Who Is at Fault for Autopilot Car Crashes? | GoSuits

• What do “Autopilot” and “self-driving” really mean, and why does fault matter?
• Who can be at fault for an Autopilot or self-driving car crash?
• How do federal rules, recalls, and investigations impact self-driving crash liability?
• What do Texas, California, and Illinois laws say about fault in Autopilot crashes?
• How is driver negligence different from a manufacturer or software defect?
• What evidence proves fault in an autonomous or ADAS crash?
• How do insurance claims work after a self-driving or Autopilot crash in TX, CA, and IL?
• What if the crash caused a wrongful death in a self-driving or Autopilot incident?
• How does comparative negligence apportion fault in these cases?
• What defenses do drivers and manufacturers raise, and how are they addressed?
• What steps should you take immediately after an Autopilot or self-driving crash?
• How long do you have to file a claim or lawsuit in TX, CA, and IL?
• How can GoSuits help with an Autopilot or self-driving car crash case right now?
• Resources and citations

What do “Autopilot” and “self-driving” really mean, and why does fault matter?

In everyday conversation, words like Autopilot, self-driving, and autonomous get used interchangeably. Legally and technically, they describe different things. Most consumer vehicles on the road today use advanced driver-assistance systems, often called ADAS or Level 2 automation. These systems can assist with steering and speed, but the human driver must stay engaged and is legally required to monitor the road and the technology. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) explains that fully automated vehicles that do not require a human to monitor are a future goal, while current offerings are limited to driver assistance features that still require human supervision.

Why this matters for fault: If a system is driver assistance rather than driver replacement, the driver typically remains a central figure in assigning liability. Still, if a system malfunctions or is unreasonably dangerous in design or warnings, the vehicle manufacturer and component suppliers may share or carry the liability. Your recovery in a civil case can depend on correctly identifying whether the crash was caused by driver negligence, a product defect, a software or sensor failure, or a combination of all three.

Who can be at fault for an Autopilot or self-driving car crash?

Determining who is at fault for an Autopilot car crash is fact intensive. In Texas, California, Illinois, and under general tort principles, fault is often shared among multiple parties. Potentially liable parties include:

• The human driver for inattention, distraction, overreliance on ADAS, speeding, or failing to retake control when required.
• The vehicle manufacturer for design defects, software flaws, inadequate warnings, insufficient driver monitoring, or failure to recall and remedy known hazards.
• Component or software suppliers if a sensor, camera, radar, lidar, or algorithm failed in a way that caused or aggravated the crash.
• Vehicle owner if vehicle maintenance, known defects, or unauthorized modifications contributed to the incident.
• Fleet operators or ride-hailing providers if their training, supervision, or maintenance practices were unsafe.
• Entities responsible for roadway design or maintenance in limited circumstances when road conditions or signage misled sensors and drivers, subject to governmental immunities and notice requirements that vary by state.

Courts often allocate fault by percentage. That percentage can reduce a plaintiff’s recovery or even bar it under certain state rules, which we explain below.

How do federal rules, recalls, and investigations impact self-driving crash liability?

NHTSA’s current framework emphasizes that most vehicles on the road use limited automation and still require drivers to remain attentive. The agency’s public materials outline the differences between driver assistance and higher levels of automation, underscoring that drivers must monitor the system at all times when using Level 2 features.

What federal data exists about ADAS crashes and Autopilot involvement?

Since 2021, NHTSA has required manufacturers and operators to report certain crashes involving advanced driver-assistance systems under a Standing General Order. In an initial public summary covering a roughly 10-month period ending in May 2022, manufacturers reported 392 Level 2 ADAS crashes, and Tesla reported 273 of those events. The agency cautioned that this was an early snapshot based on manufacturer self-reporting and varying data access and does not alone measure safety performance across brands. Still, it illustrates that ADAS crashes are being tracked and reviewed, and that federal reporting can inform civil cases involving Autopilot and similar systems.

How do NTSB crash investigations inform civil cases?

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has investigated several high-profile incidents involving driver-assistance systems. In a 2020 Highway Accident Report on a fatal crash in Mountain View, California, the NTSB discussed automation complacency, overreliance, and system limitations. While the NTSB does not assign civil liability, its technical findings about human factors, system design, and operational constraints are frequently cited in litigation involving ADAS and automated features.

What do recalls and NHTSA defect findings mean for liability?

Federal recalls related to driver-assistance features can influence fault analysis. In December 2023, NHTSA announced a safety recall campaign involving Tesla vehicles equipped with Autopilot. The recall addressed circumstances where driver engagement and system controls may not adequately prevent misuse. Evidence of recalls, technical service bulletins, and defect investigations can support claims that a manufacturer knew about risks, had safer feasible alternatives, or failed to provide adequate warnings or driver monitoring. Defendants may counter that updates and remedies were provided, that the vehicle was not updated, or that misuse remains the primary cause.

How does Texas approach negligence and product liability for autonomous vehicle crashes?

Texas law recognizes negligence and product liability claims in motor vehicle crashes involving ADAS and automated features.

• Negligence and proportionate responsibility: Texas follows a modified comparative fault scheme. If a plaintiff’s percentage of responsibility is greater than 50 percent, recovery is barred. Otherwise, damages are reduced by the plaintiff’s percentage of responsibility.
• Product liability: The Texas Products Liability Act governs claims against manufacturers and sellers for design defects, manufacturing defects, and failures to warn. In an ADAS case, plaintiffs may argue a design defect in driver monitoring, human-machine interface, or software logic, or that warnings were inadequate about system limitations.
• Wrongful death: Texas allows certain surviving family members to bring wrongful death claims for death caused by the wrongful act, neglect, carelessness, unskillfulness, or default of another.

How does California treat driver negligence and strict product liability for ADAS crashes?

California law is a frequent forum for Tesla Autopilot crash litigation and other autonomous vehicle claims.

• Negligence and pure comparative fault: California follows pure comparative negligence, meaning a plaintiff’s damages are reduced by their percentage of fault, regardless of how high that percentage might be.
• Strict product liability: California recognizes strict liability for defective products, including design defect, manufacturing defect, and failure to warn. Seminal California Supreme Court decisions established that manufacturers can be held strictly liable for defective products that cause injuries.
• Wrongful death: California permits specified heirs to bring wrongful death actions when a death is caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another.

What about Illinois negligence and product liability for self-driving crashes?

Illinois also provides negligence and product liability pathways in ADAS and autonomous collisions.

• Modified comparative negligence: Illinois bars recovery if a plaintiff is more than 50 percent responsible. At 50 percent or less, damages are reduced by the plaintiff’s share of fault.
• Product liability and seller protections: Illinois allows strict product liability claims. A distributor or non-manufacturing seller may be dismissed from the case if they identify the manufacturer, with certain exceptions.
• Wrongful death: Illinois permits a personal representative to bring an action for pecuniary losses suffered by the decedent’s next of kin.

How is driver negligence different from a manufacturer or software defect? How do courts look at driver negligence in Autopilot cases?

Negligence requires showing duty, breach, causation, and damages. In ADAS crashes, common allegations include inattention, distraction, fatigue, unsafe speeds, or misuse of the system contrary to warnings. For example, if the system requires hands on the wheel and eyes on the road, failing to monitor can be a breach of duty. Traffic law violations can support negligence per se. However, the presence of ADAS does not excuse the driver’s duty to operate safely.

REQUEST NOW

What counts as a product defect in an autonomous or ADAS system?

Product liability claims focus on the product’s condition rather than the driver’s conduct. Possible theories include:

• Design defect: The design is unreasonably dangerous. In ADAS cases, this might involve insufficient driver monitoring, confusing human-machine interfaces, unreliable object detection under foreseeable conditions, or risky operational domain decisions.
• Manufacturing defect: The product deviated from its intended design.
• Failure to warn or instruct: Warnings about system limitations or misuse risks were inadequate or not prominent, leading to foreseeable misuse such as overreliance or inattention.

Courts and juries weigh technical evidence about software performance, sensor fusion, real-world testing, and the feasibility of safer designs, including better driver monitoring, geofencing, or restricted operational domains.

Can both driver negligence and product defect be true?

Yes. In many self-driving or Autopilot crash cases, fault is mixed. A driver might be inattentive, while the ADAS has design shortcomings that allowed predictable misuse or failed to detect hazards. Comparative fault rules then allocate fault percentages among the driver, manufacturer, and sometimes others such as component suppliers or fleet operators.

What “black box” data matters in Autopilot crash investigations?

Modern vehicles often contain Event Data Recorders, sometimes called black boxes. Federal regulations specify what data is recorded when an EDR is installed, including pre-crash speeds, braking, and other parameters. In ADAS-equipped vehicles, there can also be additional logs capturing steering, lane keeping, following distance, driver monitoring alerts, and whether Autopilot or another assistance feature was engaged. Preserving this data early can be decisive.

How do you preserve electronic evidence without losing it?

Electronic data can be overwritten. Timely preservation letters and, when needed, court orders can address the risk of spoliation. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) authorizes sanctions when electronically stored information that should have been preserved is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps. In Texas, for example, courts also address spoliation through instructions or sanctions when parties fail to preserve key evidence after a duty to preserve arises. The safest path is to send immediate written preservation demands to all potential custodians, including the manufacturer, owner, fleet operator, and relevant third parties like tow yards or repair facilities.

What other evidence helps prove self-driving crash fault?

• Vehicle inspections to document sensor damage, camera obstructions, and system status.
• Over-the-air update logs and recall documentation to determine software versions and whether known safety updates were applied.
• Driver monitoring and alert history to show whether the system issued hands-on-wheel or attention prompts.
• Crash scene evidence such as skid marks, debris fields, and roadway signage or markings that may have confused sensors.
• Video from dashcams, fixed cameras, or fleet systems.
• Mobile phone records when distraction is suspected.
• Witness statements to verify system behavior and driver attentiveness.
• NHTSA and NTSB materials for context on system limitations and relevant recalls or investigations.

Who pays for damages after an Autopilot crash?

Typically, you start with the at-fault driver’s insurance. If product defects are involved, you may pursue claims against the manufacturer and component suppliers. Many cases proceed on parallel tracks: a negligence claim against a driver and owner, and a product liability claim against a manufacturer. When fleets or ride-hailing AVs are involved, commercial policies and contractual risk allocations can apply.

How do insurers respond to ADAS and software malfunction claims?

Insurers often challenge causation and argue driver misuse. They may request data downloads and point to owner’s manuals or on-screen warnings stating the driver must remain attentive. Plaintiffs respond with evidence of system design risks, inadequate driver monitoring, or misleading marketing about capabilities. Claims teams often require technical reports and data analysis to move settlement discussions.

Does comparative negligence change settlement value?

Yes. In Texas and Illinois, being found more than 50 percent at fault can bar recovery entirely. In California, damages are reduced by your share of fault but are not barred. Insurers calibrate offers based on their view of fault apportionment, injury severity, and proof that a manufacturer feature contributed.

What if the crash caused a wrongful death in a self-driving or Autopilot incident?

Wrongful death rules vary by state, including who can file, what damages are available, and how fault is apportioned. Families in Texas, California, and Illinois can pursue claims against negligent drivers and potentially against manufacturers for defective design or warnings. These cases frequently require rapid evidence preservation and specialized accident reconstruction. Filing deadlines can be short, and notice requirements may apply if a public entity is involved, so timely help is important.

How does comparative negligence apportion fault in these cases?

Juries or judges assign percentages of responsibility to each party. Consider a scenario in Houston where Autopilot was engaged, the driver was on a phone, and a software update addressing driver monitoring had not been installed. A jury might assign a portion of fault to the driver for distraction, a portion to the manufacturer for insufficient monitoring or warnings, and perhaps to the owner for failing to update software. In San Francisco or Los Angeles, the same analysis applies, but recovery is still possible even if the plaintiff is mostly at fault. In Chicago, recovery is barred if the plaintiff’s share exceeds 50 percent.

How do warnings and user interfaces affect fault percentages?

Warnings matter. If the manufacturer’s materials clearly state that the system is not self-driving, that the driver must watch the road, and that certain conditions are outside the system’s operating domain, a jury may allocate more fault to the driver. If warnings are confusing, buried, or contradicted by marketing or on-screen cues that invite overreliance, a jury may allocate greater fault to the manufacturer.

What defenses do drivers use?

• System failure: The vehicle suddenly braked, failed to detect a hazard, or steered incorrectly.
• Comparative negligence of others: Other drivers, road conditions, or maintenance contributed significantly.
• Compliance with warnings: The driver kept hands on wheel and eyes forward but the system malfunctioned.

What defenses do manufacturers use?

• Misuse and overreliance: The system is assistance only, and the driver failed to monitor or respond to alerts.
• State-of-the-art: The design reflected feasible technology at the time, with no safer alternative design available that maintained utility.
• Warnings and instructions: Adequate warnings were provided, and training materials were available.
• Post-sale updates: Firmware and software updates addressed emerging issues, and the vehicle was not updated or was altered by the owner.
• Intervening cause: Unrelated third-party negligence, unusual road conditions, or improper maintenance caused the crash.

How do plaintiffs respond to manufacturer defenses?

• Human factors: Demonstrate foreseeable overreliance and the availability of stronger driver monitoring or interface designs based on federal findings and industry practices.
• Alternative designs: Show feasible driver monitoring improvements, operational domain limits, or warning designs that would have reduced risk.
• Data-driven causation: Use EDR and system logs to demonstrate that a defect, not just misuse, was a substantial factor in the crash.

What steps should you take immediately after an Autopilot or self-driving crash?

• Call 911 and get medical care. Your health comes first. Police reports and medical records also document the event.
• Preserve the vehicle and data. Ask that the vehicle not be powered down or repaired until data is downloaded and inspected by qualified professionals. Send written preservation letters quickly.
• Gather evidence. Photos, video, names of witnesses, dashcam footage, and details about road markings, weather, and lighting are valuable.
• Avoid software resets or updates until data is secured. Over-the-air updates can change logs or system states.
• Notify insurers carefully. Provide facts, not speculation, and avoid recorded statements without counsel.
• Get legal help. Self-driving and ADAS cases are technical, and early action can protect key evidence and your claim.

How long do you have to file a claim or lawsuit in TX, CA, and IL?

• Texas: Generally two years for personal injury and wrongful death claims, with exceptions in certain circumstances.
• California: Generally two years for personal injury and wrongful death claims.
• Illinois: Generally two years for personal injury and wrongful death claims, with specific rules for certain defendants.

Deadlines can be shorter when governmental entities are involved or longer in limited situations. Different timelines may apply for property damage. You should take action promptly to avoid losing your claim.

How can GoSuits help with an Autopilot or self-driving car crash case right now?

Autopilot car crash fault analysis requires technical evidence, immediate preservation steps, and a litigation plan that addresses both driver negligence and potential product defect. A free consultation gives you a clear path to safeguard data such as black box logs, driver monitoring alerts, recall and update histories, and to begin building the liability narrative needed for negotiations with insurers and, if necessary, litigation in Texas, California, or Illinois. We talk through your questions, explain options in plain language, and map your next steps without delay.

Who is GoSuits and what do we do in these cases?

• We focus on serious injury and complex litigation. Our team handles cases involving ADAS misuse, alleged software malfunction, product defect, catastrophic injuries, and wrongful death in TX, CA, and IL courts.
• We work one case at a time. We are not a volume firm. You receive attentive case handling, direct communication, and a plan tailored to your facts, whether your crash occurred in Houston, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, or Chicago.
• We move fast to preserve evidence. We send targeted preservation letters, coordinate vehicle and scene inspections, and secure EDR and system logs before they are lost.
• We build fact-driven liability theories. We analyze driver behavior, interface design, driver monitoring records, firmware versions, and recall histories to determine whether fault lies with the driver, the manufacturer, or both.

What availability and communication do we offer?

• Available 24/7. You can reach us any time for an immediate free consultation by phone or online, including nights and weekends.
• Rapid response across TX, CA, and IL. We can meet virtually the same day and coordinate in-person meetings through our staffed offices. We prioritize urgent evidence preservation.
• Multilingual support. We offer multilingual customer service with 24/7 Spanish and Farsi speakers available, and access to additional languages upon request.

What are our fee policies and cost transparency?

• No win, No Attorney Fees. You owe no attorney’s fees unless we recover for you, and we explain case costs and net recovery scenarios in advance.
• No hidden administrative fees. We discuss cost structures up front so you understand how funds are used for investigation, filings, and litigation work.

REQUEST NOW

How do our tools and workflow add value to your claim?

• Proprietary personal injury software. We built an internal platform that accelerates investigation, organizes EDR and telematics data, streamlines demand packages, and tracks negotiations and litigation steps. We are a law firm that adopts forward-looking tools to stay ahead of insurance company tactics.
• Efficient case staging. From intake to demand to suit filing and discovery, we run parallel tracks so your case progresses without unnecessary delay.

What is our experience and track record?

• 30 years of combined experience in injury litigation across Texas, California, and Illinois.
• 1,000 plus litigated matters with settlement and verdict results published on our site. See selected results here: gosuits.com/prior-cases.
• Complex case resources. In product liability, 18-wheeler, brain injury, spinal injury, and other complex matters, we retain qualified independent professionals in the state to testify and help establish liability and damages.
• Awards and recognition:

• #1 settlements and verdicts across multiple U.S. counties according to TopVerdict.
• Top 100 Settlement in Texas.
• Sean Chalaki recognized Top 40 under 40 by National Trial Lawyers.
• Recognized by Best Lawyers in 2023, 2024, and 2025.
• Selected to Super Lawyers since 2021.

Where are we located and how do we help immediately?

• Texas, California, and Illinois coverage. We serve clients throughout these states and route your matter to the nearest staffed office team so we can act immediately on evidence preservation and medical coordination.
• Local presence. We meet virtually or in person, including hospital or home visits when needed. If your crash happened in Houston, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, or Chicago, we can mobilize quickly with investigators and inspection resources.
• Immediate action plan. During your free consultation, we outline a step-by-step plan for preserving black box data, notifying insurers, scheduling inspections, and arranging any needed medical referrals without delay.

What makes working with us different?

• Client-first communication. You receive regular status updates, clear explanations, and direct access to your case team.
• Technical depth. We know how to frame ADAS and Autopilot issues for insurers and juries using data, recall documentation, and human factors analysis.
• Trial-ready approach. We prepare every case as if it will be tried, which supports stronger negotiation with insurers.

Resources and citations

• NHTSA, Automated Vehicles for Safety: https://www.nhtsa.gov/technology-innovation/automated-vehicles-safety
• NHTSA, Early Estimate of 2023 Traffic Fatalities: https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/2023-traffic-fatalities-estimates
• NHTSA, Standing General Order on Crash Reporting for ADAS: https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-order-crash-reporting
• NHTSA, Initial ADAS Crash Reporting Data (June 2022): https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/initial-adas-crash-reporting-data
• NTSB Highway Accident Report, Mountain View, CA, HAR-20/01: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR2001.pdf
• NHTSA Recall Campaign related to Tesla Autopilot, 23V-838: https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=23V838
• NHTSA ODI Investigations page, search EA22-002: https://www.nhtsa.gov/investigations?combine=EA22-002
• 49 C.F.R. Part 563, Event Data Recorders: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2011-title49-vol6/CFR-2011-title49-vol6-part563
• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e), ESI sanctions: https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure
• Texas Proportionate Responsibility, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 33: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CP/htm/CP.33.htm
• Texas Products Liability, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 82: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CP/htm/CP.82.htm
• Texas Wrongful Death, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 71: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CP/htm/CP.71.htm
• California Comparative Negligence, Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16599178400470237438
• California Strict Product Liability, Greenman v. Yuba Power Prods., 59 Cal.2d 57: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5541642713651203501
• California Wrongful Death, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.60: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=377.60.&lawCode=CCP
• Illinois Comparative Negligence, 735 ILCS 5/2-1116: https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/073500050K2-1116.htm
• Illinois Seller Dismissal Statute, 735 ILCS 5/2-621: https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=073500050K2-621
• Illinois Wrongful Death Act, 740 ILCS 180: https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2031
• Texas Spoliation principles, Brookshire Bros. v. Aldridge, 438 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. 2014): https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10207859139019384187
• Cornell LII overview of negligence: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence
• Cornell LII overview of products liability: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/products_liability

Frequently asked questions about fault in Autopilot and self-driving car crashes

Who is liable in self-driving car accidents when both driver and manufacturer played a role?

Liability is apportioned among responsible parties. The driver may be liable for inattention or misuse, while the manufacturer may be liable for design defects or inadequate warnings. State comparative negligence rules determine how damages are divided.

How do wrongful death claims work in these cases?

Wrongful death laws allow eligible family members to pursue claims against negligent drivers and, where appropriate, manufacturers and suppliers. Deadlines and eligible claimants vary by state.

What if software malfunction or ADAS overreliance caused the crash?

A software malfunction can support product liability theories. Overreliance may support a failure-to-warn or human factors design theory, especially where stronger driver monitoring or clearer interfaces were feasible.

Do black box data and NHTSA investigations matter to my claim?

Yes. Event Data Recorder logs, on-board system data, recall documentation, and federal findings can establish how the vehicle and driver behaved before and during the crash.

Should I talk to the insurance company before I speak with a lawyer?

You should report the crash but avoid recorded statements and speculation. The technical nature of these claims makes early legal help important to protect your interests.