The answer to whether you may sue DART is more nuanced than a simple yes or no. Richardson personal injury lawyer guidance can help you understand that Texas law grants governmental entities like DART sovereign immunity—protection from most lawsuits. However, the Texas Legislature created specific exceptions through the Texas Tort Claims Act. These exceptions, strict procedural requirements, and damage limitations determine whether DART accident victims are able to recover compensation.
Key Takeaways for DART Accident Claims
- The Texas Tort Claims Act waives DART’s sovereign immunity for injuries caused by negligent operation of buses and trains under the motor vehicle exception.
- Government entity claims require written notice within six months of the accident—much shorter than the standard two-year statute of limitations.
- Damage caps are typically $100,000 per person and $300,000 per occurrence for units of local government like regional transit authorities including DART; municipalities use $250,000/$500,000 caps, so confirm the correct cap for your claim.
- DART retains immunity for discretionary functions like policy decisions and route planning but not for ministerial acts like safe vehicle operation and property maintenance.
- Claims based on acts within an employee’s job scope are typically directed at DART under Section 101.106, not individual employees; personal liability usually arises only for conduct outside the scope.
Table of Contents
Understanding Sovereign Immunity in Texas
Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine that prevents lawsuits against government entities without their consent. The principle originated from English common law’s concept that “the king can do no wrong.” Texas adopted this protection for state and local governments, shielding them from liability for governmental functions.
This immunity frustrates accident victims who suffer real injuries from government negligence. Liability and compensation become central issues when comparing public and private operators. A private bus company would face full liability for the same collision that DART claims immunity against. The disparity seems unfair—government entities operate massive transit systems yet claim protection when their negligence harms passengers.
Texas law recognizes several justifications for governmental immunity. Public funds raised through taxation should serve community needs rather than paying judgments. Protecting government treasuries preserves resources for essential services. Immunity prevents excessive litigation from consuming government operations. These policy arguments don’t comfort injured victims facing medical bills and lost wages, yet recognizing why immunity exists helps victims understand the limited circumstances where Texas law permits claims.
Texas Tort Claims Act: Creating Exceptions to Immunity
The Texas Legislature enacted the Texas Tort Claims Act in 1970, codified in Chapter 101 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Act didn’t eliminate sovereign immunity but created specific waivers allowing lawsuits under limited circumstances.
Section 101.021 establishes the primary waivers relevant to DART accidents:
- Motor vehicle exception: Injuries from operation or use of motor-driven vehicles or equipment when the employee would be personally liable
- Premises liability exception: Injuries from dangerous conditions on government-owned real property
- Personal property exception: Injuries from negligent use or misuse of personal property
These waivers don’t transform DART into a fully liable private entity. Multiple limitations, exceptions, and requirements attach to claims under the Act. Both the waivers and their restrictions help determine claim viability.
The Motor Vehicle Exception: DART’s Primary Liability Exposure
The motor vehicle exception under Section 101.021(1) provides the foundation for most DART accident claims. What you need to know is that this waiver applies when governmental employees operate motor-driven vehicles or equipment negligently, causing injuries to others. Bus claims clearly proceed under the motor-vehicle waiver. Rail claims are usually analyzed under the same “operation or use of motor-driven vehicle or equipment” language, fact-specific to the incident.
The exception requires several elements. Motor-driven vehicles or equipment must be involved. A governmental employee must operate during the scope of employment—DART operators working their routes meet this requirement. The employee’s conduct must constitute negligence that would create personal liability under Texas law.
This final element proves critical. DART doesn’t face automatic liability for every accident involving its vehicles. The victim must prove the DART operator acted negligently—failing to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances. Common examples include speeding, running red lights, failing to yield, distracted driving, or operating while fatigued.
The motor vehicle exception doesn’t waive immunity for discretionary functions—policy decisions about routes, schedules, or service levels. It doesn’t cover design choices about vehicle specifications or station layouts. DART may still argue comparative negligence under Section 33.001, allowing recovery only if the victim bears 50% or less responsibility.
Premises Liability Exception: Station and Platform Accidents
Section 101.021(2) waives immunity for premises defects—dangerous conditions on real property owned or controlled by the government. This exception applies to accidents occurring at DART stations, platforms, parking facilities, and other transit property. Note that premises-defect claims differ from negligent-activity claims, and the waiver requires proof of actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition.
DART owes a duty to maintain reasonably safe conditions for passengers and visitors. Slip and fall accidents from wet platforms without adequate drainage, trip hazards from broken pavement, inadequate lighting causing falls, and escalator or elevator malfunctions might trigger this waiver. The victim must prove DART knew or should have known about the dangerous condition and failed to remedy it or provide adequate warnings.
Strict Notice Requirements: The Six-Month Deadline
The Texas Tort Claims Act imposes procedural requirements that destroy claims if they are not followed precisely. Section 101.101 requires written notice to the governmental unit within six months of the incident. This deadline is absolute—missing it typically bars any claim regardless of merit.
Six months passes quickly after accidents. Victims focus on medical treatment and recovery. They assume the standard two-year statute of limitations applies. By the time they consult attorneys months later, the notice deadline might have expired. Once six months passes, sovereign immunity protection returns and DART faces no liability.
Provide written notice to DART’s designated agent (per DART policy) that reasonably describes the time, place, and nature of the incident and injury. Actual notice may satisfy the statute in some cases. Some local rules require shorter notice periods—confirm requirements immediately. Specific delivery methods apply, and proof of service becomes critical. An attorney experienced with governmental claims is able to prepare and deliver proper notice, preserving claim rights.
Damage Caps: Limited Recovery Against DART
Even successful claims against DART face statutory damage caps. Section 101.023 limits recovery to $100,000 per person and $300,000 per occurrence for claims against units of local government, which includes regional transit authorities like DART. Municipalities face different caps of $250,000 per person and $500,000 per occurrence. Confirm which cap applies to your specific claim.
A victim with $500,000 in medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering can recover at most $100,000 from DART under the local government unit cap. When one accident injures multiple passengers, the $300,000 per-occurrence cap creates competition among victims for limited funds. Early legal representation becomes critical to protect your position when multiple claims arise from a single incident.
Caps apply to damages; treatment of interest and costs is statutory—confirm for your case. Punitive damages are unavailable against governmental entities. These restrictions mean DART faces significantly less exposure than private companies for identical negligence.
Discretionary Function Immunity: When DART Keeps Protection
Not all DART functions fall under Texas Tort Claims Act waivers. Section 101.056 preserves immunity for discretionary functions—policy decisions requiring judgment and choice. This protection covers decisions about which routes to operate, service frequency, budget allocations, station locations, and similar planning choices.
Generally, operational decisions about how to perform established duties receive less protection than high-level policy choices. You need a lawyer after incidents involving DART negligence because understanding these distinctions determines whether immunity applies. A DART operator’s decision to speed through a red light isn’t discretionary—it violates established traffic laws and safety rules. DART’s decision about whether to expand to new service areas is discretionary planning. Claims succeed when they challenge the execution of duties rather than the wisdom of policy choices.
Common DART Accident Scenarios and Liability
Different accident types raise varying liability issues under the Texas Tort Claims Act framework. Understanding how the Act applies to specific situations helps victims evaluate claim strength.
DART Bus Collisions
When DART buses collide with other vehicles, pedestrians, or cyclists, the motor vehicle exception typically waives immunity. Bus operators owe duties to exercise reasonable care, follow traffic laws, and operate safely. Rear-end collisions, intersection crashes, and pedestrian strikes often result from operator negligence—speeding, distracted driving, failing to yield, or inadequate scanning.
Strong claims include operator violations—running red lights, excessive speed, cell phone use—and evidence proving the operator saw or should have seen the hazard in time to avoid collision.
Light Rail Train Accidents
DART light rail trains operate on fixed rails through Richardson and the surrounding areas. At-grade crossings create collision risks with vehicles and pedestrians. Train operators must follow signals, maintain safe speeds, and watch for hazards despite limited steering and long stopping distances.
The motor vehicle exception typically applies to the operation of rail equipment, though analysis depends on the specific facts. DART might argue comparative fault more successfully in crossing cases where victims ignored signals.
Platform and Station Accidents
Slip and fall accidents on platforms, escalator malfunctions, gap-related falls between trains and platforms, and inadequate lighting that causes trips all fall under premises liability exceptions. Settlements are calculated based on the extent of injuries, available evidence, and whether DART had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous conditions that contributed to the accident.
DART maintains extensive inspection and maintenance records. Obtaining these documents through discovery or open records requests proves notice of defects. Prior complaints, incident reports, and maintenance logs showing deferred repairs strengthen premises claims.
Steps to Protect Your Rights After a DART Accident
Time sensitivity makes immediate action critical after DART accidents. The six-month notice requirement leaves little margin for delay. Take these steps to preserve claim rights:
- Contact an attorney experienced with governmental claims
- Avoid giving recorded statements to DART claims representatives without legal counsel
- Don’t accept quick settlement offers without understanding full claim value
Early consultation helps proper notice preparation and filing before the six-month deadline expires. Attorneys work to obtain evidence before it disappears, including video footage that DART might overwrite and maintenance records showing prior knowledge of hazards.
FAQ for DART Accident Claims
Does the Six-Month Notice Requirement Apply to All DART Accidents?
Yes, Section 101.101 requires notice within six months for any claim under the Texas Tort Claims Act, regardless of injury severity or accident type. Some local rules may require even shorter notice periods. Missing this deadline typically bars recovery entirely. File notice immediately after consulting an attorney to preserve your rights.
Can I Sue Individual DART Employees Personally?
Because of Section 101.106, claims based on acts within an employee’s job scope are typically directed at DART, not the employee. Personal liability usually arises only for conduct outside the scope, such as intentional torts. However, individual employees rarely have the resources to satisfy judgments, making DART entity liability more important practically.
What If My Damages Exceed the $100,000 Cap?
The statutory cap remains regardless of actual damages. Victims with catastrophic injuries face significant uncompensated losses. You might pursue additional compensation from other sources—other drivers who contributed to the accident, DART contractors whose negligence was involved, or your own insurance policies.
Does DART Have Insurance to Pay Claims?
DART maintains insurance and self-insured reserves to pay claims within statutory limits. The governmental entity’s financial capacity isn’t a barrier to recovery for valid claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act. However, the damage caps limit total recovery regardless of available insurance funds.
What Happens If DART Claims Discretionary Function Immunity?
DART routinely raises discretionary function defenses. Your attorney must distinguish between protected policy decisions and unprotected operational negligence. Operator negligence in vehicle operation rarely qualifies as discretionary. The analysis depends heavily on case-specific facts.
Get Help Navigating DART Accident Claims
DART accidents involve legal complexity beyond typical personal injury cases. Sovereign immunity doctrines, strict notice requirements, and damage caps create obstacles that destroy claims without experienced legal guidance. The six-month notice deadline provides little time to evaluate injuries, gather evidence, and prepare proper notice.
AMS Law Group represents DART accident victims throughout Richardson and Dallas County. We understand Texas Tort Claims Act procedures, notice requirements, and immunity exception arguments.
Call our Richardson office at (888) 960-8363 today for your free consultation. We’ll review your DART accident, explain whether immunity exceptions apply, and ensure required notices are filed before the six-month deadline expires. Don’t let sovereign immunity denials prevent you from pursuing the compensation you need.