San Francisco Robotaxi & Robot Injury Claims

San Francisco is ground zero for the autonomous vehicle revolution—and for the legal questions it creates. With Waymo operating at scale, Cruise shut down after a catastrophic pedestrian incident, and delivery robots navigating crowded sidewalks, residents face new risks that traditional traffic law never anticipated.

As the most concentrated robotaxi market in the United States, San Francisco has become the proving ground for autonomous vehicle liability law. What happens here shapes legal frameworks nationwide.

The Robotaxi Landscape in San Francisco

#

San Francisco hosts the most concentrated robotaxi operations in the country. The city’s dense urban environment, complex traffic patterns, and diverse road conditions make it both an ideal testing ground and a high-risk environment.

Waymo Operations

#

Waymo has established San Francisco as one of its primary markets, operating hundreds of fully autonomous vehicles throughout the city.

Current Status (Late 2025):

Notable San Francisco Incidents:

• January 2025: First fatality involving a truly driverless vehicle in SF (Waymo not at fault—other driver ran red light)
• December 2025: Waymo struck an unleashed dog, reigniting safety debates
• February 2024: Crowds vandalized and set fire to a Waymo robotaxi during Lunar New Year celebrations in Chinatown
• Multiple 2024 incidents: Waymos blocking traffic, entering active construction zones, clustering on residential streets

The Cruise Shutdown: A Case Study in AV Liability

#

The Cruise robotaxi program came to an abrupt halt in October 2023 following a serious pedestrian injury. The incident and its aftermath illustrate the legal exposure companies face.

The October 2023 Incident:

1. October 2, 2023: A pedestrian was struck by a hit-and-run human driver and thrown into the path of a Cruise robotaxi
2. The Cruise vehicle struck the victim and then dragged her 20 feet while attempting to pull over
3. The vehicle’s software mischaracterized the collision as a side-impact, triggering the dangerous pullover maneuver
4. The victim suffered traumatic injuries requiring multiple surgeries

Regulatory Fallout:

Corporate Collapse:

• November 2023: CEO Kyle Vogt resigned, executives departed
• Cruise laid off nearly 25% of staff
• December 2024: GM announced it was ending Cruise robotaxi operations entirely
• GM wrote off $5+ billion in Cruise investment

Delivery Robots in San Francisco

#

San Francisco maintains some of the nation’s strictest regulations on sidewalk delivery robots.

Current Restrictions:

• Maximum 3 robots per company
• Total of 9 robots citywide
• Confined to industrial areas with minimal pedestrian traffic
• 3 mph speed limit (strictest in the nation)

These restrictions stem from concerns about:

• Pedestrian safety, particularly for seniors, children, and people with disabilities
• Sidewalk congestion in dense urban neighborhoods
• ADA compliance and right-of-way conflicts with wheelchair users

Despite these limits, companies like Starship and Kiwibot continue delivery operations in permitted areas.

Why SF Restricted Delivery Robots: In 2017, San Francisco became one of the first cities to significantly limit sidewalk robots after advocacy from disability rights groups. The city cited incidents nationwide of robots blocking sidewalks, creating trip hazards, and impeding wheelchair access.

California Legal Framework

#

California has one of the most developed—and plaintiff-friendly—regulatory frameworks for autonomous vehicle liability.

Pure Comparative Negligence

#

California follows pure comparative negligence, meaning you can recover damages even if you were 99% at fault. Your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault, but never eliminated.

What This Means for Robotaxi Cases:

• Even if you were jaywalking, you can still recover
• Comparative fault will reduce your award proportionally
• Juries determine fault percentages
• No minimum threshold for recovery

Strict Product Liability

#

California pioneered strict product liability in the landmark case Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (1963). Under this doctrine:

• Manufacturers are liable for defective products regardless of negligence
• You don’t need to prove the company was careless—only that the product was defective
• Applies to design defects, manufacturing defects, and failure to warn

For Robotaxi Cases: Strict liability means Waymo, Cruise, and other AV companies can be held liable if their vehicles are defectively designed or manufactured—even if they exercised reasonable care in development and testing.

Multiple Regulatory Bodies

#

Statute of Limitations

#

Who Can Be Held Liable?

#

Robotaxi and delivery robot injuries may involve multiple potentially liable parties:

Vehicle Manufacturers (Waymo, GM/Cruise)

#

• Design defects in autonomous driving systems
• Manufacturing defects in sensors, cameras, or computing hardware
• Failure to warn about known risks or limitations
• Post-collision behavior defects (like Cruise’s dragging incident)

Software Developers

#

The AI and software systems that control autonomous vehicles represent a new frontier in product liability:

• Defective perception systems that fail to recognize pedestrians
• Flawed decision-making algorithms
• Inadequate testing before deployment
• Over-the-air update liability for new defects introduced post-sale

Operating Companies

#

Companies operating robotaxi services may face liability for:

• Negligent deployment in unsafe conditions (fog, construction zones)
• Inadequate safety protocols
• Failure to respond appropriately to known hazards
• Cover-ups and regulatory deception (as in Cruise case)

Third Parties

#

Depending on circumstances, liability may extend to:

• Component suppliers (NVIDIA, Intel/Mobileye, etc.)
• Mapping and infrastructure data providers
• City/government entities for infrastructure defects
• Other drivers whose actions contributed to the incident

Steps to Take After a Robotaxi Injury in San Francisco

#

1. Document the Scene

#

• Take photos and videos of all vehicles involved
• Note the vehicle’s company branding (Waymo, Cruise, etc.)
• Record the license plate and any visible vehicle ID numbers
• Note location, time, and weather conditions
• Get contact information from witnesses
• Screenshot any app data if you were a passenger

2. Seek Medical Attention

#

Even if injuries seem minor, get a medical evaluation. Some injuries may not be immediately apparent, and medical records establish causation.

3. Report the Incident

#

• File a police report at the nearest SFPD station
• Report to the California DMV Autonomous Vehicles Branch
• Consider filing a complaint with the California PUC
• Report to NHTSA (adds to federal safety database)

4. Preserve Evidence

#

• Keep all medical records and bills
• Save any communication with the robotaxi company
• Don’t repair or dispose of damaged property without documenting
• Send a preservation letter demanding the company retain all vehicle data, footage, and logs

5. Consult an Attorney Promptly

#

Autonomous vehicle cases involve complex technology, regulation, and liability questions. Companies have teams of lawyers working immediately after incidents to control evidence and liability.

Challenges in San Francisco AV Cases

#

Data Access

#

Autonomous vehicles generate terabytes of data about every trip. Accessing this data requires:

• Legal discovery demands
• Expert witnesses who can interpret sensor logs
• Potentially compelling testimony from company engineers
• Understanding proprietary systems

Proving Fault

#

When a vehicle has no driver, traditional accident investigation methods don’t apply. Proving fault requires:

• Reconstructing what the vehicle’s systems perceived
• Understanding how algorithms interpreted the situation
• Demonstrating why the system made particular decisions
• Expert testimony on AV systems and AI decision-making

Evolving Law

#

Courts are still developing legal frameworks for autonomous vehicle liability. Key unsettled questions:

• Does strict liability apply to AI software the same way as physical products?
• Who is liable when over-the-air updates introduce new defects?
• How should comparative fault be allocated between AVs and human drivers?
• What discovery rights do plaintiffs have to proprietary AI systems?

Frequently Asked Questions

#

San Francisco Resources

#

Government Agencies

#

• San Francisco Police Department — File accident reports at local stations
• California DMV Autonomous Vehicles Branch — Report AV-involved incidents
• San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) — Local traffic regulations
• California Public Utilities Commission — Complaints about commercial AV services

Courts

#

• San Francisco Superior Court — State claims
• U.S. District Court, Northern District of California — Federal claims, class actions

Medical Facilities

#

• Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital — Level I trauma center
• UCSF Medical Center — Major academic medical center

Related Practice Areas

#

• Autonomous Vehicles — Comprehensive guide to self-driving car liability
• Delivery Robots — Legal issues with sidewalk delivery robots
• AI Chatbot Liability — Mental health harm and AI product liability

Related Resources

#

• Cruise Robotaxi Shutdown — Full analysis of the Cruise incident and shutdown
• Tesla FSD & Autopilot Liability — Tesla autonomous driving claims
• Understanding Liability — General product liability principles
• Filing a Claim — Step-by-step guide to the claims process

Related Locations

#

• California State Guide — Statewide robotics and AI injury law
• Los Angeles — Waymo, Tesla, and theme park robotics
• San Jose — Silicon Valley tech corridor