Autonomous Vehicle Accident Claims

The Autonomous Vehicle Liability Crisis

#

They promised cars that would never crash. What we got instead is a new category of catastrophic injury—crashes caused by machines that were supposed to protect us.

From Tesla’s Autopilot to Waymo’s robotaxis, autonomous vehicles have been involved in hundreds of serious accidents and dozens of deaths. The technology that was marketed as “safer than human drivers” has proven to be anything but predictable, and the legal landscape for victims is more complex than traditional auto accidents.

Understanding Autonomous Vehicle Technology

#

Levels of Automation (SAE J3016)

#

The Society of Automotive Engineers defines six levels of vehicle automation, which significantly affect liability analysis:

Current Systems and Their Limitations

#

Tesla Autopilot / Full Self-Driving (FSD)

• Level 2 system despite “Full Self-Driving” name
• Known issues: phantom braking, failure to detect stationary objects, edge case confusion
• Over 500 crashes under federal investigation
• Requires driver attention despite marketing suggesting otherwise

Waymo (Google)

• Level 4 system operating in geofenced areas
• Robotaxi service without safety drivers in some cities
• Better safety record but still involved in collisions
• Limited geographic availability

Cruise (GM)

• Level 4 robotaxi (operations paused after 2023 incidents)
• Multiple incidents including dragging pedestrian
• Regulatory license revoked in California

Other Systems

• GM Super Cruise (Level 2, highway only)
• Ford BlueCruise (Level 2, highway only)
• Mercedes Drive Pilot (First approved Level 3 in US)
• Aurora, Zoox, Motional (commercial trucking/delivery)

Types of Autonomous Vehicle Accidents

#

Failure to Detect Obstacles

#

The most common AV failure mode—system doesn’t recognize objects in vehicle path.

Typical Scenarios:

• Pedestrians in crosswalks or jaywalking
• Cyclists and motorcyclists
• Stopped emergency vehicles
• Construction zones and road work
• Unusual objects (debris, fallen cargo, animals)
• Shadows and lighting anomalies

Notable Incident: March 2018, Tempe, Arizona. Uber autonomous test vehicle struck and killed pedestrian Elaine Herzberg as she walked a bicycle across the street at night. The system detected her 6 seconds before impact but classified her as a “false positive” and failed to brake.

Phantom Braking

#

Vehicle brakes suddenly without apparent cause, creating rear-end collision risk.

Common Triggers:

• Overpasses and bridges detected as obstacles
• Shadows interpreted as solid objects
• Signs and billboards
• Vehicles in adjacent lanes
• Rain, snow, or fog interference

Legal Challenge: These incidents often harm following vehicles whose drivers had no notice the AV would brake. Establishing that the AV caused the crash—rather than the following driver—requires technical analysis.

Autopilot Disengagement Failures

#

System demands human takeover but driver is unprepared or unable to respond in time.

Contributing Factors:

• Sudden disengagement with inadequate warning time
• Driver over-reliance on system (complacency)
• Misleading marketing creating false confidence
• Inadequate driver monitoring
• System allowing engagement in unsuitable conditions

Lane Departure and Wrong-Way Events

#

Vehicle leaves lane inappropriately or enters opposing traffic.

Common Causes:

• Faded or missing lane markings
• Construction zone confusion
• Intersection navigation errors
• GPS/mapping data errors
• Sensor obstruction (dirt, snow, ice)

Intersection and Turn Failures

#

Complex intersection navigation remains challenging for AV systems.

Failure Types:

• Failure to yield to cross traffic
• Incorrect gap acceptance when turning
• Traffic signal misinterpretation
• Pedestrian crossing confusion
• Unprotected left turn collisions

Legal Framework for AV Accident Claims

#

Multi-Party Liability Analysis

#

AV accidents typically involve more potential defendants than traditional crashes:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                    AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE LIABILITY WEB                      │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                                         │
│  TECHNOLOGY LAYER                       VEHICLE LAYER                   │
│  ┌─────────────────┐                   ┌─────────────────┐             │
│  │ AV Software     │                   │ Vehicle         │             │
│  │ Developer       │                   │ Manufacturer    │             │
│  │ (Perception,    │                   │ (Integration,   │             │
│  │ Planning, AI)   │                   │ Hardware, QC)   │             │
│  └────────┬────────┘                   └────────┬────────┘             │
│           │                                     │                       │
│           └──────────────┬──────────────────────┘                       │
│                          │                                              │
│  COMPONENT LAYER         │           OPERATIONAL LAYER                  │
│  ┌─────────────────┐     │          ┌─────────────────┐                │
│  │ Sensor/Lidar    │     │          │ Fleet Operator  │                │
│  │ Manufacturers   │     │          │ (Waymo, Cruise, │                │
│  │ (Cameras, Radar,│     │          │ Uber, etc.)     │                │
│  │ Processors)     │     │          │                 │                │
│  └─────────────────┘     │          └─────────────────┘                │
│                          │                   │                          │
│           ┌──────────────┼───────────────────┘                          │
│           │              │                                              │
│           ▼              ▼                                              │
│  ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐                       │
│  │           VEHICLE OWNER / OPERATOR           │                       │
│  │  (Private owner, Rental company, Rideshare)  │                       │
│  └─────────────────────────────────────────────┘                       │
│                                                                         │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Applicable Legal Theories

#

Product Liability

#

The strongest theory for AV accident victims—holding manufacturers responsible for defective products.

Design Defect Claims:

• System architecture that fails in foreseeable conditions
• Inadequate redundancy for safety-critical functions
• User interface that encourages inattention
• Insufficient capability for marketed use cases

Manufacturing Defect Claims:

• Individual sensor failures
• Software bugs in specific production batches
• Integration errors in vehicle assembly
• Quality control failures

Failure to Warn Claims:

• Misleading marketing (e.g., “Full Self-Driving”)
• Inadequate disclosure of system limitations
• Insufficient in-vehicle warnings
• Failure to communicate known risks

Negligence

#

Claims against operators, fleet owners, and sometimes manufacturers:

• Operating AV in conditions beyond system capability
• Inadequate driver training on system limitations
• Failure to maintain sensors and software updates
• Allowing unqualified drivers to use advanced features

Breach of Warranty

#

When AV systems fail to perform as represented:

• Express warranties in marketing and sales materials
• Implied warranty of merchantability
• Implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose

State Law Variations

#

AV liability law varies significantly by state:

Case Studies

#

Building a Strong AV Accident Case

#

Critical Evidence to Preserve

#

AV accidents generate unique data streams that must be preserved immediately:

Vehicle Data:

• Event Data Recorder (EDR / “black box”) information
• Autopilot/ADAS engagement status at time of crash
• Sensor inputs (camera, radar, lidar recordings if available)
• Vehicle telemetry (speed, steering, braking)
• Software version running at time of incident
• Over-the-air update history
• Driver monitoring data (attention, hands on wheel)

External Evidence:

• Traffic camera footage
• Dashcam recordings from other vehicles
• Witness statements
• Police crash report
• Road condition documentation
• Weather data
• Cellular/GPS records showing vehicle path

Manufacturer Data (via discovery):

• Similar incident reports (NHTSA complaints, internal data)
• Software development and testing records
• Known bug reports and fixes
• Marketing materials and user communications
• Internal safety assessments
• Regulatory submissions

Expert Witnesses

#

AV cases require specialized technical expertise:

Common Defense Arguments (And Responses)

#

“The driver was supposed to be supervising” Response: Manufacturers cannot market systems as “Autopilot” or “Self-Driving,” encourage hands-off use through design, and then blame drivers for trusting the marketed capability. Driver monitoring systems should ensure attention; their failure is a product defect.

“The crash would have happened anyway” Response: But-for causation requires showing the AV caused additional harm. Expert analysis can establish what a human driver or properly functioning system would have done.

“Federal law preempts state claims” Response: NHTSA has explicitly stated federal motor vehicle safety standards do not preempt state tort law. Manufacturers remain liable under state product liability and negligence theories.

“The software is proprietary and can’t be analyzed” Response: Trade secret protections don’t block discovery in litigation. Courts routinely enter protective orders allowing expert analysis of proprietary systems.

Damages in AV Accident Cases

#

Why AV Cases Often Settle Higher

#

AV accidents typically yield larger settlements than comparable traditional crashes:

1. Clear corporate defendants — Deep-pocketed manufacturers rather than individual drivers
2. Document-rich discovery — Internal emails, safety reports, regulatory submissions
3. Public relations pressure — Companies eager to avoid headlines
4. Regulatory scrutiny — Cases attract NHTSA investigation
5. Novel liability exposure — Uncertain law creates settlement incentive
6. Punitive damage potential — Evidence of known defects supports punitive claims

Recoverable Damages

#

Economic Damages:

• Medical expenses (past and future)
• Lost wages and earning capacity
• Vehicle repair or replacement
• Rehabilitation costs
• Home modification needs
• Long-term care costs

Non-Economic Damages:

• Physical pain and suffering
• Emotional distress
• Loss of enjoyment of life
• Disfigurement
• Loss of consortium

Punitive Damages: Available when evidence shows:

• Manufacturer knew of defect and continued sales
• Misleading safety marketing despite known risks
• Failure to issue recalls for known dangerous conditions
• Prioritizing market share over safety fixes

NHTSA Investigations and Recalls

#

Current Federal Investigations

#

NHTSA maintains active investigations into autonomous vehicle systems:

How Investigations Help Your Case

#

Federal investigations provide valuable evidence:

• NHTSA requests for manufacturer data (discoverable)
• Complaint databases showing similar incidents
• Technical analysis by federal engineers
• Official findings on defect existence
• Recall decisions establishing manufacturer knowledge

Frequently Asked Questions

#

Find an Autonomous Vehicle Accident Attorney

#

AV cases require attorneys who understand both automotive product liability and the technology:

• Data preservation and vehicle forensics
• AV system architecture and failure modes
• Federal regulatory framework
• Multi-defendant litigation strategy
• Manufacturer discovery challenges
• Expert witness coordination