Car accidents · Subcategory
Distracted Driving Accident Lawyer in Texas
Distracted-driving crashes are caused by a driver whose attention was diverted from the road: texting, scrolling, eating, programming a navigation device, or interacting with a passenger. The Texas Department of Transportation attributes roughly one in five reported crashes to driver inattention, and the practical reality at our firm is that distraction is the underlying factor in a large share of rear-end, lane-departure, and intersection cases regardless of how the crash report codes the cause. Proving distraction in a specific case is what changes a fight over comparative fault into a clear-liability case.
What Texas law actually prohibits, and what it doesn't
Texas's primary statewide ban is on texting while driving under Tex. Transp. Code § 545.4251; it is illegal for any driver to read, write, or send an electronic message while operating a vehicle. The same chapter (§ 545.425) prohibits any handheld cell-phone use in active school crossing zones. Local ordinances in Austin, San Antonio, and several other cities go further, prohibiting handheld use entirely within city limits. Texas does not have a statewide hands-free law for adult non-school-zone driving, which is sometimes a surprise to clients. The legal question in our files is not whether the law was broken; it is whether the distraction caused the crash, and that is a question of evidence.
Cell-phone records, app-usage logs, and the subpoena process
Cellular carriers retain detailed call and text logs for months and sometimes longer, but obtaining them requires a properly served subpoena and (in many cases) a court order; the federal Stored Communications Act adds friction beyond a standard state-court subpoena. Once retained, the records show timestamped call activity, message activity, and (for some carriers and plans) data-session activity correlated to cell-tower location. We have built distracted-driving cases on records showing an outgoing text sent within ninety seconds of the crash impact-time. The records have to be requested through a civil lawsuit — pre-suit requests are usually refused by carriers — which is one reason we file faster on suspected distraction cases than on clear-fault rear-ends.
Social media, dashcams, and the public-record evidence layer
A surprising number of distracted-driving defendants document their own conduct. Snapchat and Instagram posts with location and timestamp metadata, TikTok videos shot from the driver's seat, and even fitness-app logs showing movement at vehicle speed can establish distraction. We send preservation letters on suspected distraction cases that cover the defendant's social-media accounts and the platforms themselves, and we serve subpoenas on the platforms when the defendant deactivates or deletes content. Vehicle and aftermarket dashcam footage from the defendant's own vehicle is also recoverable, and often includes interior-facing footage that shows the driver looking at a phone in the seconds before impact.
Proving causation, not just distraction
The defense in a distraction case is usually not 'I wasn't on my phone'; it is 'the crash would have happened anyway.' The carrier will argue that even an attentive driver would have rear-ended the same vehicle, or that the injured driver's own movement caused the crash. Defeating this argument requires showing the perception-reaction time available to an attentive driver and comparing it to the actual reaction (or non-reaction) the defendant gave. EDR data showing zero brake application before impact is dispositive on many files. Combined with phone records or social-media timestamps placing the defendant's attention elsewhere, the case moves from a comparative-fault dispute to a clear-liability case, often with exemplary-damage exposure for gross negligence.
Frequently asked
Questions Texas accident victims ask us
- Yes, statewide, under Tex. Transp. Code § 545.4251. A driver may not read, write, or send a text message while operating a vehicle, with limited exceptions. The statute applies in addition to local handheld-use ordinances in Austin, San Antonio, and several other cities that prohibit any handheld phone use within city limits. Violation of the statute is evidence of negligence in a civil case.
- Through cell-phone records obtained by subpoena after a lawsuit is filed, through social-media activity timestamps obtained from the platforms or from the defendant's discovery responses, through dashcam footage (the defendant's, ours, or a third party's), through witness testimony, and through the defendant's own admissions in deposition. The combination is usually decisive: a single text-message timestamp aligned with the crash time within seconds is hard for the defense to explain.
- Under Tex. Transp. Code § 545.425, drivers may not use a handheld wireless communication device while operating a vehicle in an active school crossing zone (designated by signage and active warning lights or signage during posted hours). The statute is narrower than many drivers realize; it does not apply outside school zones at the state level, though several cities have broader local handheld bans. Violation is admissible as evidence of negligence in a civil case.
- Yes, with the right preservation and discovery steps. Snapchat posts can be obtained directly from the platform via subpoena, and the platform retains records of post timestamps and (sometimes) location metadata. We send preservation letters immediately to lock down the defendant's account before deletion or deactivation, and we issue platform subpoenas after suit is filed. Screenshots from witnesses are also useful as a backup if the original post is deleted.
- Hands-free use is generally legal at the state level for adult non-school-zone driving, but hands-free does not mean distraction-free. The biomechanics and cognitive-load research is clear that voice and screen-based interaction with a vehicle's infotainment system or a hands-free phone setup still produces measurable distraction. The legal posture is harder than a texting case but not hopeless; the question becomes whether the driver's attention was reasonably directed to the road at the time of the crash regardless of which device they were using.
- Sometimes. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Chapter 41 allows exemplary damages on a finding of gross negligence: conduct that involves an extreme degree of risk and a conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others. Texting while driving in heavy traffic at highway speed can support a gross-negligence finding in some cases; routine inattention typically does not. The fact pattern has to be egregious for exemplary damages to be in play.
- Yes, non-electronic distraction is still distraction. Eating, drinking, reaching for a dropped object, applying makeup, interacting with a passenger, or programming a navigation system all constitute driver inattention and all can establish negligence. The evidentiary path is different — we can't subpoena a cellular carrier for eating records — but witness testimony, dashcam footage, and the defendant's own admissions in deposition usually do the work.
- Within the first several weeks. Cellular records and social-media data are recoverable for months, but the preservation step needs to happen early; once a defendant realizes a civil case is coming, the temptation to delete posts, deactivate accounts, or claim a phone was 'lost' increases. We send preservation letters within days of being retained on any suspected-distraction case, and we file suit faster than on most other car-accident files so the carrier-subpoena process can start.
Let's talk about your case.
Free case review, no obligation. We'll tell you straight whether we can help.