Who Is Responsible When a Self-Driving Car Malfunctions and Causes a Crash?

We have all seen the commercials. A sleek vehicle glides down a sun-drenched highway while the “driver” relaxes, hands resting gently on their lap, perhaps glancing at a center console screen. The marketing sells a specific fantasy: a future where the stress of the commute vanishes, replaced by technology that sees everything and reacts faster than any human ever could.

But the reality on our roads is far messier than the glossy advertisements suggest.

As semi-autonomous and fully autonomous vehicles (AVs) move from test tracks to our driveways, they are bringing a legal storm with them. For a hundred years, traffic law was built on a simple premise: drivers make mistakes, and drivers pay for them. If you run a stop sign, you are negligent. If you rear-end someone, you were following too closely.

Now, we have to ask a question the law wasn’t really designed to answer: Who do you sue when the driver wasn’t a person, but a line of code?

The Myth of “Self-Driving”

Part of the problem lies in the language we use. We say “self-driving,” but for the vast majority of cars on the road today, that is a misnomer. We are mostly dealing with Level 2 or Level 3 automation. These systems like Tesla’s Autopilot or GM’s Super Cruise can handle steering and speed, but they demand the human remain the “captain of the ship.”

This creates a dangerous gray area. These systems are good. In fact, they are often too good. They perform so smoothly that human drivers inevitably tune out. We are wired to pay attention to active threats, not to monitor a machine that seems to be doing fine.

So, when the machine suddenly encounters something it doesn’t understand, like a confusing construction zone or a stopped fire truck, it disengages. It hands control back to the human. If that human has been lulled into a false sense of security and fails to react in the split second allowed, a crash happens.

In these cases, manufacturers almost always point the finger at the human. They will argue the driver failed to maintain supervision. But plaintiffs’ attorneys are pushing back with a different theory: the system itself is defective because it invites complacency. If a machine is designed in a way that encourages a human to stop paying attention, shouldn’t the manufacturer share the blame when that inevitable loss of focus causes a wreck?

When the Machine is Truly at Fault

Let’s look further down the road, toward fully autonomous vehicles where no human intervention is expected. If a Waymo or a Cruise robotaxi hits a pedestrian, the argument for “driver error” evaporates. There is no driver.

Here, the legal battleground shifts entirely to product liability. This is the same area of law used when a toaster catches fire or an airbag fails to deploy. The claim isn’t that someone drove badly; it’s that a company sold a broken product.

But proving a “defect” in an algorithm is infinitely harder than finding a physical crack in a brake pad.

We are looking at a future where lawsuits will involve subpoenaing millions of lines of code. Lawyers will have to determine if the car’s sensors were blinded by glare, if the recognition software failed to identify a cyclist, or if the decision-making logic prioritized the wrong safety outcome.

This also brings third-party vendors into the mix. A modern car is a Frankenstein’s monster of parts and software from dozens of suppliers. If the LIDAR sensor was made by Company A, the mapping data provided by Company B, and the integration software written by the automaker, a single crash could trigger a three-way corporate war to pass the buck.

The Data War

For the average person injured in one of these crashes, the biggest hurdle isn’t the law; it’s the evidence.

In a standard car crash, we look at skid marks, talk to witnesses, and check police reports. In an AV crash, the most critical witness is the car itself. These vehicles are constantly recording terabytes of data such as camera footage, radar logs, steering inputs, and system status reports.

This “black box” data is the smoking gun. It can prove whether the car saw the victim and ignored them, or if the sensors failed entirely.

The problem? Manufacturers treat this data like a state secret. They often fight tooth and nail to keep it proprietary, arguing that releasing it reveals trade secrets. Victims are often left in the dark, knowing the car holds the proof of what happened but lacking the access to see it. This is why standard legal approaches often fail in high-tech crash cases. You need a team that knows how to demand that data and interpret it once it’s uncovered.

The Software Update Wrinkle

Here is another complication that didn’t exist ten years ago: your car can change overnight.

With over-the-air software updates, a manufacturer can alter the braking sensitivity or steering logic of a vehicle while it sits in your garage. This introduces a timeline element to liability. If a crash happens on a Tuesday, was it caused by the software patch downloaded on Monday?

We might see scenarios where a car was perfectly safe one week, but a buggy update rendered it dangerous the next. This turns accident reconstruction into a forensic IT investigation. It forces us to ask not just what went wrong, but which version of the car was on the road at that specific moment.

The Insurance Industry is Scrambling

Insurers are watching this shift with nervous energy. The entire auto insurance model is built on pricing individual human risk. If you have a lead foot, you pay more. But if the car is driving, does my driving record matter?

Eventually, we may see a shift where liability insurance moves from the individual to the manufacturer. If Volvo or Mercedes pledges that their cars will accept full liability for crashes in autonomous mode, the cost of insurance might just be baked into the purchase price of the car.

But we aren’t there yet. Right now, we are in a messy transition period. If you are hit by a semi-autonomous car, you are likely dealing with a confused insurance adjuster, a defensive driver, and a stonewalling manufacturer. The finger-pointing can go on for years while the victim is left with medical bills and no answers.

Don’t Go at it Alone, Call Pencheff & Fraley Today

Don’t let the complexity of the law keep you from the justice you deserve. If you or a loved one has been injured, you need a legal team that isn’t afraid of big tech or complex litigation. We are ready to help you cut through the confusion and fight for your recovery.

Visit us today:

• Westerville – 4151 Executive Pkwy, Suite 355, Westerville, OH 43081
• Mansfield – 33 S. Lexington-Springmill Rd, Mansfield, OH 44906

Or call now for a free consultation on (614) 224-4114.