must prove a safer alternative design existed that would have prevented or significantly reduced the risk without impairing the product’s usefulness, and that the defect was a producing cause of the harm. See also Timpte Industries, Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. 2009), and Hernandez v. Tokai Corp., 2 S.W.3d 251 (Tex. 1999).
• § 82.008 (compliance with government standards): Compliance with mandatory federal safety standards creates a rebuttable presumption that the manufacturer is not liable for the risk those standards address. This is why a defendant’s argument that a truck met federal standards matters, though the presumption can be rebutted.
• Failure to warn: Claims typically require that the manufacturer knew or should have known of a risk and failed to give adequate warnings or instructions.

Dealer Liability (§ 82.003)

A non-manufacturing seller is generally not liable for harm caused by a product unless an exception applies, such as participating in the design, altering or modifying the product, installing it, or actual knowledge of the defect when it supplied the product. A seller’s own negligence in repair work raises separate questions from product sale, which is why the servicing allegations against the dealership were analyzed differently. Under § 82.002, a manufacturer generally must indemnify an innocent seller against product-liability losses, which can affect how defendants share costs.

Wrongful Death and Survival (Chapter 71)

• § 71.002: Creates a cause of action for a death caused by another’s wrongful act, neglect, carelessness, unskillfulness or default.
• § 71.004: The action is for the exclusive benefit of the surviving spouse, children and parents, and may be brought by one of them or by the personal representative of the estate.
• § 71.021: Preserves a decedent’s own claims (a survival action) for the estate, such as medical and funeral expenses and the decedent’s pain before death.
• § 71.009: Allows exemplary damages in wrongful-death cases for willful acts or omissions or gross negligence.

Proportionate Responsibility (Chapter 33)

Texas assigns percentages of responsibility among the claimant, defendants, settling persons and designated responsible third parties (§§ 33.003, 33.004). A claimant who is more than 50 percent responsible cannot recover damages (§ 33.001), and a defendant is jointly and severally liable only if more than 50 percent responsible (§ 33.013). A non-settling defendant generally receives a credit for the settlements of others (§ 33.012). This is why the defendants’ arguments that Irwin and other parties shared responsibility mattered.

Texas Transportation Code § 545.404 also addresses leaving a vehicle unattended, including stopping the engine, setting the brake and removing the key, and defendants can raise such statutes when arguing comparative responsibility. Whether it was raised here has not been verified.

Exemplary Damages (Chapter 41)

Exemplary damages require clear and convincing evidence of fraud, malice or gross negligence (§ 41.003) and are capped under § 41.008 at the greater of (a) twice economic damages plus noneconomic damages up to $750,000, or (b) $200,000. Texas has no general cap on compensatory damages in this type of case.

Time Limits

• Two years: Wrongful-death and personal injury claims generally must be filed within two years (CPRC § 16.003). Wrongful death runs from the date of death. Irwin died June 18, 2024, and the lawsuit was reportedly filed by January 10, 2025.
• Fifteen-year repose: Product claims against manufacturers and sellers are generally barred 15 years after the product was sold, unless exceptions apply (§ 16.012).

Federal Vehicle Safety Law

• National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. § 30101 et seq.): Requires manufacturers to notify NHTSA and owners and to remedy safety-related defects through recalls (§§ 30118-30120).
• FMVSS 114 (49 C.F.R. § 571.114): Addresses theft protection and rollaway prevention, including requirements tied to key removal and the Park position in vehicles with automatic transmissions.
• Pedestrian emergency braking: NHTSA adopted FMVSS 127 for automatic emergency braking in 2024, with a phase-in period. Whether and when it applies to a heavier truck such as an F-250 depends on the vehicle’s weight rating and the compliance dates, so it should not be assumed to have applied to this 2023 truck.
• Preemption: Compliance with a federal standard does not always bar state tort claims. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000), and Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., 562 U.S. 323 (2011).

Settlements and Confidentiality

Settlements are generally enforceable contracts, and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 11 governs agreements between parties in pending cases. Terms are often confidential, and a case is typically closed by a dismissal with prejudice, which bars the same claims from being refiled. Settling parties may also be shielded from further liability to the extent of the release, while a non-settling party can claim a settlement credit under Chapter 33.

Does the Settlement Mean Other F-250 Trucks Are Defective?

Not by itself. A settlement over one vehicle and one set of facts does not establish that all 2023 F-250 trucks have a defective transmission, and it does not order a recall. Whether the issue was the transmission, dealer repairs, the grille guard or something else would normally require inspection of the vehicle, maintenance records and expert evidence. No recall arising from this case has been identified.

Check Your Own Truck

• Look up recalls by VIN at NHTSA’s recall page. Ford Safety Recall 23S06 covered certain 2022-2023 Bronco, Explorer, F-150 and Mustang vehicles and the 2023 Lincoln Aviator, and its listed vehicles did not include the F-250. Do not assume a recall for another model applies to your truck.
• If the truck will not stay in Park or moves unexpectedly, treat it as a serious safety issue. Use the parking brake, avoid relying on the gear selector alone, and arrange a professional inspection promptly.
• Report suspected defects to NHTSA through its vehicle safety complaint portal.
• Keep records: repair orders, invoices, warranty communications and recall notices.

If you suspect a defect caused an injury or death, an independent mechanical inspection and a qualified product-liability attorney can assess your situation. Another family’s settlement does not create eligibility for compensation in your matter, so do not send personal information to anyone claiming this settlement entitles all F-250 owners to payment.

Related coverage: Ford F-150 Lift Kit Wrongful Death Lawsuit, Holloway Family Sues Courtesy Ford, Installer and Lift-Kit Companies (a separate Georgia case).

Key Dates

Date	Event
June 18, 2024	Roy “Mack” Irwin dies after being run over by his 2023 F-250
January 10, 2025	Express-News reports the lawsuit against Ford, Bluebonnet Ford and an accessory business
June 2026	Reported separate settlement with NAW-Northwest Automotive Warehouse
July 31, 2026	Reynolds, Ford and the dealership tell the court they settled and request dismissal
Week of October 12, 2026	Trial scheduled, averted by settlement
October 15, 2026	Express-News reports the settlements; dismissal orders not yet visible
Final dismissal orders, cause number	Not independently verified

FAQs About the Ford F-250 Wrongful Death Settlement

Was the lawsuit settled?

Yes, according to the October 15, 2026 Express-News report. Amounts were not disclosed, and final dismissal orders had not been confirmed.

How much did Ford pay?

Unknown. The “more than $75,000” figure was the minimum jurisdictional amount, not the settlement.

Did Ford admit the F-250 was defective?

No admission has been verified. Ford denied the allegations.

Can other F-250 owners join the lawsuit or claim money?

No. It was an individual case with no class, public fund or claim form.

Did the court order a recall?

No recall order from this case has been identified. A civil settlement does not automatically require a recall.

Who was sued?

Ford Motor Company, Bluebonnet Ford/Kahlig Enterprises and NAW-Northwest Automotive Warehouse Inc.

Could the dealership be liable under Texas law?

Under CPRC § 82.003, a non-manufacturing seller is generally protected from product claims unless an exception applies, but allegations of negligent repair raise separate issues. No ruling on this was reported.

What deadline applies to a Texas wrongful-death claim?

Generally two years from the date of death (CPRC § 16.003), with product claims also subject to a 15-year repose period. Consult a Texas attorney about your facts.

Who can bring a wrongful-death claim in Texas?

The surviving spouse, children or parents, or the estate’s personal representative on their behalf (CPRC § 71.004).

What should an owner do if a truck won’t stay in Park?

Treat it as a safety issue, get a professional inspection, check the VIN for recalls and report the problem to NHTSA.

Sources and Official Legal References

1. San Antonio Express-News, October 15, 2026 report on the settlements: https://www.expressnews.com/business/article/ford-pickup-truck-f250-roy-irwin-death-lawsuit-22478150.php
2. Bexar County District Clerk, Justice Information Portal (confirm cause number and dismissal orders): https://portal-txbexar.tylertech.cloud/Portal
3. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 82 (Products Liability): https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/CP/htm/CP.82.htm
4. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 71 (Wrongful Death and Survival): https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/CP/htm/CP.71.htm
5. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapters 16, 33 and 41; Texas Transportation Code § 545.404; Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 11
6. 49 U.S.C. § 30101 et seq.; 49 C.F.R. § 571.114 (FMVSS 114); 49 C.F.R. § 571.127 (FMVSS 127)
7. NHTSA recall lookup: https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls
8. NHTSA, report a vehicle safety problem: https://www.nhtsa.gov/report-a-safety-problem
9. Ford Safety Recall 23S06 (NHTSA, PDF): https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2023/RCMN-23V070-4718.pdf
10. Timpte Industries, Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. 2009); Hernandez v. Tokai Corp., 2 S.W.3d 251 (Tex. 1999); Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000); Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., 562 U.S. 323 (2011)

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. AllAboutLawyer.com is a legal information website, not a law firm. Laws are summarized and may change; consult a licensed Texas attorney about your own situation.