Austin Head-on Collision Accident Attorneys

Texas law does not define “head-on collision” as its own legal category. There is no separate head-on statute, no special head-on damages rule, and no head-on filing deadline. A head-on crash is an ordinary negligence claim, governed by the same Texas rules that apply to any other motor vehicle collision.

What makes these cases different is factual, not legal. In a front-to-front impact, the closing speed is the sum of both vehicles’ speeds. A crash between two cars traveling 45 miles per hour is not a 45-mile-per-hour event for the people inside — the energy involved is closer to a single vehicle striking a fixed object at a far higher speed. That physics drives everything else about the case: the severity of the injuries, the size of the medical bills, the likelihood of a fatality, and the near-certainty that the at-fault driver’s insurance limits will not be enough.

It also changes the evidence picture. In a rear-end crash, the mechanism usually tells you who was at fault. In a head-on crash, both vehicles are often destroyed, both drivers may be seriously hurt or killed, and the question of which vehicle left its lane can genuinely be disputed. That is why these cases turn on physical evidence — scene measurements, gouge and yaw marks, vehicle crush patterns, and event data recorder downloads — far more often than a typical collision claim.

If your crash involved a different mechanism, the firm handles those separately: rear-end collisions, T-bone and intersection crashes, multi-vehicle pileups, and hit-and-run crashes.

How Head-On Crashes Happen on Austin Roads

Head-on crashes are not random. They happen in a small number of recurring situations, and identifying which one applies to your crash shapes the entire investigation.

Crossing the center line on an undivided road. Much of the Hill Country west and southwest of Austin is two-lane and undivided — RM 620, RM 2222, Bee Cave Road, FM 1826, and the farm-to-market roads running out toward Dripping Springs and Wimberley. On these roads there is nothing between opposing traffic but paint. A driver who drifts, over-corrects on a curve, or misjudges a pass ends up in the opposing lane immediately.

Wrong-way entry onto a divided highway or frontage road. A driver who enters an exit ramp or a one-way frontage road in the wrong direction can travel a substantial distance at highway speed before meeting oncoming traffic. This is the most lethal head-on pattern because closing speeds are highest and the oncoming driver has essentially no reaction time.

Improper or unsafe passing. A driver who pulls out to pass on a two-lane road and misjudges the gap, or who passes in a marked no-passing zone, creates a head-on exposure by definition.

Impaired driving. Alcohol and drug impairment degrade lane-keeping and directional awareness, which is exactly the combination that produces both center-line drift and wrong-way entries. Late-night wrong-way crashes in particular correlate strongly with impairment. If a drunk driver caused your crash, the firm’s Austin drunk driving accident page covers the additional claims that may be available.

Fatigue and medical events. A driver who falls asleep or suffers a sudden medical episode does not correct. The vehicle continues on its last heading, which on a curving road means crossing into opposing traffic.

Distraction. A driver looking at a phone holds a straight heading well enough on a straight road but not through a curve. Curve departure into the opposing lane is a common distraction outcome.

Road and vehicle conditions. Standing water, a blown tire, a failed steering or suspension component, or a poorly marked lane shift through a construction zone can put a vehicle into opposing traffic without any driver inattention at all. These cases point toward a vehicle manufacturer, a maintenance contractor, or a roadway authority rather than the other driver.

Wrong-Way Entries and Austin’s Frontage Road System

Austin’s highway network relies heavily on one-way frontage roads running alongside I-35, US 183, MoPac, and SH 71. A one-way frontage road looks like an ordinary surface street to a driver who is unfamiliar with the area, impaired, or disoriented at night. A driver who turns onto one in the wrong direction is now traveling against traffic that has no expectation of an oncoming vehicle.

This matters legally for two reasons.

First, it changes who the defendants might be. A wrong-way entry case is not automatically a single-driver case. Depending on what the investigation shows, signage, striping, wrong-way warning devices, and ramp geometry can become issues — and the entity responsible for that roadway may be the City of Austin, Travis County, or the Texas Department of Transportation.

Second, and much more urgently, it changes your deadline. The moment a governmental unit is potentially in the case, a notice clock starts running that is far shorter than the ordinary filing deadline. That is covered in detail below, and it is the section to read first if there is any chance a public entity or public roadway condition contributed to your crash.

Texas Traffic Laws That Apply When a Driver Crosses the Center Line

When a Texas driver leaves their lane and strikes an oncoming vehicle, several rules of the road are typically in play. Naming them matters, because a violation of a safety statute is one of the ways negligence gets proven.

• Driving on the right side of the roadway. Texas Transportation Code Section 545.051 requires an operator on a roadway of sufficient width to drive on the right half of the roadway, subject to listed exceptions such as lawfully passing or moving around an obstruction while yielding to oncoming traffic.
• Passing to the left. Section 545.053 governs how a driver passes another vehicle on the left, returns to the lane, and behaves when being passed. Section 545.054 addresses passing at a safe distance and the conditions required before driving left of center to pass.
• No-passing zones. Section 545.055 addresses passing zones and provides that an operator may not drive on the left side of the roadway in a no-passing zone or on the left side of striping marking such a zone, subject to the exceptions in the statute.
• Driving left of center other than when passing. Section 545.056 addresses the limited circumstances in which a driver may be left of the center of the roadway when not passing.
• One-way roadways. Section 545.059 governs one-way roadways and rotary traffic islands, which is the provision most directly relevant to a wrong-way frontage road entry.

A violation of one of these provisions is powerful evidence. It is not, by itself, a judgment. Which brings us to the point most competitor pages get wrong.

Crossing the Center Line Is Evidence of Fault, Not an Automatic Verdict

You will read on other websites that the driver who crossed the center line is “automatically” at fault. That is not how it works in Texas, and believing it can cost you.

A driver who left their lane still has defenses available. They may argue a sudden emergency, an unavoidable mechanical failure, a sudden medical event, or that another vehicle forced them across the line. They may argue that a roadway defect or an obscured sign contributed. They may argue that you had time and space to avoid the impact and did not. Any of those arguments, if a jury credits it, moves responsibility away from them and toward you, toward a third party, or toward no one.

The same principle cuts in the other direction, and it is worth stating plainly:

• A police report is evidence, not a verdict. The investigating officer’s opinion about contributing factors is useful and often persuasive, but it does not decide fault, and reports contain errors.
• A traffic citation is evidence, not a verdict. So is the absence of one.
• A criminal conviction is evidence, not a verdict in the civil case. Civil liability and criminal guilt are separate questions decided under different standards.
• Not wearing a seat belt is evidence, not a verdict — and in Texas it is admissible. See the section below.

None of these facts, standing alone, establishes or defeats a claim. What they do is feed into the percentage allocation that Texas law requires.

How Texas Proportionate Responsibility Works in a Head-On Claim

Texas allocates fault by percentage under Chapter 33 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, a system usually called proportionate responsibility or modified comparative fault.

Two provisions do most of the work:

• Section 33.001 provides that a claimant may not recover damages if their percentage of responsibility is greater than 50 percent. In plain terms: at 51 percent or more, recovery is barred entirely.
• Section 33.003 requires the trier of fact to determine a percentage of responsibility for each person whose conduct is submitted, and Section 33.012 governs how the damages award is then reduced.

Texas is not a pure comparative fault state, where a claimant recovers something no matter how responsible they were. It is also not a contributory negligence state, where any fault at all bars recovery. Both descriptions appear on law firm websites and both are wrong for Texas.

In a head-on case, this framework usually becomes a fight over a handful of specific allegations: your speed, your attention, your lane position, whether you had an avoidance opportunity, and whether you were restrained. Each one the defense wins moves your percentage up. The site’s Texas comparative negligence explainer and the article on recovering when you were partially at fault go deeper on the mechanics.

The Seat Belt Question the Defense Will Raise

This comes up in head-on cases more than any other crash type, because the forces involved make restraint use consequential and because ejection is a real possibility.

For decades, Texas law kept seat belt evidence out of civil trials. That is no longer the law. The Legislature repealed the statutory bar in Transportation Code Section 545.413(g) in 2003, and in Nabors Well Services, Ltd. v. Romero, 456 S.W.3d 553 (Tex. 2015), the Supreme Court of Texas held that relevant evidence of the use or non-use of seat belts is admissible for the purpose of apportioning responsibility in civil lawsuits.

What that means practically: if you were not belted, the defense can put that in front of the jury and ask the jury to assign you a percentage of responsibility for your own injuries under Chapter 33. It is not an automatic defense. The defense still has to show that the non-use actually caused or contributed to cause the injuries claimed, which typically requires expert biomechanical testimony that the injuries would have been different with a restraint. That testimony can be challenged.

If you were not wearing a seat belt, say so to your attorney early. It does not end your claim. It does change how the case is investigated and prepared, and finding out about it from the defense’s expert report is far worse than knowing from day one.

Injuries That Shape a Head-On Collision Claim

Front-to-front impacts concentrate force on the occupant compartment and produce a recognizable injury pattern:

• Traumatic brain injury, from head strike or from the brain moving inside the skull during deceleration. Symptoms can be delayed and are frequently missed at the emergency room. See the firm’s page on traumatic brain injury after a car accident.
• Spinal cord injury, including incomplete injuries that do not present as obvious paralysis at the scene. See spinal cord injuries.
• Lower extremity and pelvic fractures, from footwell and dashboard intrusion. Femur, tibia, ankle, and pelvic fractures are characteristic of frontal impacts. See broken bones.
• Chest and abdominal trauma, including rib fractures, sternal fractures, and internal organ injury from restraint loading. See internal injuries.
• Facial and dental injuries from airbag deployment and steering wheel contact.
• Burns, where fuel system damage leads to fire.
• Amputation and limb loss, in the highest-energy crashes.

The full range is covered on the firm’s Austin car accident injury types page, and the most severe outcomes are addressed on the catastrophic injury page.

One practical point. Get evaluated even if you walked away, and follow through on the referrals. Gaps in treatment are the first thing an adjuster looks for, and a delayed diagnosis in a serious case is a medical problem before it is ever a legal one. The firm’s article on medical records in a Texas car accident claim explains how treatment documentation is used.

Damages Texas Law Recognizes in a Head-On Collision Claim

Texas separates recoverable losses into categories. Which ones apply depends on the facts, the evidence, and what a jury finds — no page can tell you what your claim is worth, and any page that offers you a number or a range is guessing.

Economic damages are the losses with a dollar figure attached: emergency care and hospitalization, surgery, imaging, medication, physical and occupational therapy, future medical care that is reasonably certain to be needed, assistive equipment and home modification, in-home care, lost wages during recovery, and loss of future earning capacity where an injury changes what work a person can do.

Non-economic damages cover the human losses: physical pain, mental anguish, physical impairment, disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life. The site’s article on pain and suffering damages in a Texas car accident explains how these are approached.

Property damage covers vehicle repair or replacement and the personal property destroyed in the crash.

Exemplary damages are a separate category with a much higher bar. Under Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 41.003, exemplary damages require proof by clear and convincing evidence of fraud, malice, or gross negligence. Chapter 41 also governs the limits that apply to exemplary damages and the exceptions to those limits under Section 41.008. This is a real possibility in some impaired-driving and wrong-way cases and is not available in an ordinary negligence case. Whether it applies to your crash is a question for an attorney who has reviewed the actual facts.

There is no guarantee of recovery in any category. What the categories tell you is what to document.

When a Bar or Restaurant May Share Responsibility

If the driver who hit you had been drinking at a licensed establishment beforehand, Texas law provides a separate claim against that provider — but only on specific terms.

Chapter 2 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code governs. Under Section 2.02(b), providing, selling, or serving alcohol may be the basis of a statutory cause of action on proof that, at the time of the service, it was apparent to the provider that the person being served was obviously intoxicated to the extent that they presented a clear danger to themselves and others, and that the recipient’s intoxication was a proximate cause of the damages suffered.

Two features of that standard deserve emphasis. It is obviously intoxicated, judged by what was apparent at the moment of service — a blood alcohol result measured hours later at a hospital does not by itself satisfy it. And Chapter 2 is generally the exclusive route against a provider, so an ordinary negligence theory is not a substitute.

Dram shop claims are evidence-intensive and time-sensitive. Point-of-sale records, server assignments, and surveillance video are the proof, and establishments do not retain video indefinitely. If there is any indication the at-fault driver came from a bar or restaurant, that investigation needs to start in days, not months. The firm’s drunk driving accident page covers this claim type in more detail.

When a Head-On Crash Is Fatal

Head-on collisions produce a disproportionate share of Texas traffic fatalities. Texas law creates two separate claims after a death, and they compensate different people.

The wrongful death claim arises under Chapter 71, Subchapter A. Section 71.002 establishes liability for an injury causing death resulting from a wrongful act, neglect, carelessness, unskillfulness, or default. Section 71.004(a) provides that the action is for the exclusive benefit of the surviving spouse, children, and parents of the deceased. Those three categories are the entire list. Siblings and grandparents cannot bring a Texas wrongful death claim. Section 71.004(b) allows any one of those individuals to bring the action for the benefit of all, and Section 71.004(c) provides that if none of them has begun the action within three calendar months after the death, the executor or administrator shall bring it unless all of them request otherwise.

The survival claim arises under Section 71.021. It is the claim the injured person held at the moment of death, continued on behalf of the estate, and it belongs to the estate rather than to the family members directly.

The distinction is not a technicality. The two claims recover different losses, are brought by different parties, and are distributed differently. Getting the structure right at the outset matters. The firm’s Austin wrongful death page covers this in more depth, and there is a dedicated page for wrongful death caused by drunk driving.

The Insurance Problem Head-On Crashes Create

This is the part of a head-on case that surprises people most, and it deserves a direct answer.

Texas is an at-fault (tort) state. There is no no-fault claim process here. The person responsible for the crash — through their liability insurance — is responsible for the resulting losses. If a website tells you Texas has a no-fault system, it is describing a different state.

Texas sets minimum liability coverage in Transportation Code Section 601.072. The current minimums are:

• $30,000 for bodily injury to or death of one person in one accident
• $60,000 for bodily injury to or death of two or more persons in one accident, subject to the per-person figure
• $25,000 for damage to or destruction of the property of others in one accident

That is commonly written 30/60/25, and Section 601.051 requires financial responsibility for operating a motor vehicle on a Texas road.

Now put that next to a head-on crash. A single air ambulance flight, a trauma admission, an orthopedic surgery, and a rehabilitation stay can exhaust $30,000 before anyone has discussed lost income or future care. Many drivers carry only the minimum. If two or three people in your vehicle were hurt, the $60,000 per-accident figure is shared among all of them.

So the real question in most serious head-on cases is not “who was at fault.” It is where else is there coverage. That is the analysis an attorney should be running in the first weeks:

• Does the at-fault driver have coverage above the minimum, or an umbrella policy?
• Was the at-fault driver working at the time? An employer’s commercial policy is typically far larger, and an employer may be independently liable.
• Was the vehicle owned by someone else, and does that owner’s policy respond?
• Is there a dram shop provider with its own liability coverage?
• Is there a vehicle or component defect that brings in a manufacturer?
• And what does your own policy provide?

That last question is the one most people never think to ask.

Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Coverage in Texas

Uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage — UM/UIM — pays when the at-fault driver has no insurance or not enough of it. In a head-on case it is frequently the largest available source of recovery, and many people do not know whether they have it.

Under Texas Insurance Code Section 1952.101(b), an insurer may not deliver or issue an automobile liability policy in Texas unless it provides uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage in the policy or supplemental to it. Under Section 1952.101(c), the coverage does not apply if a named insured rejects it in writing. Section 1952.101 also addresses how a prior written rejection carries forward on renewal and reinstatement unless the named insured requests the coverage in writing.

Personal injury protection, or PIP, works on a similar offer-and-written-rejection structure under Texas Insurance Code Sections 1952.151 and 1952.152. PIP pays certain medical expenses and lost earnings regardless of who caused the crash, which makes it useful early while liability is still unresolved.

Two cautions. UM/UIM is not automatic and is not included in every Texas policy — it is included unless it was rejected in writing, which is a different thing, and rejections are common because they are a single line on an application. And a UM/UIM claim is made against your own insurer, which does not make it a friendly process; it is still a claim that has to be proven and can be disputed.

Pull your declarations page, or have someone pull it for you, and look for UM, UIM, and PIP. If you cannot find the document, your agent can provide it. That single piece of paper often determines what is realistically achievable in a serious head-on case.

When a Government Entity Is Involved and the Deadline Changes

Read this section if any of the following might apply: the crash involved a City of Austin vehicle, a Capital Metro bus, a Travis County vehicle, a state vehicle, or a condition of the roadway itself — signage, striping, wrong-way warning devices, a construction zone lane shift, or ramp design.

Claims against governmental units in Texas run on a completely different and much shorter track than ordinary claims.

The Texas Tort Claims Act notice requirement. Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 101.101(a) provides that a governmental unit is entitled to receive notice of a claim not later than six months after the day the incident occurred, and the notice must reasonably describe the matters listed in the statute. Section 101.101(b) ratifies and approves city charter and ordinance provisions requiring notice within a charter period permitted by law — which means a city can require notice sooner than six months. Section 101.101(c) addresses the circumstances in which the notice requirement does not apply because the governmental unit has actual notice.

The City of Austin’s published process. The City of Austin’s claims process instructs anyone filing a claim against the City to send a letter within 45 days from the date of the incident, describing the date, time, and location of the incident, what occurred, the type of damage or nature of injury, and supporting documentation, sent to the City of Austin Law Department claims address.

Read those two together and the practical picture is this: there is no single “government deadline.” The applicable window depends on which entity is involved. Six months is the Tort Claims Act baseline. Forty-five days is what the City of Austin publishes for claims against the City. A different entity — the county, a transit authority, a state agency, a school district — may have a different requirement and a different office. And none of these replaces the ordinary two-year filing deadline; the notice requirement sits in front of it.

This is the single most consequential thing on this page. A person with a strong claim who waits three months before calling a lawyer has not missed the two-year deadline. They may have missed a 45-day one. If there is any chance a public entity or public roadway condition contributed to your crash, do not wait.

Texas Filing Deadlines for a Head-On Collision Claim

For an ordinary claim against a private driver:

• Personal injury. Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 16.003(a) requires suit for personal injury to be brought not later than two years after the day the cause of action accrues, except as provided by Sections 16.010, 16.0031, and 16.0045.
• Injury resulting in death. Section 16.003(b) requires suit to be brought not later than two years after the day the cause of action accrues, and provides that the cause of action accrues on the death of the injured person.

Two years is the general rule, and it is not one year, three years, or four years. But “two years from the crash” is a simplification, and the exceptions matter:

• Accrual is not always the crash date. When a cause of action accrues can itself be contested.
• Separate rules apply to claimants who were minors or under a legal disability when the claim arose.
• Government claims run on the separate notice track described above.
• Claims under a contract of insurance, including UM/UIM claims, can involve their own policy conditions and notice requirements.
• Filing suit is not the end of it — Texas courts have addressed the diligence required in serving a defendant after filing.

Nothing on this page can tell you the deadline in your case, and no page should try. Whether a deadline is paused or extended in a particular situation is a fact-specific legal question. The site’s Texas car accident statute of limitations article covers the general rules in more depth. The safe approach is to treat the shortest plausible deadline as the real one and get the case evaluated early.

How to Get Your Austin Crash Report

The Texas peace officer’s crash report is the CR-3. An officer who investigates a reportable crash completes the CR-3 and files it with the Texas Department of Transportation, which maintains the statewide Crash Records Information System (CRIS).

You can obtain a copy through TxDOT’s crash reports and records page, which links to the Crash Report Online Purchase System. Searching works best with the crash date, the county, and a driver’s name or driver’s license number. TxDOT publishes the current fees and access rules on that page; check it directly rather than relying on a figure quoted on a law firm website. Access to an unredacted report is governed by Transportation Code Section 550.065, which limits full access to categories of persons connected to the crash.

Reports are not available immediately. If the report is not there yet, that is normal and does not mean no report was filed.

The report is a valuable document. It records the officer’s diagram, the identified units, insurance information, witness details, and the officer’s assessment of contributing factors. It is also, as noted above, evidence rather than a verdict, and it can contain errors. If the report gets the lane positions or the direction of travel wrong in a head-on case, that error needs to be identified and addressed with physical evidence, not accepted.

Evidence That Decides Head-On Collision Cases

Because the “who left their lane” question can genuinely be contested, physical evidence carries more weight in these cases than in most collision claims.

• The scene itself. Gouge marks, scrub and yaw marks, fluid trails, debris fields, and final rest positions are the record of what actually happened. They are also temporary — rain, traffic, and cleanup erase them within days.
• Vehicle inspection. Crush profiles and direction-of-force analysis on the actual vehicles can establish the geometry of the impact. Vehicles get repaired, sold, or scrapped quickly, and a salvage yard has no obligation to hold one for you.
• Event data recorders. Most modern vehicles store pre-crash speed, throttle, braking, and steering data. Downloading it requires access to the vehicle and, in many cases, a preservation demand or court order.
• Commercial vehicle data. If a commercial vehicle is involved, telematics, electronic logging device records, and dashcam footage exist but are subject to retention schedules that are shorter than most people expect. The firm’s 18-wheeler accident page covers commercial cases.
• Video. Traffic cameras, business security cameras, doorbell cameras, and other drivers’ dashcams. Most of these overwrite on a rolling cycle measured in days or weeks.
• Toxicology and criminal investigation records. Where impairment is suspected, the criminal case generates records that matter to the civil claim.
• Cell phone records. Relevant to distraction, and obtainable only through formal legal process.
• Witnesses. Memories fade and contact information goes stale. Early statements are better statements.

The common thread is that nearly all of it is perishable. The practical value of contacting a lawyer early in a head-on case is not the lawsuit — it is the preservation letters that go out before the evidence disappears. The firm’s article on what to do after a car accident in Austin covers the immediate steps.

What Happens Step by Step in a Head-On Collision Claim

Every case is different, but the general sequence is predictable.

Investigation and preservation. Obtaining the CR-3, sending preservation demands for vehicles, video, and electronic data, identifying and interviewing witnesses, and where warranted retaining an accident reconstruction professional.

Coverage identification. Locating every applicable policy — the at-fault driver’s liability coverage, any employer or vehicle owner coverage, any dram shop provider’s coverage, and your own UM/UIM and PIP.

Medical documentation. Tracking treatment, obtaining records and bills, and where the injury is permanent, developing evidence of future care needs and how the injury affects the ability to work.

Notice and communication. Notifying the involved insurers, and handling adjuster communications so that recorded statements and authorizations are not used to build a comparative fault argument. The firm’s article on how insurers investigate Austin car accident claims explains what that process looks like from the other side.

Demand and negotiation. Presenting the claim with the supporting evidence and negotiating. Many claims resolve here.

Filing suit. If the case does not resolve, or if a deadline requires it, suit is filed and the case moves into discovery, depositions, and expert work.

Mediation or trial. Most cases that are filed still resolve before trial, frequently at mediation. Some do not, and the case is prepared on the assumption that it may be tried.

No one can tell you at the outset how long this will take or how it will end. Serious injury cases generally take longer, because a claim should not be resolved before the medical picture is understood.

Where an Austin Head-On Collision Case Is Filed

A crash inside Austin city limits is typically investigated by the Austin Police Department. A crash in unincorporated Travis County is typically handled by the Travis County Sheriff’s Office, and crashes on state highways may be investigated by the Texas Department of Public Safety. Either way, the CR-3 flows to TxDOT’s CRIS system.

Civil suits in Travis County are filed with the Travis County District Clerk, whose civil division handles district court filings; the county’s Civil County Courts at Law are served by the Travis County Clerk. Which court a particular case belongs in depends on the claims and the amount in controversy, and that determination is made case by case.

Not every crash near Austin is a Travis County case. The metro spills into Williamson County to the north, Hays County to the south, and Bastrop and Caldwell counties to the east — which matters for the crash report, the court, and, if a public entity is involved, which office receives the notice.

What to Bring to Your Consultation

You do not need any of this to call. Bringing what you have makes the first conversation more useful.

• The crash report, or the case number and investigating agency if you do not have the report yet
• Your auto insurance declarations page, showing liability, UM/UIM, and PIP
• Photos and video from the scene, of both vehicles, and of visible injuries
• Names and contact information for any witnesses
• Discharge paperwork, referrals, and the names of every provider you have seen
• Anything you have received from any insurance company, including letters, emails, and settlement offers
• Documentation of missed work
• If someone died, information about the surviving spouse, children, and parents, and about whether an estate has been opened

If you have already given a recorded statement or signed a medical authorization for the other driver’s insurer, bring that too. It is not fatal. It is something your attorney needs to know about immediately.

How Kelley Wolff Injury Attorneys Handles Head-On Collision Cases

Kelley Wolff Injury Attorneys is a personal injury firm based in Austin, Texas, representing people injured in motor vehicle collisions across Austin and the surrounding Central Texas communities. You can read about the firm’s attorneys, Travis S. Kelley and Colin Wolff, on their biography pages.

In a head-on collision case, the work generally includes:

• Moving quickly on evidence preservation, because scene evidence, vehicle data, and video are perishable
• Obtaining and reviewing the CR-3 and identifying anything in it that the physical evidence contradicts
• Identifying every potential source of coverage rather than stopping at the at-fault driver’s policy
• Screening early for whether a governmental unit or a dram shop provider may be involved, because both carry short practical windows
• Handling insurer communications, so that adjuster contact does not become a comparative fault problem
• Documenting the full medical picture, including future care and effects on the ability to work
• Preparing the case so it can be tried if it does not resolve

The firm handles head-on cases as part of its broader Austin car accident and Austin personal injury practice, and its motor vehicle accident practice covers related crash types.

Talk to an Austin Head-On Collision Attorney

If you or someone in your family was hurt in a head-on collision in Austin, the useful next step is a conversation with a lawyer while the evidence still exists and while every applicable deadline is still open.

Contact Kelley Wolff Injury Attorneys to request a case evaluation. Bring what you have. If you are not sure whether you have a claim, that is a normal reason to call — finding out is the point of the conversation.