
| Insurance System | At-fault |
|---|---|
| Comparative Fault Standard | Modified comparative fault — 51% bar (proportionate responsibility) |
| Personal Injury Statute of Limitations | 2 years from date of accident |
| Property Damage Statute of Limitations | 2 years from date of accident |
| Wrongful Death Statute of Limitations | 2 years from date of death |
| Government Entity Notice Deadline | 6 months from date of incident |
| Minimum Bodily Injury Coverage | $30,000 per person / $60,000 per accident* |
| Minimum Property Damage Coverage | $25,000 per accident* |
| PIP | Automatically offered; must reject in writing to decline |
| Exemplary Damages Cap | Yes — 2x economic damages plus up to $750,000 non-economic, or $200,000, whichever is greater |
*Texas minimum liability coverage (30/60/25) is unchanged and not scheduled to change in 2026. A plaintiff found exactly 50 percent at fault may still recover damages, reduced by half. A plaintiff found 51 percent or more at fault recovers nothing under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 33.001.
Texas operates as an at-fault state, meaning the driver responsible for a crash is financially liable for resulting damages. Injured parties can seek compensation by filing an insurance claim with the at-fault driver's insurer, through their own insurance where applicable, or by filing a lawsuit directly against the at-fault driver.
All drivers operating a vehicle in Texas must carry the following minimum liability coverage, commonly expressed as 30/60/25:
These minimums have been unchanged since 2011. In a serious accident, these minimums can be exhausted quickly, and higher voluntary policy limits are advisable for most drivers.
Texas insurers must automatically offer PIP with every policy. Drivers who do not want it must reject it in writing. If no written rejection is on file, the policy includes PIP. Standard minimum PIP coverage in Texas is $2,500 per person and covers:
PIP applies to the named insured, resident family members, authorized drivers, and passengers. It pays regardless of fault and without waiting for liability to be established.
MedPay is optional in Texas and supplements PIP or health insurance. It covers medical and funeral expenses related to a crash, typically for costs incurred within one year. Unlike PIP, MedPay does not include lost wages or essential services, but it can cover deductibles and co-pays that other policies do not address.
Texas requires insurers to offer UM/UIM coverage, which drivers may decline in writing. UM coverage applies when the at-fault driver has no insurance. UIM coverage applies when the at-fault driver's limits are insufficient to cover your losses. Texas has a significant uninsured driver population, making this optional coverage worth carrying.
For Uber, Lyft, and similar platform drivers, Texas law establishes coverage requirements based on driver status:
Driving without required insurance in Texas carries escalating consequences under Transportation Code Chapter 601:
Texas offers alternative methods of satisfying financial responsibility requirements, including a $55,000 deposit with the state comptroller or county judge, or a certificate of self-insurance for fleets of 25 or more vehicles. These apply to very few drivers.
Texas handles shared fault under a legal framework called proportionate responsibility, codified in Chapter 33 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Under this standard, an injured party can recover damages as long as their percentage of responsibility does not exceed 50 percent. A plaintiff found 51 percent or more at fault recovers nothing. At exactly 50 percent, recovery is allowed but reduced by half.
Compensation is reduced in proportion to the plaintiff's share of fault. If you are found 30 percent responsible and your damages total $100,000, you recover $70,000. If you are found 51 percent responsible for the same vehicle collision, you recover nothing.
Texas calls this system "proportionate responsibility," though it is also commonly referred to as modified comparative negligence in other states and in legal commentary. However, the distinction between terms matters in litigation: insurers and defense attorneys use the Texas statutory language to frame fault arguments, and understanding that the operative threshold is exactly 50 percent, not 49 or 51, shapes how cases are valued and settled.
Texas proportionate responsibility does not always limit defendants to their proportional share. Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 33.013, a defendant found more than 50 percent responsible becomes jointly and severally liable for the entire judgment. This means that in a multi-vehicle crash where one defendant bears the majority of fault, that defendant can be required to pay the full judgment even if other defendants cannot satisfy their shares.
The practical implication for victims in complex crashes is significant. In a crash involving multiple struck vehicles, a defendant whose fault exceeds 50 percent provides a more reliable basis for full recovery than a proportional system that would leave victims dependent on the solvency of multiple defendants.
Texas proportionate responsibility applies equally to crashes involving cyclists and pedestrians, with fault allocated based on each party's conduct. A driver who fails to yield, passes unsafely, or takes a deliberate action that injures a cyclist bears their proportional share of fault, and if that share exceeds 50 percent, joint and several liability applies to the full judgment. When a driver's conduct rises beyond negligence to gross negligence or intentional misconduct, exemplary damages may also be available, addressed in the compensation section below.
Fault is established through police reports, witness statements, dashcam and surveillance footage, physical evidence, medical records, and accident reconstruction analysis in contested complex cases. Insurance adjusters begin their own fault investigation promptly and under Texas's proportionate responsibility system, any evidence of the injured party's own contribution to the crash reduces or eliminates their recovery. Building strong evidence early and careful handling of recorded statements to insurers is correspondingly important.
Passengers are generally not considered at fault and can pursue claims against any at-fault driver involved, including the driver of the vehicle they were traveling in. A passenger whose own conduct contributed to their injury may see their recovery reduced proportionally.
Two legal features distinguish Texas from most other states in ways that matter directly to crash victims today: the joint and several exception to proportionate responsibility covered in the fault section above, and the state's position as a national leader in autonomous vehicle legislation and litigation.
Texas is one of the most permissive states in the country for autonomous vehicle operation. Senate Bill 2205, enacted by the Texas Legislature, established that automated driving systems may operate vehicles on Texas roads without a human driver present, provided the vehicle carries required insurance and meets applicable safety standards. This framework has made Texas, and Austin in particular, a testing and deployment hub for companies including Tesla, Waymo, and others operating autonomous or semi-autonomous systems on public roads.
The presence of these vehicles on Texas roads creates liability questions that standard negligence analysis does not fully resolve. When a self-driving system is involved in a crash, two distinct legal theories typically apply simultaneously.
The first is standard negligence analysis applied to the human driver or fleet operator. When a driver activates an automated system and then fails to monitor the road appropriately, or when a fleet operator deploys a system in conditions it is not designed to handle, their conduct is evaluated under Texas proportionate responsibility rules. A driver who over-relies on a self-driving feature bears their share of fault in any resulting crash.
The second is product liability under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 82. When the automated system itself malfunctioned, was defectively designed, or was marketed in a way that encouraged unsafe reliance, the manufacturer faces product liability exposure independent of the driver's negligence. Texas Chapter 82 applies strict liability standards to product defect claims, meaning the manufacturer's state of mind is not the central question: what matters is whether the product was defective and whether that defect caused the harm.
The practical consequence is that crashes involving autonomous or semi-autonomous systems can support claims against both the driver or operator and the manufacturer, with different legal theories governing each. Preserving the vehicle and its onboard data, including event data recorder information, camera logs, and sensor records, is essential since this critical evidence is controlled by the manufacturer and can be overwritten quickly. Acting early to demand preservation of that data is as critical as scene documentation in conventional crashes.
Federal regulatory attention on autonomous vehicle safety has also increased. A Tesla federal investigation in March 2026, tied to incidents including the type of autopilot-related crash described in recent news coverage, reflects the broader regulatory environment surrounding these systems. When a federal investigation is ongoing, regulatory findings can become relevant evidence in parallel civil claims.
The statute of limitations sets the deadline for filing a lawsuit after a car accident. Missing the applicable deadline almost always bars the claim permanently.
Unlike some states where personal injury and property damage claims carry different limitations periods, Texas applies the same two-year window to both under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 16.003. The clock starts on the date of the accident itself, not when treatment concludes or when the full extent of injuries becomes clear.
The wrongful death period runs from the date of death, which may differ from the date of the accident if the injured person survived for a period before dying from their injuries.
If your crash involved a government-owned vehicle, a government employee acting in their official capacity, or a road defect on government-maintained property, the Texas Tort Claims Act under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 101 requires filing a formal notice of claim with the relevant government unit within six months of the incident. Missing this deadline typically bars the claim entirely, regardless of its merits. See our article on sovereign immunity and suing the government to understand your legal options and the full procedural framework.
In crashes involving autonomous systems, the discovery of a product defect as a contributing cause may not be immediately apparent. Texas courts have addressed the interaction between the general two-year personal injury SOL and the discovery rule in product liability cases. When a vehicle defect is discovered after the crash, a personal injury attorney should be consulted promptly about which limitations period applies and when it began to run.
Texas law requires immediate reporting of a crash to local law enforcement when it resulted in injury or death to any person, or when a vehicle is damaged to the extent that it cannot be safely driven. For crashes with apparent property damage of $1,000 or more, a peace officer must investigate and file a report.
If law enforcement responds, the attending officer completes a Peace Officer's Crash Report (CR-3), which documents the parties involved, apparent causes, and any citations issued. As of September 1, 2017, Texas no longer accepts driver-submitted crash reports. The responsibility for filing rests with the investigating officer.
Texas crash reports are accessed through the Texas Department of Transportation's Crash Report Online Purchase System:
Note: Effective January 1, 2025, the CR-91 form is no longer accepted for subpoenas and affidavits. Those requests must now be submitted through TxDOT's online request system.
Crash reports are among the first documents requested in car accident claims. Errors in a report are worth addressing promptly. See our article on what to do if your car accident police report is inaccurate for the steps involved.
Texas does not cap compensatory damages in personal injury cases, meaning injured parties can pursue full compensation for their documented losses. The absence of a general cap distinguishes Texas from states that have enacted tort reform limiting compensatory recovery.
Economic damages cover measurable financial losses and are uncapped in Texas vehicle accident cases. They include:
Non-economic damages address losses including pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and loss of consortium. Texas imposes no cap on non-economic damages in personal injury cases arising from vehicle accidents.
A spouse or domestic partner of a seriously injured person may bring a separate loss of consortium claim for the loss of companionship and support.
When a crash results in death, surviving family members or the estate may pursue a wrongful death claim under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 71.002. Recoverable damages include the financial support the deceased would have provided, funeral and medical costs, and the loss of companionship, care, and guidance. Texas wrongful death claims may also include mental anguish suffered by surviving family members, which is a broader category than some other states permit.
Texas refers to punitive damages as exemplary damages. They are available when the defendant's conduct involved fraud, malice, or gross negligence, established by clear and convincing evidence. This higher evidentiary standard reflects the punitive nature of the award. When a driver's conduct rises to this level, such as deliberate use of a vehicle to harm another person or grossly reckless conduct with conscious disregard for others' safety, exemplary damages become available alongside full compensatory recovery.
The cap under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 41.008 limits exemplary damages to the greater of:
This cap does not apply when the defendant's conduct constitutes a felony for which they have been convicted, including certain DUI homicide convictions.
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 101.023 establishes specific liability caps for government defendants:
These caps represent meaningful limitations compared to the uncapped recovery available against private defendants.
Texas's at-fault system means there is no automatic first-party coverage for medical bills after a crash. Costs are addressed through the at-fault driver’s insurance company (liability), your own optional coverages, and health insurance, with sequencing depending on which coverages you carry.
The other driver's bodily injury liability policy is the primary source of coverage for your medical expenses. At Texas's minimum of $30,000 per person, that coverage can be exhausted quickly in serious crashes. When it is, your own coverages become the next resource.
If you did not reject PIP in writing, your policy includes it. Higher PIP limits are available and worth considering given how quickly minimum coverage is exhausted in serious injuries.
MedPay is an optional supplement that covers medical and funeral expenses, as well as deductibles and co-pays, regardless of fault, but it does not include lost wages or essential services.
Once PIP and MedPay limits are exhausted or if you do not carry them, health insurance covers ongoing accident-related treatment. Most health insurers will cover accident-related care but may assert a subrogation lien on any settlement or judgment you receive from the at-fault driver. Self-funded employer plans governed by ERISA can assert subrogation rights that Texas state rules cannot limit. Understanding your plan's subrogation terms before settling is important.
When the at-fault driver has no insurance or insufficient coverage, UM/UIM becomes the primary recovery source beyond a personal lawsuit. Given Texas's uninsured driver population, this coverage provides meaningful protection that many drivers underestimate until they need it.
Healthcare providers may treat accident victims on a lien basis, providing care in exchange for payment from any eventual settlement. This allows access to treatment when immediate payment is not possible but creates obligations that must be accounted for before settlement proceeds are disbursed. Accounting for all outstanding liens before settling ensures no unexpected obligations arise after funds are received.
Texas's three largest metropolitan areas generate crash volumes that rival any in the country. Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, and San Antonio each sit on major interstate corridors including I-10, I-35, and I-635 that carry some of the highest commercial and passenger vehicle traffic in North America. Multi-vehicle chain-reaction crashes on these corridors are common, and the proportionate responsibility framework applies to every party involved. When one defendant in a multi-vehicle crash bears more than 50 percent of the fault, joint and several liability makes them responsible for the full judgment, providing meaningful protection for victims facing a field of partially solvent defendants.
Texas's permissive AV legislation has made its urban corridors, particularly in Austin, a national center for self-driving vehicle deployment. Waymo, Tesla, and other operators run active routes on public roads where ordinary Texas drivers share lanes with vehicles that may be operating without a human actively controlling them. The legal implications of crashes involving these systems are addressed in the dedicated section above. What belongs here is the practical reality: Texas drivers are more likely to encounter an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle in a crash scenario than drivers in most other states, and knowing that product liability and negligence claims can run simultaneously is worth understanding before a crash occurs.
Texas's geography produces a wider range of severe weather driving conditions than almost any other state:
Texas's rural highway network carries significant deer and feral hog collision risk, particularly in the Hill Country, East Texas, and along river corridors. Feral hog collisions are a specifically Texas hazard not commonly encountered in other states and can cause serious vehicle damage and injury. As with other wildlife collisions, comprehensive coverage rather than liability coverage is the relevant policy for repairing your own vehicle.
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)
Handles crash report requests, road condition information, and highway safety data.
Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) / Texas Highway Patrol
Responds to accidents on state highways and maintains law enforcement crash records.
Texas Department of Insurance (TDI)
For insurance complaints, coverage disputes, insurer licensing verification, and questions about policy requirements including PIP and UM/UIM.
Texas Department of Motor Vehicles (TxDMV)
Handles vehicle registration, driver licensing, and financial responsibility verification.
For accident laws in other states, visit our state-specific legal information page

Advertising is paid for by participating attorneys in a joint advertising program, licensed to practice law in their respective states. A complete list of joint advertising attorneys can be found here. You can request an attorney by name. We are not a law firm or an attorney referral service. This advertisement is not legal advice and is not a guarantee or prediction of the outcome of your legal matter. Every case is different. The outcome depends on the laws, facts, and circumstances unique to each case. Hiring an attorney is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertising. Request free information about your attorney's background and experience. This advertising does not imply a higher quality of legal services than that provided by other attorneys. This advertising does not imply that the attorneys are certified specialists or experts in any area of law. No legal services will be provided unless a signed agreement between the client and the attorney exists. We use cookies to personalize content and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our analytics partners, who may combine it with other information you've provided or collected from your use of their services. You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.