If you’ve driven through downtown San Antonio on I-35, you already know the problem: the upper/lower deck splitforces fast decisions in heavy traffic, often with short merge distances and limited room to recover if you pick the wrong lane. That “decision pressure” is exactly why this corridor is a hotspot for last-second lane changes, abrupt braking, and sideswipe collisions—especially when there are lane shifts or closures related to ongoing repairs in the downtown I-35/I-10 area.  

The key legal question after one of these crashes is usually the same:

If the split is confusing, does that change who is at fault in Texas?

Quick Answer

Why the I-35 Upper/Lower Split Produces So Many “Panic” Crashes

The upper/lower split is a classic “commitment zone.” Drivers realize late that they’re on the wrong deck, then try to fix it quickly—often while boxed in by traffic. The most common crash patterns we see around these downtown decision points are:

Downtown traffic conditions can also change quickly during construction or repair work. TxDOT’s downtown I-35/I-10 repairs are a multi-phase effort along key downtown segments, and TxDOT specifically directs drivers to check DriveTexas for current closures/conditions.  

The Texas Rules That Most Often Decide Liability at the Split

Insurers and juries don’t decide fault based on who had the best reason to move lanes. They decide based on whether the move was legally safe and reasonable under the circumstances.

Here are three Texas concepts that frequently determine liability in upper/lower split collisions:

1) Unsafe lane movement (the “stay in your lane unless it’s safe” rule)

Texas law requires a driver to stay within a lane as nearly as practical and not move from the lane unless the movement can be made safely.  

How it applies at the split:

If a driver cuts across late because they picked the wrong deck, that driver is often blamed for creating the hazard—especially in sideswipe cases.

2) Following distance (rear-end and chain reaction cases)

Texas law also requires maintaining an assured clear distance so you can stop safely without hitting the vehicle ahead.  

How it applies at the split:

Rear-end claims often start with a presumption that the trailing driver was following too closely, but the facts can shift if the lead driver made an unreasonable stop in a travel lane to avoid missing the split.

3) Turn signals and lane-change signaling

Drivers must use signals to indicate an intention to turn or change lanes.  

How it applies at the split:

When liability is disputed (“They came out of nowhere”), signaling evidence—especially dashcam footage—can be meaningful.

Common Crash Scenarios at the Upper/Lower Split (and How Fault Is Typically Argued)

Scenario A: The last-second “dive” across lanes (sideswipe)

Typical liability theory: unsafe lane change / failure to move safely.  

What the other side will claim: “They sped up,” “They were in my blind spot,” “They wouldn’t let me in.”

Evidence that usually decides it: dashcam video, independent witnesses, and damage angles (which panel hit which).

Scenario B: Sudden braking to avoid missing the deck or exit (rear-end or chain reaction)

Typical liability theory: following too closely (for the rear driver).  

But the nuance: if the front driver stopped abruptly in a travel lane for a non-emergency reason, insurers often argue comparative fault.

Scenario C: Merge/yield conflict at a connector

Typical liability theory: the entering/merging driver forced entry without a safe opening.

Common defense: “Traffic forced me” or “They blocked me.”

Liability Cheat Sheet Table: What Adjusters Look For Downtown

Crash pattern at the I-35 upper/lower splitWhat insurers focus onBest evidence to preserveHow liability often gets spun against you
Sideswipe from a late lane changeWas the lane move safe?  Dashcam, witness info, photos of lane markings/signage“You didn’t leave room / you sped up”
Rear-end after abrupt brakingAssured clear distance  Dashcam, scene photos, sequencing of impacts“You stopped for no reason” (against the lead driver)
Chain-reaction pileupWho initiated the first impactMulti-car dashcams, witness statements, crash report diagram“I was pushed into them”
Merge conflict onto a connectorYield/safe entry, predictabilityWide-angle photos, video showing gap timing“They blocked me from merging”
Confusion due to traffic shifts/closuresRoad condition context (not a defense by itself)Photos of signs, barrels, lane shifts; DriveTexas screenshots (when safe)“You should have driven slower / taken the next exit”

Texas Proportionate Responsibility: Why the “51% Rule” Is a Big Deal Here

Downtown split cases are notorious for insurers pushing shared fault because both drivers are often moving, braking, and merging at the same time.

Under Texas proportionate responsibility, a claimant generally cannot recover damages if their percentage of responsibility is greater than 50%.  

That’s why evidence matters. A “50/50” insurance decision can be the difference between progress and a stalemate.

What If Poor Signage or Road Conditions Contributed?

People understandably ask: Can I sue TxDOT or the City because the split is confusing?

Sometimes—but those claims are constrained by statute.

Practical takeaway: If you suspect a roadway condition, missing sign, or construction-related traffic shift played a role, you should preserve location-specific proof early. The downtown corridor is actively maintained and can change over time.  

What To Do After a Crash at the I-35 Split (Claim-Protecting Checklist)

At the scene (if safe)

Within 24–72 hours

Insurance Basics That Matter in These Cases (Plain English)

Your case value and options often depend on the coverage available:

How Long Do I Have to File in Texas?

Most personal injury lawsuits must be brought within two years after the claim accrues.  

Waiting can hurt even before a deadline because video disappears, witnesses move, and the roadway configuration may change.

Attorney Insight: The “Confusing Highway” Argument Can Be a Trap

In practice, the strongest cases don’t argue, “The split made me do it.” They show:

That framing aligns with how liability is usually evaluated under Texas rules about lane movement and safe distance.  

FAQs (Short, Snippet-Friendly Answers)

Can I still recover if I was partly at fault at the I-35 split?

Possibly. Texas reduces recovery by your percentage of responsibility, but you generally cannot recover if you’re more than 50% responsible.  

What if the other driver says I “wouldn’t let them merge”?

That’s common here. The deciding proof is usually videodamage angles, and whether the merging driver had a safe opening before forcing entry.

Does not using a turn signal matter?

It can. Signaling is part of showing a lane change was made responsibly, and it often becomes important when stories conflict.  

How do I get the police crash report in Texas?

TxDOT provides a crash report purchase portal and a crash-records page explaining access.  

What if I think a roadway condition or signage issue contributed?

Governmental claims can involve strict notice rules, including a six-month notice provision under the Texas Tort Claims Act (and potentially shorter city charter deadlines).  

Ryan Orsatti Law

4634 De Zavala Rd, San Antonio, TX 78249

Phone: 210-525-1200

“This blog is for informational purposes only, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Past results do not guarantee future results.”