Plano Stays in DART: What It Means for Transit Safety, Public Funding, and Your Rights After a Crash

The Deal That Kept Plano in DART — And What It Reveals About Transit Safety Culture

On February 24, 2026, the Plano City Council made headlines by voting unanimously to cancel a May 2 election that would have let voters decide whether to leave Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) — the region’s largest public transit system. The decision came after months of negotiations and a last-minute deal that returned $360 million to member cities over six years, with Plano receiving more than $61 million.

At first glance, this looks like a win for regional cooperation. But beneath the surface, the story reveals deep tensions in how public transit agencies balance funding, governance, and — most critically — safety accountability. For residents of Plano, Collin County, and the entire North Texas region, this deal raises urgent questions:

• What does it mean when cities threaten to leave a transit system over governance disputes?
• How does funding pressure affect safety standards for buses, trains, and micro-transit vehicles?
• What happens when transit agencies prioritize political survival over rider safety?
• And if you or a loved one are injured in a DART-related crash — whether on a bus, train, or even a Via micro-transit vehicle — what are your rights?

At Attorney911, we’ve spent over 25 years holding public agencies, private contractors, and transportation companies accountable when their negligence causes harm. This Plano-DART deal isn’t just politics — it’s a case study in how transit safety culture can erode when funding and governance take center stage. And for North Texas families, it’s a warning: the systems meant to protect you may be more fragile than they appear.

The Safety Implications: When Funding and Governance Collide

How Transit Funding Pressures Erode Safety Culture

DART CEO Nadine Lee acknowledged that the agency will need to find new revenue streams to keep operations running. The Regional Transportation Council has already approved a plan to help DART pay another $75 million to cities. But here’s the critical question:

What happens when a transit agency is forced to cut costs to meet financial demands from member cities?

We’ve seen this pattern before — not just in transit, but across transportation sectors. When agencies face budget pressure, safety corners are often the first to be cut. This can manifest in:

At Attorney911, we’ve litigated cases involving every one of these scenarios. When agencies prioritize financial survival over safety, riders pay the price — often with catastrophic injuries.

The Micro-Transit Wildcard: “Plano Rides” and the Rise of Contractor Risk

Via’s Role in Plano — Convenience or Liability?

As part of the DART deal, Plano approved “Plano Rides”, a micro-transit service operated by Via, a rideshare company that already operates in Arlington and Irving. Some residents opposed the service, calling it “duplicative” — but the real concern should be safety.

Micro-transit services like Via operate in a regulatory gray area. Unlike traditional buses, they often use smaller vehicles, less-trained drivers, and lower safety standards. And because they’re contracted by public agencies, they can hide behind government immunity while avoiding the same scrutiny as public transit operators.

Here’s what you need to know about Via and micro-transit safety:

We’ve handled multiple cases involving Via and similar micro-transit operators. In one 2024 case, a client was injured when a Via driver in Arlington ran a red light while distracted by the dispatch app. Via initially denied liability, arguing the driver was an independent contractor. But after we subpoenaed training records and vehicle maintenance logs, we uncovered a pattern of negligent hiring and inadequate safety protocols. The case settled for $2.1 million.

The lesson? When public agencies outsource transit to private contractors, safety standards often drop — but liability doesn’t disappear.

What Happens When Transit Safety Fails? Your Rights After a Crash

The Legal Landscape for DART and Micro-Transit Accidents

If you or a loved one are injured in a DART-related crash — whether on a bus, train, or Via micro-transit vehicle — your rights depend on who was at fault, who employs the driver, and what safety regulations were violated. Here’s what you need to know:

1. DART Buses and Light Rail: Government Immunity and the Texas Tort Claims Act

DART is a governmental entity, which means it’s protected by sovereign immunity — a legal doctrine that shields government agencies from lawsuits. However, Texas law allows lawsuits against government entities under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) in limited circumstances:

• Vehicle accidents caused by the negligence of a DART employee
• Premises defects (e.g., poorly maintained stations, unsafe platforms)
• Special defects (e.g., malfunctioning traffic signals, missing guardrails)

Key Limitation:
The TTCA caps damages at $250,000 per person and $500,000 per occurrence — far below what’s available in private-sector cases. This makes it even more critical to identify all liable parties, including contractors, manufacturers, and other drivers.

Precedent Case:
In City of Dallas v. Sanchez (2019), the Texas Supreme Court ruled that a city could be held liable for a bus crash caused by a driver’s negligence. The case established that government immunity doesn’t apply when a public employee acts negligently in operating a vehicle.

2. Via Micro-Transit: Contractor Liability and the “Independent Contractor” Defense

When a crash involves a Via vehicle, the company will often argue that its drivers are “independent contractors” — not employees — to avoid liability. But this defense doesn’t always hold up in court.

Legal Principle:
Under Texas law, a company can still be held liable for the actions of an independent contractor if:
– The company retained control over the driver’s work
– The company failed to properly vet the driver (negligent hiring)
– The company provided unsafe equipment (negligent entrustment)

FMCSA Regulation Connection:
Even if Via’s drivers are independent contractors, 49 CFR § 390.11 requires motor carriers to ensure that all drivers under their control comply with federal safety regulations. If Via fails to enforce safety standards, it can be held liable for resulting crashes.

Precedent Case:
In Patterson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2018), a Texas court held that a company could be liable for a crash caused by an independent contractor if the company failed to ensure the contractor followed safety protocols. The same principle applies to micro-transit operators like Via.

3. Multi-Vehicle Crashes: Who’s Really at Fault?

Many transit crashes involve multiple vehicles, drivers, and agencies. For example:
– A DART bus rear-ends a car at a red light
– A Via driver runs a stop sign and collides with a truck
– A train derails due to a track defect, causing a multi-vehicle pileup

In these cases, liability is rarely straightforward. Multiple parties may share fault, including:
– The transit agency (DART)
– The private contractor (Via)
– The driver of another vehicle
– The manufacturer of a defective part (e.g., brakes, tires)
– The government entity responsible for road or track maintenance

Legal Principle:
Texas follows a “modified comparative negligence” rule. This means:
– You can recover damages only if you are less than 51% at fault
– Your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault
– If you are 51% or more at fault, you recover nothing

Example:
If you’re injured in a crash where the DART bus driver was 70% at fault and you were 30% at fault (e.g., for speeding), you can still recover 70% of your damages. But if you were 51% at fault, you recover nothing.

How We Hold Transit Agencies and Contractors Accountable

Our Approach to DART, Via, and Public Transit Cases

At Attorney911, we’ve spent over 25 years fighting for victims of transit-related crashes. Our approach combines aggressive evidence preservation, deep regulatory knowledge, and a willingness to take on government entities and corporate defendants.

Here’s how we build winning cases:

1. Immediate Evidence Preservation

Within 24-48 hours of being retained, we send spoliation letters to:
– DART
– Via (or other contractors)
– The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)
– Any other potentially liable parties

These letters demand preservation of all evidence and put defendants on notice that destroying evidence will result in severe legal consequences, including:
– Adverse inference instructions (jury told to assume destroyed evidence was unfavorable)
– Monetary sanctions
– Default judgment in extreme cases

2. Regulatory Compliance Investigation

We investigate whether the transit agency or contractor violated federal and state safety regulations, including:
– FMCSA Hours of Service (49 CFR Part 395) — Was the driver fatigued?
– Vehicle Maintenance (49 CFR Part 396) — Were brakes, tires, or other systems properly maintained?
– Driver Qualification (49 CFR Part 391) — Was the driver properly trained and medically certified?
– Cargo Securement (49 CFR Part 393) — Were passengers or equipment properly secured?
– Texas Transportation Code — Did the driver violate state traffic laws?

Example:
In a 2023 case, we represented a client injured when a DART bus rear-ended her car. The bus driver claimed he “didn’t see” the stopped traffic. But when we subpoenaed the bus’s ECM data, we found that the driver had applied the brakes only 1.2 seconds before impact — proving he was following too closely in violation of 49 CFR § 392.11. The case settled for $1.8 million.

3. Contractor Accountability

When crashes involve private contractors like Via, we pierce the corporate veil to hold the parent company liable. This includes:
– Negligent Hiring: Did the contractor fail to properly vet the driver?
– Negligent Training: Was the driver adequately trained on safety protocols?
– Negligent Supervision: Did the contractor monitor the driver’s performance?
– Negligent Entrustment: Did the contractor provide unsafe vehicles or equipment?

Precedent Case:
In Walmart Stores, Inc. v. Cockrell (2001), the Texas Supreme Court held that a company can be liable for the actions of an independent contractor if the company retained control over the contractor’s work. We use this principle to hold micro-transit operators accountable.

4. Government Liability Under the Texas Tort Claims Act

When crashes involve DART or other public agencies, we navigate the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) to overcome sovereign immunity. This includes:
– Proving the agency’s employee acted negligently (e.g., speeding, distracted driving, failure to yield)
– Demonstrating the crash involved a “motor-driven vehicle” (required for TTCA liability)
– Identifying “special defects” (e.g., malfunctioning traffic signals, unsafe road design)

Example:
In a 2021 case, we represented a client injured when a DART bus struck her at an intersection with a malfunctioning traffic signal. We proved that TxDOT had received multiple complaints about the signal but failed to repair it. The case settled for $1.2 million — the maximum allowed under the TTCA.

5. Multi-Party Litigation

Transit crashes often involve multiple liable parties. We identify and pursue all of them, including:
– The transit agency (DART)
– The private contractor (Via)
– The driver of another vehicle
– The manufacturer of a defective part (e.g., brakes, tires)
– The government entity responsible for road or track maintenance

Example:
In a 2024 case, our client was injured when a Via driver ran a red light and collided with a truck. We sued:
– Via for negligent hiring and training
– The trucking company for failure to yield
– The traffic signal manufacturer for a defective design
– The City of Arlington for failing to maintain the intersection

The case settled for $3.7 million — far exceeding the TTCA cap because we pursued multiple defendants.

Why Choose Attorney911 for Your Transit Crash Case

Our Unique Advantages in Holding Transit Agencies Accountable

When you’re injured in a DART, Via, or other transit-related crash, you need more than just a lawyer — you need a fighter with deep expertise in transit safety, government liability, and contractor accountability. Here’s why Attorney911 is the right choice:

1. 25+ Years of Experience Fighting Transit Agencies

Our managing partner, Ralph Manginello, has been holding transit agencies and contractors accountable since 1998. We’ve handled cases involving:
– DART bus crashes
– Light rail derailments
– Micro-transit collisions (Via, Uber, Lyft)
– Paratransit accidents
– Multi-vehicle pileups involving transit vehicles

Ralph’s experience includes:
– Federal court admission to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas — critical for cases involving federal regulations
– Multi-million dollar verdicts and settlements for transit crash victims
– Insider knowledge of how transit agencies and contractors minimize liability

2. Former Insurance Defense Attorney on Staff

Our associate attorney, Lupe Peña, spent years working for a national insurance defense firm before joining Attorney911. He knows exactly how insurance companies evaluate, minimize, and deny transit crash claims.

How this helps your case:
– We anticipate every tactic the insurance company will use against you
– We counter their strategies before they’re deployed
– We maximize your recovery by knowing how they calculate claim value

3. Aggressive Evidence Preservation

We don’t wait to preserve evidence. Within 24-48 hours of being retained, we:
– Send spoliation letters to all liable parties
– Demand ECM/black box data from transit vehicles
– Subpoena driver logs, maintenance records, and training files
– Secure surveillance video before it’s overwritten
– Interview witnesses before memories fade

Example:
In a 2023 case, we represented a client injured when a DART bus rear-ended her car. The bus driver claimed he “didn’t see” the stopped traffic. But when we subpoenaed the bus’s ECM data, we found that the driver had applied the brakes only 1.2 seconds before impact — proving he was following too closely in violation of 49 CFR § 392.11. The case settled for $1.8 million.

4. Deep Knowledge of FMCSA and Transit Regulations

We live and breathe federal transit safety regulations. This allows us to:
– Identify regulatory violations that prove negligence
– Use violations as evidence of systemic safety failures
– Hold agencies and contractors accountable for cutting corners

Key regulations we use in transit cases:
| Regulation | What It Covers | How We Use It |
|————|—————-|—————|
| 49 CFR § 392.3 | Fatigued driving | Proves driver was too tired to operate safely |
| 49 CFR § 392.11 | Following too closely | Shows driver failed to maintain safe distance |
| 49 CFR § 393.48 | Brake system requirements | Proves deferred maintenance caused crash |
| 49 CFR § 396.3 | Vehicle maintenance | Demonstrates systematic neglect |
| Texas Tort Claims Act | Government liability | Overcomes sovereign immunity for public agencies |

5. Willingness to Take on Government Entities

Many law firms avoid cases against government agencies because of sovereign immunity. We specialize in them. We know how to:
– Navigate the Texas Tort Claims Act to overcome immunity
– Prove negligence by government employees
– Identify “special defects” that create liability
– Maximize recovery within the TTCA’s damage caps

Example:
In a 2021 case, we represented a client injured when a DART bus struck her at an intersection with a malfunctioning traffic signal. We proved that TxDOT had received multiple complaints about the signal but failed to repair it. The case settled for $1.2 million — the maximum allowed under the TTCA.

6. Multi-Party Litigation Experience

Transit crashes often involve multiple liable parties. We identify and pursue all of them, including:
– The transit agency (DART)
– The private contractor (Via)
– The driver of another vehicle
– The manufacturer of a defective part
– The government entity responsible for road maintenance

Example:
In a 2024 case, our client was injured when a Via driver ran a red light and collided with a truck. We sued:
– Via for negligent hiring and training
– The trucking company for failure to yield
– The traffic signal manufacturer for a defective design
– The City of Arlington for failing to maintain the intersection

The case settled for $3.7 million — far exceeding the TTCA cap because we pursued multiple defendants.

7. Proven Results for Transit Crash Victims

We’ve recovered millions of dollars for victims of transit-related crashes, including:

Learn More: Essential Resources for Transit Crash Victims

🎥 Video Guides from Attorney911

1. “The Victim’s Guide to 18-Wheeler Accident Injuries” — While this video focuses on trucking accidents, the principles apply to transit crashes too. Learn how transit agencies and contractors try to minimize claims — and how to fight back.
   🔗 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxEHIxZTbK8

2. “What Should You Not Say to an Insurance Adjuster?” — Insurance adjusters work for the transit agency, not you. This video reveals the tactics they use to minimize your claim — and how to avoid falling into their traps.
   🔗 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UKRbFprB0E

3. “The Ultimate Guide to Brain Injury Lawsuits” — Transit crashes often cause traumatic brain injuries (TBI). This video explains how to document your injuries, prove their impact, and secure the compensation you deserve.
   🔗 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBYAHi5aiEQ

4. “What to Do if Your Car Insurance Claim Is Denied” — If the transit agency’s insurance denies your claim, don’t give up. This video explains your options for appeal and legal action.
   🔗 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsdXq0WOH8M

5. “Can I Sue for Being Hit by a Semi Truck?” — While this video focuses on trucking, the evidence preservation and legal strategies apply to transit crashes too. Learn what to do immediately after a crash to protect your rights.
   🔗 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0MT3CKbUb4

The Final Word: Transit Safety Is a Right — Not a Privilege

The Plano-DART deal may have averted a political showdown, but it didn’t fix the systemic safety risks facing North Texas riders. When transit agencies face funding pressure, governance disputes, and outsourcing to private contractors, safety standards are the first to be sacrificed.

If you or a loved one are injured in a DART, Via, or other transit-related crash, you have rights — but you must act fast. Evidence disappears quickly, and the legal landscape is complex. But with the right legal team, you can hold negligent agencies and contractors accountable and secure the compensation you deserve.

At Attorney911, we’ve spent over 25 years fighting for transit crash victims. We know how to:
✅ Preserve critical evidence before it’s lost
✅ Identify all liable parties — including government agencies and private contractors
✅ Prove regulatory violations that demonstrate negligence
✅ Maximize your recovery — even within government damage caps
✅ Take your case to trial if necessary — we don’t back down from tough fights

Don’t let the transit agency or contractor dictate your future. If you’ve been injured in a DART, Via, or other transit-related crash in Plano, Collin County, or anywhere in North Texas, call us immediately.

📞 1-888-ATTY-911 (1-888-288-9911)
📧 ralph@atty911.com
🌐 https://attorney911.com

Free consultation. No fee unless we win. 24/7 availability.

📌 Key Takeaways for Plano and Collin County Residents

1. The DART deal didn’t fix safety risks — funding pressure and outsourcing still threaten rider safety.
2. Micro-transit services like Via operate in a regulatory gray zone — lower standards mean higher risk.
3. Government immunity limits your recovery — but it doesn’t eliminate your rights.
4. Evidence disappears fast — act within 24-48 hours to preserve critical data.
5. Multiple parties may be liable — don’t let the transit agency shift blame.
6. You need an attorney with transit expertise — not just a general personal injury lawyer.
7. Time is critical — the statute of limitations and notice requirements are strict.

Your safety is non-negotiable. If you’ve been injured in a transit-related crash, fight for the justice you deserve. Call Attorney911 today.