Self-Driving Car Accidents: The Future of Liability
Autonomous vehicles are showing up in Houston traffic, in test fleets, and even in your neighbor’s driveway. With that change comes a real question: who pays when a self-driving car is involved in a crash?
The Law Office of Shane R. Kadlec has been standing with injury victims since 1996, helping families across Houston and the Gulf Coast rebuild their lives. Our goal here is straightforward: to explain how liability works with this new technology and what you can do to protect your rights.
Autonomous Vehicles: An Overview of Technology and Automation Levels
Self-driving cars utilize cameras, radar, LiDAR, GPS, and onboard computers to perceive the road and make split-second decisions. The NHTSA reminds drivers that, even with advanced driver assistance features, vehicles still require the driver’s attention. Understanding the level of automation is crucial, as responsibility can shift based on who was intended to be in control.
- Level 0, no automation. The driver does everything, the tech only warns.
- Level 1, driver assistance. The car helps with either steering or speed.
- Level 2, partial automation. The car assists with steering and speed; however, you still need to monitor it constantly.
- Level 3, conditional automation. The system takes over; you must take control when asked.
- Level 4, high automation. The system operates in limited areas without human assistance.
- Level 5, full automation. The system operates autonomously, allowing it to drive anywhere under all conditions with no human input.
Most cars on the road sit at Level 2 or Level 3, which still rely on the human behind the wheel. That detail often decides whether a claim points to a driver, the automaker, or a software company.
Common Causes of Self-Driving Car Accidents
Crashes occur for familiar reasons, as well as a few that are unique to this technology—the cause often guides which party carries the blame or shares it.
Software Errors
Driving decisions come from code. Flawed updates, training gaps, or a bug can make the system misread a stop sign or misjudge a cyclist’s path. In such scenarios, liability can extend to the software developer or the vehicle manufacturer that installed it.
Testing cycles are better than they used to be, yet coding mistakes still surface under rare road mixes. When the error resides within the algorithm, the claim typically resembles product liability, rather than simple negligence.
Sensor Malfunctions
AVs depend on cameras, radar, and LiDAR to see cars, lanes, and pedestrians. If a sensor is blocked, out of calibration, or feeds insufficient data, the vehicle can make a dangerous choice in a heartbeat. The parts supplier or the party responsible for maintenance can face fault if a faulty component caused the event.
Weather and glare can magnify sensor limits. Logs and diagnostics reveal whether the problem was a defect or simply due to harsh weather.
Human Error
Many “self-driving” features still require active supervision. Some drivers activate features in heavy rain, look away from the road, or ignore handover alerts. In those cases, the driver can share liability, even if the vehicle was assisting.
Owner’s manuals and in-car warnings matter. If a driver deviates from those directions, insurers will likely point to misuse.
Environmental Factors
Heavy rain, dense fog, or faded lane markings can confuse both humans and machines. Construction zones and temporary signs create extra puzzles for AV logic. Liability can extend to multiple parties, including the manufacturer and the public agency responsible for road maintenance.
Photos of the scene, work-zone plans, and maintenance records often tip the scales in favor of the claimant. Small details can swing a claim.
Interaction with Human Drivers
AVs follow rules. Human drivers do not always do the same. Sudden lane changes, red-light runs, or aggressive braking can trigger conflicts that the AV does not predict well.
When that happens, the at-fault human driver might share blame with the AV maker if the system reacted poorly. The facts determine how the percentages are calculated.
Determining Liability: Who Can Be Held Responsible?
AV crashes often involve more than one responsible party. Sorting that out requires a close examination of data, design, and human behavior.
The Vehicle Manufacturer
An automaker can be liable for defective design or construction, including the integration of software into hardware. Claims target issues such as faulty braking, unsafe steering logic, or system failures that should not occur.
Design records and recall bulletins can be powerful. If the company was aware of a problem and failed to address it, that adds weight to a case.
The Software Developer
When a decision-making algorithm fails, the developer can face liability. That includes outside vendors that build, maintain, or update the operating system or perception stack.
Version history and change logs can show whether a glitch was introduced during an update. Preservation letters help lock down that evidence early.
The Vehicle Owner or Operator
Owners still carry duties. Distracted driving, ignoring alerts, skipping software updates, or poor maintenance can all create exposure.
If the feature requires human intervention and no one responds, the driver’s share of fault usually increases. That is especially true at Level 2 or Level 3.
Maintenance and Repair Providers
Bad repairs can lead to mechanical or sensor failure. Shops, dealers, and authorized service providers can be brought in when their work triggers or worsens the crash.
Invoices and calibration reports can make or break this angle. We look for gaps, shortcuts, and missing steps.
Government Entities
Poor road design, missing signage, or neglected potholes can contribute to crashes, but holding a government agency accountable for those conditions is rarely simple. In Texas, claims against government entities for roadway defects fall under the Texas Tort Claims Act, which limits the situations in which a city, county, or state agency can be sued.
Most roadway defects, such as worn markings or minor pavement irregularities, do not qualify as grounds for liability. To succeed, a claimant must usually show that a dangerous condition posed an unreasonable risk, that the government had actual notice of it, and that the agency failed to take reasonable steps to correct it or warn about it.
Even when a potential claim exists, the law imposes strict notice requirements. In some cases, the injured person must provide written notice to the appropriate governmental body within six months of the crash. Missing that deadline can completely bar recovery, regardless of the severity of the injuries.
Because of these challenges, it is essential to contact an attorney as soon as possible after a crash that may involve roadway defects or public property. Early legal involvement ensures that notice requirements are met, evidence is preserved, and the case is properly investigated before critical information is lost.
The Challenge of Determining Fault in Autonomous Vehicle Accidents
Determining fault extends beyond standard crash photos and witness reports. These cases hinge on what the car’s systems saw and did in the seconds leading up to impact.
Modern AVs store “black box” data, such as speed, steering angle, braking, alerts, sensor feeds, and handover requests. Pulling and reading that data quickly is vital, since it can be overwritten during use or remote updates. Texas courts can order the preservation of vehicle data, but acting quickly is crucial before updates overwrite the logs.
Accident reconstruction teams and software engineers help connect the dots. They review logs, compare them to the scene, and test components to find the actual failure point.
Recalls and service campaigns can support claims that a system had a known issue. If the defect matches the event, the manufacturer’s exposure grows.
Texas follows a modified comparative fault rule with a 51 percent bar. If a party is 51 percent or more at fault, that party cannot recover damages, and each share of fault reduces recovery in line with the percentage.
Insurance Coverage for Autonomous Vehicle Accidents
Insurance after an AV crash can involve multiple policies. Traditional auto coverage, product liability coverage, and even cyber coverage can all come into play.
Texas requires every vehicle to carry minimum liability limits, often referred to as 30, 60, 25. That means at least $30,000 per injured person, $60,000 per crash, and $25,000 for property damage.
Table: Insurance Paths in Texas AV Crashes
| Coverage Type | Who Provides It | When It Applies | Examples |
| Auto Liability | Driver or Vehicle Owner | Driver negligence, misuse of Level 2 or Level 3 features | Ignoring the takeover alert, distracted driving |
| Product Liability | Automaker or Software Company | Defects in design, manufacturing, or code | Faulty sensor, flawed update causing misclassification |
| Cyber Insurance | Manufacturer or Fleet Operator | Security breach or outside interference | Malicious remote access affecting control |
If a human were in control, standard auto policies usually lead. If a defect caused the crash, the claim often shifts to product liability carriers. A confirmed hack or data breach can give rise to separate cyber claims.
Steps to Take After a Self-Driving Car Accident
Your health and your rights come first. A calm checklist helps you avoid common mistakes in the moment.
- Move to a safe place if possible, and check for injuries.
- Call 911 to report the crash and request medical assistance if needed.
- Take photos of the vehicle’s position, damage, debris, skid marks, construction signs, and weather conditions.
- Get names, phone numbers, and insurance details for all drivers and witnesses.
- Do not tamper with the AV. Its data can be vital evidence.
- Provide a factual statement to the police without guessing or admitting fault, and request a copy of the report.
Then reach out to a personal injury lawyer who handles injury cases involving modern vehicle technology. Early steps can secure data before it disappears.
Why Legal Representation Is Crucial in Self-Driving Car Accidents
These cases involve layers, including drivers, car manufacturers, code writers, parts suppliers, and sometimes public agencies. Each has lawyers and insurers ready to argue the claim away.
An attorney can send preservation letters, pull black box data, secure maintenance records, and request software logs. We also collaborate with reconstruction teams and engineers to pinpoint the cause of failure and construct a clear narrative of the fault.
If the evidence points to a defective part or algorithm, we pursue product liability claims. We also work with insurers to advocate for fair compensation for medical bills, lost income, and the human costs of the crash.
Injured in a Self-Driving Car Accident? Contact Us for Assistance
We have helped Houston families after serious crashes, and we bring that steady approach to self-driving cases as well. We welcome your questions and offer a complimentary consultation to discuss what happened and explore your next steps. Feel free to call 281-643-2000 or reach us through our Contact Us page.
If you are hurting, you should not have to battle a tech company or insurer by yourself. Let us step in, gather the proper evidence, and push for the recovery you need to move forward. We are ready to help today.
