Utah couple flown to hospital after semi-truck crashes through Wellington home
WELLINGTON, Utah () — A Utah couple was flown to a hospital after a semi-truck carrying a tanker full of crude oil crashed through their home on Monday morning.
Lt. Cameron Roden, Utah Highway Patrol, confirmed with ABC4.com that the incident happened just after 6 a.m. on May 12. The commercial semi had left the roadway, crashing through six cars that were parked at a nearby auto repair shop.
The semi-truck continued its path, plowing through a utility pole, a fire hydrant, fencing and an open field before crashing and coming to a stop in a home occupied by an elderly couple and a 12-year-old boy.
The elderly couple, who have not been identified, were reportedly taken to a local area hospital but were flown to another hospital for further care. The extent of the injuries is currently unclear. The 12-year-old, who was asleep in the front room, was uninjured but taken to the hospital as a precaution, according to Lt. Roden.
The two occupants of the semi-truck were also taken to the hospital. Lt. Roden said one occupant suffered serious injuries while the other suffered low-to-moderate injuries.
Images and a video shared with ABC4 by a viewer show the crude oil tanker extending from the home with power lines draped over it.
It is currently unclear what caused the semi-truck to leave the roadway and crash into the home. Utah Highway Patrol is on scene investigating and clearing the crash.
Crews with Rocky Mountain Power are also on scene working to restore power to the area. According to the , nine customers in the area were impacted by power loss following the crash. The power company estimates power to be fully restored by Monday afternoon.
Keeping hydration delicious and effective
Utah couple flown to hospital after semi-truck crashes through Wellington home
CBO: House GOP plan exceeds $880B savings target
Trump signs executive order aimed at slashing prescription drug costs
St. George suspects work 'in concert' in VASA purse theft
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Tensions erupt in Congress over vote to condemn Boulder attack
What would otherwise be an uncontroversial congressional vote to denounce the Boulder attack is devolving into a contentious partisan feud, Axios has learned. Why it matters: Language praising ICE and labeling "Free Palestine" an "antisemitic slogan" are sparking fury from some Democrats, who see the provisions as a GOP maneuver to force them into a difficult vote. "It's sheer politics," said one senior House Democrat, speaking on the condition of anonymity to offer candid thoughts about a sensitive vote. A second senior House Democrat told Axios: "It's unfortunate that they're using a serious antisemitic terrorist attack as a wedge opportunity to divide Democrats. They knew what they were doing adding something like that in there." "Nice little catch to put Democrats on the board," vented a third House Democrat. State of play: At least 15 people and one dog were injured last week in Boulder, Colo., when a suspect allegedly yelled "Free Palestine" as he threw Molotov cocktails at demonstrators advocating the release of hostages held by Hamas. Rep. Gabe Evans (R-Colo.), along with his fellow Colorado Republicans, have introduced a three-page resolution denouncing the attack, which is scheduled to be voted on next week. The measure labels "Free Palestine" an "antisemitic slogan that calls for the destruction of the state of Israel and the Jewish people." "It's more than unfortunate," the second senior House Democrat said of that clause. "It's very f***ed up." Between the lines: A senior House progressive, asked by Axios whether some of the more pro-Palestinian House Democrats will have an issue with the language in the measure, replied, "Yes." Senior aides to several other progressive House Democrats said their bosses were still mulling how to vote on the bill as of Saturday — with some acknowledging that it will be difficult either way. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), asked about the measure on Friday, told Axios: "I haven't seen the resolution yet." "It's being worked," the first senior House Democrat told Axios of party leadership's internal deliberations around the bill. Yes, but: The language is not likely to stop some of the most pro-Israel House Democrats from voting for the legislation. The second House Democrat who spoke on the condition of anonymity told Axios, "If there's a resolution condemning Boulder, I'm going to vote for that." Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) said "Free Palestine" should "mean liberating Palestinians from the oppression of Hamas. Instead, it has come to signify something far more sinister: the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state." "Free Palestine certainly isn't good Shabbos," is how Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), a Jewish progressive, put it. Zoom in: The "Free Palestine" language is not the only wrinkle for Democrats in the measure — it also expresses "gratitude" to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for "protecting the homeland." That's another provision that some Democratic offices have raised objections to in discussions with leadership, multiple sources told Axios. Democrats have faced rising tensions with ICE in recent months as the agency has carried out the Trump administration's deportation campaign. Zoom out: This would be far from the first time House Democrats have been divided on a vote around antisemitism and Israel. The caucus split almost evenly on the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which, to the frustration of Democrats, codified a definition of antisemitism that included some criticisms of Israel. They have also frequently been divided on votes around supporting and providing aid to Israel amid their ongoing war with Hamas. Democrats believe a bipartisan measure condemning the Boulder attack — introduced by Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) and co-sponsored by Reps. Jeff Crank (R-Colo.) and Jeff Hurd (R-Colo.) — should be the one going to a vote.
Atlantic
2 hours ago
- Atlantic
Musk and Trump Still Agree on One Thing
Far be it from me to judge anyone enjoying the feud between Donald Trump and his benefactor Elon Musk over Trump's signature legislation, the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act. But in the conflict between the president and the world's richest man, the public is the most likely loser. Four days ago, Musk described the bill as 'disgusting,' 'pork-filled,' and an 'abomination.' He also suggested that Trump was ungrateful, claiming that Republicans would have lost the 2024 election without all the money he had spent supporting GOP candidates. Trump fired back in a post on his network, Truth Social, saying, 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts.' Musk then accused Trump of being in 'the Epstein files,' referring to the late financier and sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein, whom both men have ties to. Musk later deleted that post, as well as another calling for Trump's impeachment. If all this seems painfully stupid, it is, and it was all made possible by the erosion of American democracy. The underlying issues, however, are significant despite the surreal nature of the exchange. As it happens, Trump and Musk's dueling criticisms are each, in their own ways, at least partially valid. The bill is an abomination, although not because it's 'pork-filled.' And much of Musk's wealth does come from the federal government, which he has spent the past few months trying to dismantle while preserving his own subsidies. According to Axios, among other things, Musk was angry that the bill cuts the electric-vehicle tax credit, which will hurt the bottom line of his electric-car company, Tesla. But neither billionaire—one the president of the United States and the other a major financial benefactor to the president's party—opposes the bill for what makes it a monstrosity: that it redistributes taxpayer dollars to the richest people in the country by slashing benefits for the middle class, the poor, and everyone in between. The ability of a few wealthy people to manipulate the system to this extent—leaving two tycoons who possess the emotional register of toddlers with the power to impoverish most of the country, to their own benefit, speaks ill of the health of American democracy, regardless of the outcome. Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' would make the largest cuts to food assistance for the poor in history, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, eliminating $300 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program at a time when inflation is still straining family budgets. Some 15 million Americans would become uninsured because of the bill's cuts to Medicaid, also the largest reductions to that program in history, and because of cuts to the Affordable Care Act. The CBPP estimates that about '22 million people, including 3 million small business owners and self-employed workers, will see their health coverage costs skyrocket or lose coverage altogether.' Not everyone would suffer, however, as the bill does offer significant tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America while adding trillions of dollars to the national debt. Whatever meager benefits there are to everyone else would likely be eaten up by the increase in the cost of food and health care caused by the benefit cuts. Charlie Warzel: The Super Bowl of internet beefs For all the insults flying between Trump and Musk, they are both fine with taking from those who have little and giving generously to those who have more than they could ever need. For years, commentators have talked about how Trump reshaped the Republican Party in the populist mold. Indeed, Trumpism has seen Republicans abandon many of their publicly held commitments. The GOP says it champions fiscal discipline while growing the debt at every opportunity. It talks about individual merit while endorsing discrimination against groups based on gender, race, national origin, and sexual orientation. It blathers about free speech while using state power to engage in the most sweeping national-censorship campaign since the Red Scare. Republicans warn us about the 'weaponization' of the legal system while seeking to prosecute critics for political crimes and deporting apparently innocent people to Gulags without a shred of due process. The GOP venerates Christianity while engaging in the kind of performative cruelty early Christians associated with paganism. It preaches family values while destroying families it refuses to recognize as such.
The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
GOP downplays Trump-Musk feud's impact on midterms
Republicans are downplaying concerns that the feud between President Trump and Elon Musk will hamper the party's chances of defending their majorities in the House and the Senate next year. In the midst of the escalating war of words on Thursday, Musk claimed Trump would not have won the White House without him last year and floated the idea of launching a third party. Musk has also threatened to use his financial war chest and platform to challenge Republicans backing Trump's legislative agenda. However, many Republicans say Trump's influence within the party is strong enough to withstand any kind of political challenge from Musk. Others even say they still think Musk is a part of their team. 'I think if you're a Republican in a primary and you have Trump's support and Elon's opposition, you're going to be okay,' said Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), adding that the president would eclipse Musk 'by a 10 or 100-fold.' Musk notably took credit for Trump's White House during his keyboard war with Trump on Thursday, claiming Democrats would control the House and hold a 51 to 49 majority in the Senate. The billionaire was the single largest donor in the 2024 general election, spending nearly $300 million. Musk's political action committee, America PAC, supported Trump and a number of Republicans running in key congressional races. The PAC has remained active during Trump's second administration, spending over $18 million in a closely watched race for a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat. The group has also promoted Trump's work this cycle, releasing its first television ad following Trump's joint address to Congress earlier this year. But despite the resources poured into Wisconsin, the Democratic-backed candidate won the court seat in what was described by critics as an embarrassment for Musk. America PAC spent millions in 18 competitive House races. Ten of the PAC's backed GOP House candidates won their elections, while the other 8 lost. 'America PAC spent $20 million on House races but none of that was super consequential— none of it was on TV, just digital and canvassing,' said one national Republican operative, who noted Musk was still on the GOP 'team.' Speaker Mike Johnson called Musk 'a big contributor in the last election' in an interview on CNBC's 'Squawk Box' on Friday, but said it was ultimately 'a whole team effort.' 'I mean, President Trump is the most consequential political figure of his generation, of modern American history. He is the one responsible for that,' Johnson said. 'But we all worked hard. We delivered the House majority. I traveled the country nonstop. I did over 360 campaign events in 250 cities and 40 states, and I logged enough miles last year to circle the globe five and a half times. I mean, I contributed to it as well. All of our House Republicans did.' Democrats have spent much of the first half of this year making Musk a boogeyman of sorts, painting him as out of touch with most Americans. The feud between Trump and Musk does not appear to be changing that strategy going into the midterms. 'Democrats are going to win by highlighting the fact that Republicans are failing at lowering costs because they are too busy pushing tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy and big corporations, while making the rest of us pay for them,' said Viet Shelton, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. 'Elon is, and forever will be, an instantly-recognizable manifestation of the fact that House Republicans don't work for the American people, they work for the billionaires.' Some Republicans remain weary of Musk, noting his massive online following that is made up of over 220 million followers on his platform X. Musk's views on the debt are widely shared by fiscally conservative voters. 'If Musk makes the national debt and deficit his defining issue and starts backing candidates who share that focus, it could create a real fracture inside the GOP. Trump's economic agenda has never been about fiscal restraint,' said a former White House communications aide who worked in the first Trump administration. 'If Musk begins channeling serious money into candidates who want to draw a hard line on spending and debt, you could see a Freedom Caucus 2.0 emerge — this time with financial firepower and a mandate to push back on Trump and Speaker Johnson's spending ambitions,' the aide said. But Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), a member of the House Freedom Caucus, threw cold water on the notion that the feud could jeopardize Republicans in the midterms. 'No, I don't think so. Now everybody's got to decide that. We all have one vote and we'll see,' Norman told The Hill. 'But I hope he keeps doing what he's doing and the team of people he put together, I want to do it statewide. Each state, I would do just what he's done with the federal government,' he added, referring to Musk's leadership at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). DOGE Subcommittee Chair Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) noted the importance of all of Trump's 2024 donors and supporters, including Musk, but suggested the two take their feud offline. 'I think every single American that voted for us deserves credit and Elon Musk is one vote,' Greene told reporters. 'I've said that every single vote and every single donor matters whether they've donated a dollar or hundreds of millions of dollars.' 'I don't think lashing out on the internet is the way to handle any kind of disagreement, especially when you have each other's cell phones,' she said. –Alex Gangitano and Emily Brooks contributed.
