Nothing in Texas personal injury law changes on September 1, 2026. Only fourteen bills carry that effective date, and they cover public education and special education funding, distributed renewable generation outside ERCOT, the statutory definition of the border region, arbitrator continuing education, volunteer firefighter compensation, veterinary facility registration, digital right to repair, residential solar sales registration, manufactured housing, gold and silver as legal tender, and the creation of seven new district courts. None of them touches an injury claim.
Injury law in Texas still moved in 2026. It moved through the Texas Supreme Court, in a rewritten summary judgment rule and two decisions handed down six weeks apart. A Bedford, TX personal injury lawyer can review the circumstances of your injury, help you understand your rights and available options, and explain what steps may be appropriate for your case. Contact the firm to discuss your situation and determine how you may wish to move forward.
Summary judgment in Texas now runs on a clock
The Texas Supreme Court rewrote Rule of Civil Procedure 166a by Misc. Docket No. 26-9012, signed February 27, 2026. The amendments are final and took effect March 1, 2026, and they apply to any motion for summary judgment filed on or after that date.
Deadlines now run from the date the motion is filed rather than from the hearing. The nonmovant must file a response within 21 days after the motion is filed. The movant must file a reply within 7 days after the response. No hearing or submission date may be set within 35 days after the motion’s filing. The court must set the motion for hearing or submission within 60 days after filing, or within 90 days if the court’s docket requires it, on a showing of good cause, or if the movant agrees. The court must then sign a written ruling, file it with the clerk, and provide it to the parties within 90 days after the hearing or submission date.
Several other changes matter in practice. Motions must be titled as traditional, no-evidence, or combined, although the rule states that an absent or incorrect title is not grounds for denying the motion. A reply must not raise new or independent summary judgment grounds, but may address a new or amended pleading. And evidence may now be produced by making a specific reference to it and where it may be found in the court’s file, rather than being re-attached.
For a plaintiff, the response window is now fixed, short, and running from the moment the motion is filed.
Ortiz v. Nelapatla protects partially challenged medical cost affidavits
This one came out of Collin County. On May 1, 2026, the Texas Supreme Court decided Ortiz v. Nelapatla, No. 23-0953, in an opinion by Justice Lehrmann. The case arose from a parking lot collision at a Target in McKinney where both drivers were backing out of adjacent spaces. The plaintiff served affidavits under Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 18.001 covering $19,875 in medical costs across three providers. The defendant filed counteraffidavits that challenged only portions of them.
The Court held that section 18.001 affidavits may be partially controverted, but a partially controverted affidavit may not be excluded from evidence in its entirety solely because portions are controverted. It reversed the court of appeals and remanded to the trial court. Justice Sullivan dissented, arguing for admissibility to be decided affidavit by affidavit rather than item by item.
A defendant can no longer challenge part of a medical cost affidavit and expect the whole affidavit to fall out.
H-E-B v. Peterson makes premises cases harder
The Court had cut the other way three weeks earlier. On April 10, 2026, in H-E-B, LP v. Peterson, No. 24-0310, it reaffirmed a strict constructive notice standard in premises liability. Justice Bland wrote for a unanimous Court, with no dissent or concurrence.
A customer slipped on a clear liquid puddle in the toy aisle on a rainy day, with water dripping from a ceiling rafter above. Store records showed numerous roof leaks elsewhere in the store from a remodeling project, but none above the toy aisle, and no employee had walked the aisle in the preceding two hours. The Court held that constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition requires evidence that the condition existed for a sufficient duration before the time and place of the injury for the owner to have discovered it. Leaks elsewhere in the store did not establish notice of this puddle. Neither did the size of the puddle, the fact that rain had stopped two hours earlier, or the observed dripping. The Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s summary judgment for the grocer.
If you were hurt on someone else’s property in Texas, you now need evidence of how long the hazard sat there, and that evidence has a short life. Stores overwrite video within weeks. Sweep logs and incident reports go out on a retention schedule. Calling a lawyer early is now about reaching that evidence before it is gone.
The Texas tort reform that did not pass
Texas did not enact a nuclear verdicts bill or a trucking litigation bill in 2025, whatever you may have read this month.
Senate Bill 30, which would have restricted how medical damages and noneconomic damages are presented, passed the Senate, was substantially rewritten in the House, and died in conference committee when the chambers could not agree. Senate Bill 39, the trucking bill that would have rolled back the 2021 exceptions to the admission rule, passed the Senate on April 24, 2025, was referred to House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence, and died there without a hearing.
Neither subject can be taken up again unless the Governor calls a special session and places it on the call. Otherwise the next opportunity is the 90th Legislature, which convenes January 12, 2027. Texas law on excessive verdicts still rests on case law rather than statute, and the leading authority remains Gregory v. Chohan, 670 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. 2023), a plurality opinion whose framework Texas courts have consistently applied.
One change that is proposed, not final
As of August 27, 2026, the expedited actions threshold in Rules 47 and 169 is still $250,000. The Texas Supreme Court gave preliminary approval on May 29, 2026, by Misc. Docket No. 26-9037, to raising it to $325,000. The comment period runs through September 1, 2026, and the Court has said it expects the amendments to take effect October 1, 2026. The same order states that the Court may change the amendments in response to public comments. No final order has issued. Until one does, $250,000 remains the operative threshold.
Do not confuse that with statutory county court civil jurisdiction, which is a different number governed by a different instrument. Under Government Code section 25.0003, as amended by House Bill 16 from the 2025 second called session, that limit moved from $250,000 to $325,000 on December 4, 2025, and applies to civil cases filed in a statutory county court on or after that date. House Bill 16 is an omnibus judicial branch bill with staggered dates, which is why it shows up here with a December 2025 date and elsewhere with a September 2026 one.
If any of this touches a matter you are dealing with right now, we are glad to talk it through. Call (817) 841-9906 or request a consultation at brandyaustinlaw.com/contact/.
Frequently asked questions
Do any new Texas personal injury laws take effect September 1, 2026?
No. Fourteen Texas bills carry a September 1, 2026 effective date, covering education funding, utilities, licensing, and court administration. None of them amends tort, damages, limitations, or premises and auto liability law.
What are the new Texas summary judgment deadlines under Rule 166a?
For motions filed on or after March 1, 2026, the response is due 21 days after the motion is filed and the reply 7 days after the response. No hearing or submission may be set within 35 days of filing, the court must set it within 60 days (or 90 in defined circumstances), and must sign and provide a written ruling within 90 days after the hearing or submission date.
What did Ortiz v. Nelapatla decide?
Decided May 1, 2026, Ortiz v. Nelapatla held that a Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 18.001 medical cost affidavit may be partially controverted, but may not be excluded in its entirety solely because portions of it are controverted. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded to the trial court.
What does H-E-B v. Peterson mean for slip and fall cases in Texas?
Decided April 10, 2026, it requires evidence that the dangerous condition existed long enough, at that specific time and place, for the owner to have discovered it. Evidence of leaks elsewhere in the store, the size of a puddle, or recent rain does not substitute for that duration evidence.
Did Texas pass a nuclear verdicts or trucking litigation bill in 2025?
No. Senate Bill 30 died in conference committee and Senate Bill 39 died in House committee. Texas law on excessive verdicts rests on Gregory v. Chohan, 670 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. 2023), a plurality opinion, rather than on any statute.
What is the expedited actions threshold in Texas right now?
As of August 27, 2026, it is $250,000. The Texas Supreme Court preliminarily approved raising it to $325,000 by Misc. Docket No. 26-9037 on May 29, 2026, with a comment period through September 1, 2026 and an expected October 1, 2026 effective date, but no final order has issued.
If you have been injured in an accident or on someone else’s property, understanding how Texas law applies to your claim can be important, particularly when evidence and legal deadlines may affect your ability to pursue compensation. Brandy Austin Law Firm can review the circumstances of your injury, help you understand your rights and available options, and explain what steps may be appropriate for your case. Contact the firm to discuss your situation and determine how you may wish to move forward.