Failure to control speed is one of the most common — and most misunderstood — sources of liability in Texas car accident cases. TxDOT identified speeding as a factor in at least 25,545 Texas crashes in 2019 alone, and the pattern has only intensified. This guide explains the statute, the civil liability framework, what evidence wins these cases, how comparative fault works under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §33.001, and what damages you can recover.

This page is written for Texans who were rear-ended, T-boned, or run off the road by a driver who could not — or did not — slow down. If that’s you, the Fort Worth car accident lawyers at Patterson Law Group have spent 30+ years in Texas building these cases. Call (817) 784-2000 for a free consultation. Se Habla Español.

Quick Answers

What does “failure to control speed” mean in Texas? It is the statutory duty under Tex. Transp. Code §545.351 to drive at a speed that is reasonable and prudent for the actual conditions, and to actively control the vehicle’s speed to avoid collisions — regardless of the posted limit.

Is it the same as a speeding ticket? No. A standard speeding ticket under §545.352 is for exceeding the prima facie limit. A failure-to-control-speed citation under §545.351 can apply even when the driver was under the posted limit if conditions required slower travel.

Can I still recover if I was partially at fault? Yes, as long as you were 50% or less responsible under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §33.001. Recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault.

How long do I have to file? Two years from the date of the crash under §16.003 — shorter if a government vehicle was involved.

What is the most important evidence? The responding officer’s CR-3 crash report contributing-factor codes (especially Code 25 — “Failed to Control Speed”), downloaded ECM/EDR data showing pre-crash speed, dash cam or traffic-cam footage, and the citation status (plea of guilty is admissible under Tex. R. Evid. 803(22)).

The Texas Statutory Framework

Failure-to-control-speed cases in Texas rest on a specific group of provisions in the Texas Transportation Code. Knowing the statutes by section number — and quoting them in the demand letter — is what separates a polished case from a generic one.

§545.351 — The Core “Reasonable and Prudent” Duty

Tex. Transp. Code §545.351 is the foundational statute. It establishes two separate duties:

§545.351(a): An operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for actual and potential hazards then existing.

§545.351(b)(2): An operator shall control the speed of the vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with another person or vehicle that is on or entering the highway in compliance with law and the duty of each person to use due care.

These are independent duties. A driver can be cited for violating §545.351 even when traveling well under the posted limit — what matters is whether the speed was reasonable for the conditions and whether the driver actively controlled speed to avoid foreseeable hazards.

§545.352 — Prima Facie Speed Limits

Tex. Transp. Code §545.352 sets the default prima facie speed limits. The most commonly cited in Texas civil litigation:

30 mph — urban district streets
15 mph — alleys
20 mph — beach
60-75 mph — numbered U.S. and state highways outside urban districts
70-85 mph — designated portions of the Interstate Highway System and certain toll roads

These are prima facie limits, meaning they shift the burden to the driver to prove the speed was nonetheless reasonable. Exceeding them is presumptive — but not conclusive — evidence of negligence.

§545.353 — Authority to Alter Speed Limits

Tex. Transp. Code §545.353 authorizes TxDOT and local authorities to establish different speed limits after an engineering and traffic investigation. School zones, construction zones, and roads near hospitals or recreation areas often carry lower posted limits under §545.355 and §545.356.

§545.401 — Reckless Driving

When speed is extreme or paired with willful or wanton disregard, Tex. Transp. Code §545.401 elevates the conduct to reckless driving — a Class B misdemeanor. A reckless driving conviction is powerful in a civil case because it satisfies the gross-negligence threshold for exemplary damages under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §41.001(11).

The “Assured Clear Distance” Doctrine

Texas case law has long recognized the assured clear distance ahead doctrine — the principle that every driver has a duty to operate the vehicle at a speed that allows stopping within the distance the driver can clearly see ahead.

Practically, this means:

A driver who rear-ends stopped traffic is presumptively at fault, because they failed to maintain enough following distance to stop within the assured clear distance.
A driver who plows into the back of a vehicle slowing for a red light or pedestrian crossing has violated §545.351(b)(2) regardless of the posted limit.
Heavy rain, fog, ice, dust storms (common on I-20 west of Fort Worth), and nighttime conditions all shrink the assured clear distance — and therefore require slower speed.

We invoke the assured clear distance doctrine in demand letters when the carrier tries to argue “but my driver was under the speed limit.” The posted limit is not a safe harbor when the conditions required slower travel.

Civil Liability vs. Criminal Citation

This distinction trips up clients constantly. A failure-to-control-speed crash can produce two separate proceedings:

The criminal/traffic case. The other driver gets a citation and goes to municipal or justice court. Possible outcomes include guilty plea, deferred adjudication, dismissal, or conviction at trial. These outcomes matter to us because they affect admissibility.
The civil case for damages. This is the case we file — or settle pre-suit — to recover medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other damages. The civil case proceeds independently and on a different timeline.

The two cases use different burdens of proof. The traffic court applies a “beyond a reasonable doubt” or “preponderance” standard depending on classification. The civil case requires only a “preponderance of the evidence” — meaning more likely than not. So a driver can be acquitted in traffic court and still be held liable in civil court.

When the Other Driver’s Citation Helps Your Case

Under Tex. R. Evid. 803(22), a final judgment of conviction for a serious offense is admissible as a hearsay exception. Under Tex. R. Evid. 801(e)(2), an opposing party’s guilty plea is an admission of a party-opponent and is admissible without the hearsay objection.

That means if the other driver pleaded guilty (or no contest) to a §545.351 violation, we can introduce that plea at trial as substantive evidence of negligence. If the other driver took the case to trial and was convicted, the conviction is admissible.

When the Other Driver’s Disposition Does Not Help

A dismissed citation, a “not guilty” verdict, or a deferred adjudication that resulted in no final conviction is generally not admissible. The responding officer can still testify to their observations — skid marks, vehicle damage, statements at the scene — but the absence of a conviction limits one avenue of proof.

How Failure to Control Speed Affects Your Texas Civil Case

The civil case turns on five questions, in this order:

Duty. Did the other driver owe a duty under §545.351? (Yes — every Texas driver does.)
Breach. Did the other driver drive at a speed unreasonable for the conditions, or fail to control speed to avoid a foreseeable collision?
Causation. Did the breach cause the crash? Causation in Texas requires both cause-in-fact (“but for”) and foreseeability under Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas.
Damages. What measurable harm did the plaintiff suffer?
Comparative fault. What share, if any, of the responsibility belongs to the plaintiff?

Each element has to be supported by evidence. A failure-to-control-speed case typically uses some combination of:

The responding officer’s CR-3 crash report and contributing-factor codes
Downloaded ECM/EDR (event data recorder) data showing pre-crash speed, brake application, throttle position, and steering input in the five seconds before impact
Dash cam footage, traffic-camera footage (especially on I-30, I-35W, I-820, and Loop 12 corridors)
Cell-phone records for distracted driving overlay
Surveillance video from nearby businesses
Skid-mark and gouge-mark photography and crush-analysis reports
Medical records tying injuries causally to the impact

Comparative Fault Under §33.001

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §33.001 governs how fault is allocated when more than one party contributed to the crash. Texas applies modified comparative fault with a 51% bar:

A claimant may not recover damages if his percentage of responsibility is greater than 50 percent.

This is the most important number in any speeding case. The other side’s first move in defense is to push fault onto the plaintiff — “you were going 50 in a 45,” “you didn’t have your seatbelt,” “you took your eyes off the road for a second.” A skilled defense lawyer will try to ladder enough fault onto the plaintiff to clear the 51% bar.

We push back with:

Reconstruction evidence. Crash-reconstruction experts can place the pre-impact speeds of both vehicles within tight tolerances using crush-analysis, ECM data, and physics.
The contributing-factor codes on the CR-3. If the officer assigned Code 25 (“Failed to Control Speed”) to the other driver and nothing to our client, that is the contemporaneous on-scene assessment of fault.
Witness statements. Independent witnesses without a stake in either insurance carrier carry weight with juries.
The 51% framework itself. Even if some fault is assigned to our client (say, 10-20%), recovery is still available — and we frame the case from the start so the 51% threshold is never crossed.

Under §33.012, the court reduces the plaintiff’s damages by the plaintiff’s percentage of responsibility. If the jury finds $300,000 in damages and assigns the plaintiff 15% of the fault, the judgment is $255,000.

CR-3 Contributing-Factor Codes — What Investigators Look For

TxDOT’s CR-3 Texas Peace Officer’s Crash Report is the single most important document in any Texas speed-related case. Officers fill in up to two contributing factors per driver. The codes that matter in failure-to-control-speed cases include:

Code 22 — Driver Inattention
Code 25 — Failed to Control Speed
Code 41 — Speeding (Over the Limit)
Code 42 — Speeding (Unsafe — Under the Limit)
Code 49 — Faulty Evasive Action
Code 14 — Disregard Stop and Go Signal
Code 17 — Distraction in Vehicle
Code 13 — Disregard Stop Sign or Light

When Code 25 appears in the other driver’s contributing-factor field, that is the officer’s contemporaneous determination that the driver’s failure to control speed was a cause of the crash. We pull the CR-3 at the very beginning of every case and use the codes to anchor our liability narrative with the at-fault carrier.

We also look at the codes assigned to our client. If a code was assigned to our client that we believe is incorrect, the responding officer can be subpoenaed and cross-examined about the basis for that assignment.

Common Failure-to-Control-Speed Crash Patterns We See

Across thousands of Tarrant County, Dallas, and statewide cases handled from our physical offices in Fort Worth, Arlington, and San Antonio, the same patterns appear:

Rear-End Crashes on I-30 and I-35W

The Mixmaster, the I-30 corridor through downtown Fort Worth, and the I-35W northbound stretch through Alliance are some of the most common failure-to-control-speed corridors in North Texas. Drivers approach stopped traffic at full highway speed, fail to perceive the slowdown, and rear-end stationary vehicles. The assured clear distance doctrine governs. Liability is almost always with the rear-ending driver, even when the rear driver was technically under the posted limit.

Intersection T-Bones in Construction Zones

Construction zones in North Texas — and especially the I-820 reconstruction zones and the perpetual TxDOT work along I-30 and Loop 820 — have lower posted limits and barrier shifts. Drivers who ignore the reduced limit and T-bone a vehicle entering the work zone are typically cited under §545.351 with Code 25 on the CR-3.

Wet-Road and Hydroplaning Crashes

Texas storms — especially the high-rainfall events along the I-45 Houston corridor and the I-35 corridor through Central Texas — produce hydroplaning crashes where the actual speed was 5-15 mph under the posted limit, but still unreasonable for the conditions. These are textbook §545.351(a) cases. Defense carriers often argue “act of God” or “unavoidable accident.” Texas law has soundly rejected the “unavoidable accident” jury instruction in most cases (Reinhart v. Young, 906 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. 1995)) — what defense calls “unavoidable” almost always traces back to a speed choice that was unreasonable for the conditions.

Highway Off-Ramp Crashes

Off-ramp crashes are common where drivers fail to decelerate from highway speed to the posted ramp speed in time. The Bryant Irvin and Hulen exits off I-20, the Lancaster exit off I-30, and the Beach Street exit off Loop 820 all produce repeat patterns. §545.351(b)(2) — the affirmative duty to control speed to avoid collision — governs these cases.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Strikes

When the failure-to-control-speed crash involves a pedestrian or cyclist, the damages and the available coverage layers shift. Pedestrian crashes in Texas can implicate the at-fault driver’s auto liability, the pedestrian’s own household auto UM/UIM (yes — Texas UM/UIM follows the person, not the vehicle, under Tex. Ins. Code §1952), and in some commercial-driver cases, an umbrella or excess policy.

Damages You Can Recover

Texas recognizes a broad range of damage categories in failure-to-control-speed cases.

Economic Damages

Past medical expenses — subject to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §41.0105 (“Paid or Incurred”), which caps recovery at amounts actually paid by or on behalf of the claimant, or actually owed.
Future medical expenses — supported by treating-physician testimony and life-care planning when needed.
Lost wages — gross pay from the date of the crash through return-to-work, backed by employer wage records.
Loss of earning capacity — the diminished ability to earn in the future, separate from past wage loss. Requires vocational or economic-expert support in serious cases.
Property damage — repair cost or, if totaled, actual cash value.
Out-of-pocket costs — mileage to medical appointments, prescription co-pays, durable medical equipment.

Non-Economic Damages

Past and future physical pain and suffering
Past and future mental anguish
Past and future physical impairment — the loss of ability to engage in daily activities, work, hobbies
Disfigurement — particularly scarring from glass, surgical incisions, or burn injuries
Loss of consortium — available to the spouse of a seriously injured plaintiff under Whittlesey v. Miller, 572 S.W.2d 665 (Tex. 1978)

Exemplary (Punitive) Damages

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §41.003 authorizes exemplary damages when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the harm resulted from fraud, malice, or gross negligence. In failure-to-control-speed cases, the gross-negligence threshold is met in scenarios like:

A commercial driver going 25+ mph over the limit on a corridor with prior FMCSA log violations
A driver fleeing from law enforcement
A driver under the influence who was also speeding
A driver who had received multiple prior speeding citations in the months before the crash

Exemplary damages are capped under §41.008 at the greater of (1) two times economic damages plus an amount equal to non-economic damages up to $750,000, or (2) $200,000.

Tarrant, Dallas, and Harris County Court Considerations

Where a case ends up in court depends on where the crash occurred and where the parties reside under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §15.002 venue rules. The three North Texas courthouses we work in most frequently:

Tarrant County District Courts — Tom Vandergriff Civil Courts Building, 100 N. Calhoun Street, Fort Worth. Civil dockets are heard in the 17th, 48th, 67th, 96th, 141st, 153rd, 236th, 342nd, 348th, 352nd, and 360th District Courts. Tarrant juries are widely regarded as fair and result-driven on liability evidence.
Dallas County District Courts — George L. Allen Sr. Courts Building, 600 Commerce Street, Dallas. Civil dockets include the 14th, 44th, 68th, 95th, 101st, 116th, 134th, 160th, 162nd, 191st, 192nd, 193rd, 298th, and 302nd District Courts.
Harris County District Courts — Harris County Civil Courthouse, 201 Caroline Street, Houston. Civil dockets include the 11th, 55th, 61st, 80th, 113th, 125th, 127th, 129th, 133rd, 151st, 152nd, 157th, 164th, 165th, 189th, 190th, 215th, 234th, 269th, 270th, 280th, 281st, and 295th District Courts.

For cases under $250,000 in controversy, Tex. R. Civ. P. 169 expedited actions provide a streamlined discovery and trial procedure. Most failure-to-control-speed cases involving serious injuries are filed at the higher tier to preserve full discovery.

What to Do in the First 72 Hours

If you’ve been in a Texas failure-to-control-speed crash, the first 72 hours shape the case:

Get medical care. Even if you feel “fine,” soft-tissue and concussive symptoms can take 24-48 hours to manifest. Gaps in early treatment are weaponized by defense carriers.
Get a copy of the CR-3. Texas crash reports are available through TxDOT’s Crash Records Information System (CRIS). The CR-3 typically becomes available 7-10 days after the crash.
Photograph everything. Vehicle damage from multiple angles, skid marks, road conditions, weather conditions, the position of debris, the position of vehicles before they were towed.
Identify witnesses. Names, phone numbers, what they saw. Independent witnesses are gold.
Do not give a recorded statement to the other driver’s insurance. Your own insurer may require cooperation under the policy; the other driver’s carrier does not — and a recorded statement is being used to find admissions, not to help you.
Call a Texas car accident lawyer. The earlier we get on the case, the more evidence we can preserve — ECM data has a finite retention window, dash-cam footage from nearby businesses gets overwritten, and witness memories fade.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does ‘failure to control speed’ mean under Texas law?

Texas Transportation Code §545.351(a) requires every operator to drive at a speed that is ‘reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for actual and potential hazards then existing.’ §545.351(b)(2) adds an affirmative duty to control the speed of the vehicle ‘as necessary to avoid colliding with another person or vehicle’ that is lawfully on or entering the roadway. A driver can be cited for failure to control speed even when traveling under the posted limit if conditions — rain, fog, traffic, school zones, construction — required slower travel. The statute creates two distinct duties: (1) drive at a reasonable speed for the conditions, and (2) actively control speed to avoid foreseeable collisions.

Is failure to control speed the same thing as a speeding ticket?

No. A standard speeding citation under Tex. Transp. Code §545.352 is issued when a driver exceeds a posted prima facie speed limit. A failure-to-control-speed citation under §545.351 is broader — it applies whenever speed was unreasonable for the conditions, including conduct that is under the posted limit. Officers responding to crashes routinely cite drivers under §545.351 when the speed was a contributing factor but the driver was not technically over the posted limit (e.g., 45 mph in heavy rain on a 55 mph road that rear-ended stopped traffic).

Can the other driver’s speeding ticket be used as evidence in my Texas civil case?

Generally, only if the other driver pleaded guilty or no contest, or was convicted after trial. Under Tex. R. Evid. 803(22), a final judgment of conviction for a serious offense is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. A guilty plea is an admission of a party-opponent under Rule 801(e)(2) and is admissible. A ‘not guilty’ or dismissed citation is generally not admissible. Texas courts also admit the responding officer’s CR-3 crash report contributing-factor codes for the limited purpose of establishing the officer’s contemporaneous observations, though the report itself is hearsay and the officer must testify.

Texas is a comparative fault state — what happens if I was also speeding?

Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §33.001, Texas applies modified comparative fault with a 51% bar. You can still recover damages as long as the jury assigns you 50% or less of the responsibility for the crash. Your damages are then reduced by your percentage of fault. Example: if a jury finds you suffered $200,000 in damages and assigns you 20% of the fault for driving 5 over the limit while the other driver was 80% at fault for blowing a red light, you recover $160,000. If the jury puts you at 51% or higher, recovery is barred entirely under §33.001(a).

What damages can I recover when failure to control speed caused my crash?

Texas plaintiffs can recover both economic and non-economic damages. Economic damages include past and future medical expenses (under §41.0105 capped at amounts paid or incurred), lost wages and lost earning capacity, property damage, and out-of-pocket costs. Non-economic damages include physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, physical impairment, disfigurement, and loss of consortium for a spouse. In rare cases, exemplary (punitive) damages under Chapter 41 may be available if the speeding rose to gross negligence — for example, a commercial driver going 90+ mph in a 60 zone with prior log-violation history.

What contributing-factor codes do Texas officers use on the CR-3 report for speed?

TxDOT’s CR-3 Crash Report uses Contributing Factor codes that include Code 22 (‘Driver Inattention’), Code 41 (‘Speeding — Over Limit’), Code 42 (‘Speeding — Unsafe (Under Limit)’), Code 25 (‘Failed to Control Speed’), and Code 49 (‘Faulty Evasive Action’). When ‘Failed to Control Speed’ (Code 25) appears in either the Contributing Factor 1 or Contributing Factor 2 field for the other driver, that document is powerful evidence we use to anchor liability with the at-fault carrier.

How long do I have to file a Texas failure-to-control-speed injury claim?

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §16.003 provides a two-year statute of limitations for most personal injury claims, including motor-vehicle negligence claims founded on failure to control speed. The clock runs from the date of the crash, with limited tolling for minors and incapacitated plaintiffs under §16.001. If a governmental defendant is involved — a city police pursuit, a TxDOT vehicle, a municipal employee — Texas Tort Claims Act notice deadlines under §101.101 can shorten the timeline to as little as six months. Talk to a Texas car accident lawyer immediately if your crash involved any government vehicle or driver.

What if the speeding driver had no insurance or low policy limits?

Your own Uninsured Motorist (UM) and Underinsured Motorist (UIM) coverage fills the gap. Under Tex. Ins. Code §1952.0511, Texas auto insurers must offer UM/UIM unless it is rejected in writing. Many Texans have UM/UIM and do not realize it. A resident relative’s auto policy may also apply under household-policy stacking principles. We map every available policy — the at-fault driver’s liability, any commercial or umbrella policies, your UM/UIM, your med-pay coverage, and household-relative policies — and pursue them in the right order.

Internal Resources

For additional context on Texas crash law:

Fort Worth Car Accident Lawyers — practice-area hub with full Tarrant County context
The Texas Stowers Doctrine — how we force carriers to pay policy limits or face uncapped excess exposure
Texas CR-3 / Blue Form Guide — the full anatomy of the Texas crash report
Texas Provisional License Rules — particularly relevant when the at-fault driver is a teen
What to Do After a Car Wreck in Texas — step-by-step
Punitive Damages in Texas — when gross negligence opens the door

Talk to a Texas Failure-to-Control-Speed Lawyer

Patterson Law Group has spent 30+ years in Texas representing injured Texans in failure-to-control-speed and other auto-negligence cases. We’ve recovered $100M+ for clients and hold a 5.0★ rating on 442+ Google reviews. The firm operates from physical offices in Fort Worth, Arlington, and San Antonio and represents clients in personal injury cases anywhere in Texas.

There is no fee unless we win. Call (817) 784-2000 for a free, no-obligation consultation, or contact us online. Se Habla Español.

Failure to Control Speed in a Texas Car Accident: Statute, Liability & Damages (2026)