Abilene, TX — January 1, 2026, Susan Shin was injured in a car accident at about 10:20 p.m. on East Ambler Avenue/State Highway 351.

A preliminary accident report indicates that an eastbound 2005 Chevrolet Tahoe with defective brakes ran a red light and crashed into a 2009 Toyota Sienna that was heading north on Campus Court.

Toyota driver Susan Shin, 54, was seriously injured in the crash, according to the report.

The Chevrolet driver, who was not injured, was cited for disobeying a stop light, the report states.

Authorities have not released any additional information about the Taylor County crash at this time.

Commentary by Attorney Michael Grossman

When a serious crash happens, most people focus on what is obvious in the first report. But early conclusions don’t always tell the full story. What matters is whether anyone took the time to dig deeper and make sure every piece of evidence was carefully reviewed.

One important question is whether authorities conducted a thorough investigation. Writing a citation and noting that one driver ran a red light is only part of the picture. A complete crash investigation should go further. That can include laser mapping the scene, measuring impact points and reconstructing how both vehicles moved in the seconds leading up to the collision. It should also involve reviewing the actions of each driver before the crash: speed, braking effort, steering input and reaction time. Not every officer has the same level of training in crash reconstruction. Some departments have highly trained specialists, while others may rely on more basic investigative steps. The difference can matter in understanding how and why this collision unfolded.

Another key issue is whether anyone fully examined the possibility of a vehicle defect. The report mentions defective brakes on one vehicle. That raises serious questions. Were the brakes inspected by a qualified mechanical expert? Was there a sudden failure, a worn component or a deeper mechanical issue? Brake problems can stem from maintenance gaps, manufacturing defects or system failures that are not visible without a detailed teardown. If the brakes failed, it’s critical to know why. A simple citation does not answer that.

The third question is whether all electronic data connected to the crash has been preserved and reviewed. Modern vehicles often record information in their engine control modules, sometimes called “black boxes.” These systems can show speed, throttle position and braking activity in the moments before impact. That data could confirm whether the driver attempted to stop and how the vehicle responded. In addition, phone records, onboard vehicle systems and nearby camera footage can provide a clearer timeline. Electronic evidence can either support or challenge early assumptions, but only if it is collected before it is lost.

Crashes like this deserve more than surface-level answers. A careful investigation looks beyond the citation and into the mechanics, the data and the decisions made in those final seconds. When those deeper questions are asked, the outcome is often a clearer understanding of responsibility and what truly caused the collision.

Key Takeaways:

• A citation alone does not mean the crash was fully reconstructed or analyzed.
• Reported brake defects should trigger a detailed mechanical inspection.
• Vehicle data and electronic records can confirm what really happened before impact.