Yes. A bus carrying passengers is a common carrier, and Texas holds a common carrier to a higher standard than ordinary negligence. The Texas Supreme Court described it in Speed Boat Leasing v. Elmer as the degree of care a very cautious and prudent person would use under the same circumstances. That is a meaningfully harder standard for an operator to satisfy, and it applies to passengers specifically.

Then the Texas Tort Claims Act governs, because CapMetro is a governmental unit. Damages against a transit authority of that type are capped at $100,000 per person and $300,000 per occurrence, regardless of what your injuries actually cost. Immunity is waived only in defined circumstances, most relevantly the operation or use of a motor-driven vehicle, which does cover a collision. These claims are viable and they are constrained, and both facts matter from day one.

No, and the spread is enormous. A municipality is capped at $250,000 per person and $500,000 per occurrence. Other units of local government, including transit authorities, are capped at $100,000 and $300,000. A private charter, tour, shuttle, or motorcoach operator has no cap at all and typically carries commercial coverage in the millions. Identifying the operator is therefore the single most consequential fact in a bus case.

Much faster than the two-year filing deadline, and this is where these claims most often die. Governmental units require formal written notice describing the injury, the time, the place, and the incident, and local charters commonly shorten the statutory period to a matter of weeks. Missing that notice can bar an otherwise strong claim entirely. If a public bus was involved, the notice question needs an answer immediately.

School districts are governmental units and carry immunity that is waived only in narrow circumstances, with the operation of a motor vehicle being the most relevant. Claims involving injuries that did not arise from operating the bus itself, such as an assault or a supervision failure, are considerably harder. These need early review because the notice deadlines apply here too.

The duty analysis is ordinary negligence rather than the elevated common carrier standard, because that standard runs to passengers. Everything else is the same: if the bus was publicly operated, immunity and the damages caps apply to you exactly as they would to a rider, and so do the notice deadlines.

A great deal more. Transit and charter buses typically carry multiple interior and exterior cameras, GPS and automatic vehicle location data, electronic driver logs, and maintenance records. It is the best evidence available in any vehicle case, and it is routinely overwritten on a fixed schedule measured in days. A preservation demand sent in the first week is what keeps it.

Yes, and a large share of bus injuries involve no collision at all. Hard braking that throws standing passengers, doors closing on someone boarding or exiting, a driver pulling away before a rider is seated, a fall on a wet or damaged step, and a ramp or lift failure are all common claims. The common carrier standard applies to all of them.

Then no governmental immunity applies and no damages cap applies, and the operator generally holds substantial commercial coverage. Federal motor carrier regulations may also be in play, governing driver qualification, hours of service, drug and alcohol testing, and inspection and maintenance records. Violations of those rules are frequently where these cases are won.

Frequently. The driver, the operating company, a maintenance contractor, a parts manufacturer, and another motorist can all share responsibility, and each may bring separate insurance. In a case against a capped governmental defendant, finding a private co-defendant who is not capped can be the difference between partial and full recovery.

Two years from the crash under Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 16.003. Against a governmental unit that deadline is not the one that matters, because the notice requirement comes first and arrives far sooner. Treat the notice date as the real deadline.

The firm is based in Austin and represents clients throughout Texas, primarily in Travis County, Williamson County, and Bastrop County.

Board certification by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization recognizes attorneys who demonstrate substantial experience in a specific area of law, pass a rigorous examination, and receive peer review.Brent A. Devere is Board Certified in Consumer and Commercial Law, Consumer Bankruptcy Law, Residential Real Estate Law, and Commercial Real Estate Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.Working with a board-certified attorney means your case is handled by a lawyer with proven knowledge, experience, and commitment in their field.

The initial consultation is free. You can call the Austin office or use the contact form to schedule one, and there is no cost or obligation to discuss your situation.

Yes. The firm handles most types of litigation. If your matter isn't listed among the practice areas, contact the office to discuss whether the firm can help.