By Alex Stalvey
In an earlier post, we explored how driver-assistance technology is blurring the line between human and machine responsibility. We followed that up with an article about how some drivers now point to their vehicle’s systems when explaining an accident.
But what happens when those systems truly are to blame?
A Quick Recap
Not all self-driving vehicles are created equal. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) defines six levels of driving automation, from Level 0 (no automation) to Level 5 (full automation). These distinctions directly impact how liability is determined.Currently, most vehicles marketed as “self-driving” are actually Level 2 (partial automation) or Level 3 (conditional automation). These systems assist the driver but still require human oversight, a nuance that’s central to understanding why some manufacturers are now being drawn into courtroom disputes.
Understanding whether a vehicle has Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems (ADAS, Levels 1–2) or Automated Driving Systems (ADS, Levels 3–5) is crucial for determining who bears responsibility in an accident — the human driver, the manufacturer, or both.
As vehicles become more software-driven and interconnected, we’re seeing a new category of accident cases emerge, ones where the manufacturer, not just the driver, may share liability.
How a Manufacturer Can Become Liable
Auto manufacturers have long faced lawsuits over mechanical defects. Examples include brakes that failed, airbags that didn’t deploy, and tires that blew. Now those same legal principles are being applied to software, sensors, and autonomous-style systems.
A manufacturer may be held responsible if:
- A design or manufacturing defect in the system contributed to the accident.
- The system failed to warn or alert the driver in time to prevent harm.
- Software updates or patches altered performance after purchase without adequate disclosure.
- The company’s marketing overstated what the technology could safely do, causing drivers to over-reliance on it.
Each scenario introduces a new layer of responsibility and a new level of complexity for victims seeking compensation.
It’s easier to explain with two hypotheticals.
Scenario 1: A Fatal Crash Involving Lane-Departure Technology
A driver activates lane-departure assistance on a rural highway. Down the road, the vehicle drifts across the center line and collides head-on with another car, killing the other driver.
Investigators later find that the system was active but issued no alert or corrective steering before impact. The at-fault driver’s defense attorney argues that the manufacturer shares responsibility, claiming the system malfunctioned or failed to respond as advertised.
The manufacturer counters that the feature is a Level 2 driver-assistance tool. Meaning, it’s a support system, not an autonomous one, and the driver was required to remain engaged.
This is precisely what many courts are starting to see: drivers relying on technology marketed as “smart” or “self-driving,” then facing full legal responsibility when it fails. Jurors are beginning to question whether marketing language shapes what drivers reasonably expect.
The 2025 federal verdict against Tesla, which found the company partly liable for an Autopilot-related fatal crash, shows that courts are recognizing the growing gap between consumer beliefs and manufacturers’ defenses.
Scenario 2: A Single-Vehicle Accident and Product-Liability Claim
In another case, a driver using adaptive cruise control and lane-centering suffers severe injuries after their car veers off the road and strikes a guardrail. No other vehicles are involved.
The driver sues the manufacturer, alleging that the system steered unexpectedly and failed to disengage when road conditions changed. The manufacturer maintains that the driver was responsible for steering and that the technology worked as designed.
The case will depend on whether the system’s design, warnings, and software updates were sufficient. If evidence shows the feature behaved in an unsafe or unpredictable way, or the manufacturer overstated its reliability, the driver may have a legitimate product-liability claim.
What These Cases Show
Both examples illustrate how accident responsibility is evolving as vehicles become more automated:
- Drivers are still expected to remain alert and ready to act.
- Manufacturers are being questioned about how their systems behave and how those systems are presented (marketed) to the public.
- Courts are considering whether marketing claims create reasonable expectations that influence driver behavior.
The key issue is consistency. Companies cannot advertise a system as nearly autonomous, then describe it as basic assistance once they’re in court. That inconsistency is precisely what jurors are beginning to scrutinize.
What Victims Should Expect
Suppose your accident involves a vehicle equipped with ADAS or ADS, and evidence suggests the technology malfunctioned. In that case, your case will likely unfold differently from a traditional injury claim. This is what victims should expect.
- Longer Investigations and Expert Analysis. These cases rely heavily on data like event logs, software histories, update records, and even internal manufacturer testing documents. Expert witnesses such as engineers and system analysts often play a central role.
- Multiple Defendants and Jurisdictions. It’s common for both the driver and manufacturer to be named in the same suit. In some cases, software suppliers or component manufacturers are also added. That means your legal team must navigate multiple insurance companies, multiple states, and sometimes federal product-safety regulations.
- Data Preservation Is Critical. If you suspect a system failure contributed to your crash, preserving the vehicle and its onboard data is essential. Once software updates occur or the vehicle is repaired, key evidence may be lost. Your attorney can issue a spoliation letter to ensure that data remains intact.
- Manufacturers Have Deep Legal Resources. Automakers and their insurers typically move quickly to protect their interests. They dispatch engineers, legal teams, and public-relations specialists within hours of a major accident. Victims need experienced representation that can match that speed and sophistication.
Recent Legal Developments
Courts across the country are beginning to recognize that the “driver-only” model of liability doesn’t fit today’s vehicles. In Ortiz v. Daimler Trucks North America, design-defect and negligence claims were allowed to proceed against the manufacturer after a crash involving a truck that lacked collision-avoidance technology.
Commentaries from the University of Michigan Technology Law Review note that as ADAS takes on more operational control, manufacturers may owe a greater duty to ensure not only system reliability but also clear communication about its limits.
What’s emerging is a hybrid standard of care that expects drivers to remain vigilant while also requiring automakers to design and market responsibly.
Perhaps the clearest sign of this shift came recently, when Tesla was ordered to pay $243 million in damages. 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 Ahead
Automation is rewriting the rules of responsibility. As courtroom precedents evolve, one truth remains clear: technology may assist the driver, but it cannot replace accountability.
Need help sorting it all out? Call on us to walk through it.
