The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that millions of Americans are injured in motor vehicle crashes annually.1 In just 2025, an estimated 36,640 Americans died as a result of a motor vehicle crash.2 Many vehicle manufacturers and technology companies hope to reduce these figures, envisioning a world forward where driving is done by autonomous vehicles, reducing the amount of human error that often leads to crashes.
However, autonomous vehicle manufacturers face legal liabilities arising from this novel technology, both from Artificial Intelligence features as well as the vehicle itself. As autonomous systems take the wheel, crash liability is increasingly shifting away from driver negligence toward products liability claims targeting technology companies and vehicle manufacturers. America’s tort system, which is based largely on the vague “reasonable person standard,” will have to evolve with technological advancements where, as with autonomous vehicles, there is no “person” actually involved.
Autonomous vehicle litigation has exploded almost as quickly as the technology itself, for both fully and partially “self-driving” vehicles. In August 2025, a Florida federal jury found Tesla partially liable for a 2019 car crash involving a partially autonomous vehicle, awarding the plaintiffs
$43 million in compensatory damages for pain and suffering plus $200 million in punitive damages.3 The jury apportioned one-third of the fault to Tesla and two-thirds to the driver.4 As Tesla was found only one-third liable for the crash, the jury’s staggering recommended pain and suffering damages of $129 million amounted to $43 million in compensatory damages against Tesla.5 Tesla has appealed.6
The case involved a crash where a Tesla Model S was in “Autopilot” mode, and the driver took his eyes off the road to reach for his cell phone and then failed to stop at an intersection and slammed into a parked SUV.7 The crash resulted in the death of a pedestrian and injured one other.8
Tesla’s “Autopilot” mode is the base system found in all Tesla vehicles, comparable to Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems features found in other vehicle brands.9 “Autopilot” can use its sensors to steer, accelerate, and brake automatically.10 It also has traffic-aware cruise control, which matches the vehicle’s speed to the speed of the traffic around it, and “Autosteer,” which keeps vehicles in their designated lane.11 Additionally, “Autopilot” can move a vehicle into or out of a tight parking space or garage, without a driver, using only a phone application or key fob.12 A more full-featured Tesla system, “Full Self-Driving (Supervised),” is an optional package that consumers can add to their Tesla vehicle that builds on the standard “Autopilot” features.13 “Full Self-Driving (Supervised)” can do things such as signaling and moving a vehicle to a clear adjacent lane when “Autosteer” is engaged or can lead a vehicle on the highway from the on-ramp to the correct off-ramp.14
Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued Tesla exaggerated the capabilities of “Autopilot,” which led to the driver not paying attention to the road.15 On the other hand, Tesla argued that the driver was solely responsible for this crash because he was not paying attention while driving.16 The driver settled out of court with the plaintiffs.17
Tesla’s owner’s manual18 specifically warns, “Self-Driving refers to a suite of advanced driver assistance features that are intended to make driving more convenient and less stressful. None of these features make Model S fully autonomous or replace you as the driver. It is your responsibility to familiarize yourself with the limitations of these features, pay attention to the road, and be ready to take immediate action at any time.”19 The plaintiffs’ evidence at the trial focused on how the company has marketed its driver-assistance software to consumers.20
Waymo, a fully autonomous, self-driving ride-hailing service, was sued in June 2025, when a bicyclist claimed a Waymo vehicle pulled to the curb, adjacent to a bike lane, and a backseat passenger on the driver’s side “[s]uddenly and without warning opened the rear door directly into the bike lane and into [the bicyclist]’s immediate path of travel.”21 Then, a second Waymo “[v]ehicle, also fully autonomous . . . began merging toward the northeast curb to initiate a passenger drop-off. In doing so, it crossed into the bicycle lane, further narrowing the usable lane width and eliminating [the bicyclist]’s opportunity to safely maneuver.”22 The cyclist alleges they struck the first Waymo vehicle’s open door, throwing them “[l]aterally into the adjacent traffic lane, where [they] collided with the front passenger side of the” second Waymo vehicle, which was obstructing the bicycle lane.23
The Complaint filed on June 6, 2025 in the Superior Court of California in San Francisco County alleges that Waymo’s “[a]utonomous vehicles, including their passenger drop-off functionality, door warning systems (such as the ‘Safe Exit’ feature), and lane navigation protocols, were defective because they failed to prevent or warn of foreseeable harm to cyclists lawfully using the roadway and adjacent bike lanes.”24 The Complaint features four causes of action against Waymo, including intentional battery, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”), negligence, and Strict Products Liability.25 The case is currently in the discovery phase.
As these cases continue to increase, Husch Blackwell’s Autonomous Vehicles Team is adeptly equipped to guide clients through these complex issues along with Husch Blackwell’s product liability team, which is monitoring the potentially changing scope of liability for vehicle manufacturers and technology companies.