By Alex Stalvey
Technology in modern vehicles is advancing faster than most laws can adapt. When I wrote earlier about how Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems (ADAS) are having an impact on accident liability, I focused on how these systems blur the line between driver and machine.
This has become especially prevalent in the courtroom and at the negotiating table in recent months.
Regulators, courts, juries, and mediators are taking a closer look at who is responsible when these systems have a role in an accident. Manufacturers are increasingly becoming a part of that discussion, especially when injuries are severe or catastrophic. Courtrooms are starting to address the gap between technical capability and legal accountability.
A high-profile example out of Florida, where a jury attributed 33% of fault in a fatal crash to Tesla’s Level 2 Autopilot system, awarded the family roughly $243 million — a strong signal that the legal floodgates may now be open, and this could be just the beginning.
We field a good bit of calls from accident victims asking about how these types of cases could play out. But before we go any further, it’s important that we level-set on the key differences between ADAS and “Self-Driving Systems.”
Because how they are being marketed to consumers is one thing, and how they are categorized in a courtroom are another. And this is causing some confusion.
Driver-Assist Features
These are now common safety technologies that support the driver but don’t control the vehicle. They include features like lane-departure warnings, blind-spot detection, adaptive cruise control, backup cameras with proximity alerts, and automatic emergency braking.
While these features are becoming the norm in newer models, and they may seem like “self-driving,” the driver remains fully responsible for steering, braking, and decision-making.
Level 2 ADAS Systems
These are “more advanced technologies” like Tesla Autopilot, Ford BlueCruise, and GM Super Cruise, which can simultaneously control steering, acceleration, and braking.
However, the driver must stay alert and be ready to take control at any moment.
Fully Autonomous Systems
Also known as “Level 4” and “Level 5” vehicles, they can operate without human oversight under specific conditions, but none are currently available for consumer use in the United States. Think Waymo and Robotaxis.
The Legal Issues Emerging in the Courtroom
Driver-Assist Features
In the courtroom, driver-assist systems (lane-departure warning, adaptive cruise, backup sensors, etc.) are classified as advisory technologies. They warn the driver or provide limited, temporary support, but the human driver remains fully responsible for operating the vehicle.
Because of that, courts rarely (and I’ll talk about this in a bit) assign liability to manufacturers when one of these systems fails to prevent a crash. Instead, the question usually centers on driver negligence (e.g., distracted driving, following too closely).
Saying that, where they do come up is if there is a known product defect or warning-label claims. When these systems malfunction —such as issuing a false positive or failing to alert —they can become relevant in litigation, but usually as part of a broader defect or failure-to-warn claim.
An example of this is automatic emergency braking systems that unexpectedly engage, causing rear-end collisions, which have led to a small number of product-defect cases.
Another example is backup cameras or proximity sensors that failed to display or alert properly have appeared in wrongful-death suits, often as evidence of defective design or maintenance negligence.
Still, these cases are uncommon and tend to settle quietly because proving that the warning system alone caused the crash is difficult.
To sum it up, these technologies are to warn or momentarily assist, but the driver is always in charge.
Level 2 ADAS Systems
Once a vehicle begins to intervene actively, questions of shared liability arise, and this is where we see the more complex litigation, such as Tesla Autopilot and GM Super Cruise cases.
From a legal standpoint, ADAS assists the driver. It does not replace them. This difference has shaped accident liability for years. Still, that boundary is beginning to shift as this position is being tested, especially as these technologies are marketed to consumers one way but defended in court in an entirely different way.
In fact, in one high-profile case, the lead attorney revealed that he planned to call senior Autopilot executives to testify that public marketing statements contradicted internal engineering facts.
In another case, Ortiz v. Daimler Trucks North America, the California Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer, allowing design-defect and negligence claims to proceed after a crash involving a truck that lacked collision-avoidance technology.
The University of Michigan Technology Law Review notes that when a driver injures another person while using ADAS, product liability claims may apply if the system malfunctions or lacks adequate warnings.
Legal experts are beginning to caution that manufacturers may face liability if they market ADAS as more autonomous than it is, misleading consumers about the system’s capabilities. This is especially true if system performance or alerts contributed to an accident.
Further Marketing and Feature Confusion
As manufacturers increasingly bundle (and market) multiple assist features into semi-automated “suites,” the boundary continues to blur. For example, “adaptive cruise + lane centering” can function as a de facto Level 2 control, even though it is marketed as Level 1.
Legal analysts expect more hybrid-system cases ahead, particularly when marketing or software updates overstate the system’s capability or change its behavior after sale.
Perhaps the clearest sign of this shift came in 2025, when a federal jury found Tesla partly responsible for a fatal Autopilot-related crash and ordered. The jury concluded that Tesla’s Autopilot system contributed to the accident and that the company failed to warn consumers about its limitations adequately.
This verdict represents a watershed moment for product liability in the age of automation. For the first time, a mainstream manufacturer was held financially accountable not just for how a vehicle performed, but for how it was represented to the public.
It underscores what jurors and regulators are increasingly acknowledging: marketing claims matter. When automakers describe technology as “self-driving,” “autonomous,” or “full self-driving,” those words shape consumer behavior, and, ultimately, legal responsibility.
The Road Forward
Driver-assist features aren’t commonly being blamed in courtrooms today, but they’re entering the conversation as stepping-stones toward automation. The legal system is watching closely for cases where driver reliance on these aids, and the way they’re marketed, begins to shift responsibility away from the human operator.
If you’ve been injured in an accident and feel these technologies played a role, reach out to us to discuss your options.
