By Alex Stalvey
“The car did it.”
In an earlier article, I explained how courts are beginning to hold manufacturers accountable when technology influences a crash. But there’s another side to that story that’s becoming increasingly common.
Drivers who cause serious accidents are now starting to claim that their vehicle’s technology, not their own actions, was responsible (or partly responsible) for what happened.
From a defense standpoint, that’s a predictable evolution. From a victim’s perspective, it’s a legal curveball that can complicate the path to recovery.
The Rise of the “Tech Blame” Defense
When an at-fault driver points to technology as the reason for an accident, they’re essentially arguing: I wasn’t negligent, the car failed me. You might hear claims like:
- “The lane-keeping system pulled me off course.”
- “The automatic braking didn’t engage.”
- “The car accelerated on its own.”
- “I thought Autopilot was controlling the vehicle.”
In these cases, the driver’s attorney may attempt to shift some or all liability to the manufacturer, claiming that a system malfunction, poor design, or misleading marketing caused the crash.
That strategy can draw out litigation, require more complex discovery, and delay settlements, but it doesn’t erase accountability. Courts are still guided by a core principle: the driver is ultimately responsible for maintaining control of the vehicle.
What Victims Need to Understand
For victims, the introduction of this “tech blame” defense changes the legal process and how evidence is gathered. This is what you need to know.
- Expect More Technical Investigation. When an at-fault driver blames the car, your legal team will need to secure and preserve vehicle data logs, software update records, and diagnostic reports. These can reveal whether a system actually malfunctioned or if the driver misused it. Check out this earlier post where we talk about what happens when owners knowingly ignore vehicle defects or warnings.
- Liability Won’t Disappear or Transfer, it will Expand. In some cases, both the driver and manufacturer may share responsibility. But that doesn’t reduce the victim’s right to compensation — it simply identifies additional parties that may owe damages.
- Marketing and Misuse Matter. If a vehicle’s system was marketed as “self-driving” or “hands-free,” the defense may argue that the driver relied on that promise. However, juries increasingly understand that marketing hype doesn’t absolve a driver of their duty of care. The law still treats these systems as assistance tools, not autonomous drivers.
- Insurance Complexity. Claims involving advanced systems often involve multiple insurers — the driver’s policy, the vehicle manufacturer’s liability coverage, and sometimes third-party software or component suppliers. A skilled attorney will navigate these layers to ensure the victim’s claim doesn’t stall.
Inside the Courtroom
When these cases reach trial, jurors must decide: Was it human error, a technical defect, or both?
To answer that, lawyers rely heavily on expert testimony from engineers, crash reconstructionists, and human factors specialists. They help establish:
- Whether the system performed as designed
- Whether the driver ignored or misunderstood alerts
- Whether the manufacturer provided adequate warnings or training materials
This establishes a delicate balance. Blaming the technology can backfire for a defendant if data shows the system worked properly, or if they over-relied on features clearly labeled as driver-assist, not autonomous.
Why Victims Need Legal Experience on Their Side
For victims, these cases are rarely straightforward. What once seemed like a simple rear-end collision or lane-change accident can turn into a complex web of data analysis and manufacturer discovery.
Having a legal team that understands how these technologies function and how manufacturers defend them can make a substantial difference in the outcome. We’ve seen firsthand how quickly liability questions can shift once technology enters the picture. Our role is to make sure that distraction, inattention, or defective technology never overshadow one truth: innocent victims deserve justice and complete recovery.
Looking Ahead
As automation becomes a bigger part of daily driving, we’ll continue to see this defense strategy surface. The challenge for courts and victims is ensuring that accountability doesn’t get lost in the complexity of innovation, because no matter how advanced the technology, responsibility doesn’t vanish the moment a driver takes their hands off the wheel.
Remember, this is new, uncharted territory, and we’re all learning to adjust to it. Some courtrooms are further ahead than others. That’s why it’s critical that you have an experienced attorney by your side.
