Self-driving vehicles, also known as automated or driverless cars, are becoming more commonplace. With their increasing popularity and growing numbers comes several questions about who and/or what, exactly, is responsible when a car accident happens. In light of the recent deadly Tesla crash that took place near Houston, Texas, many people are wondering if the liability falls on the driver, on the automated technology, or in some cases, on both.
In basic terms, autonomous vehicles are capable of operating and sensing the surrounding environment with limited human involvement. This means that some automated vehicles can park without the driver being in control, whereas others can navigate and drive with fairly hardly any human engagement at all. For example, Tesla’s autopilot feature allows the vehicle to steer, brake, and accelerate in its lane, but it also requires a certain amount of driver supervision. Creators designed the technology to require the driver to be in the driver’s seat with his or her hands on the wheel at all times by employing sensors that monitor the amount of pressure the driver applies to the steering wheel. It is important to note, however, that there have been several reports alleging this feature may have dangerous design flaws.
The answer concerning who or what is responsible if a self-driving vehicle crashes is not as straightforward as you may think. Although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has taken some steps toward making rules for automated vehicles, none are currently cemented in place. If federal law does not govern automated vehicles, the question then becomes whether or not state-level legislation takes the lead with licensing laws, which essentially identify the technology system as the driver of the vehicle. At the time being, many of these questions remain largely unanswered.
Different Levels of Automation
What features does a car need to have to qualify as an automated vehicle? There are actually six different levels of automation, all of which take varying degrees of responsibility for various critical control functions, such as steering, braking, throttle, and driving. Levels zero through two are so-called driver support levels, which means that the driver is responsible for the vehicle’s primary controls. For levels three through five, however, the automated technology is in control of most features, but not without driver support. The NHTSA reports that the six levels are:
Level 0 or no automation: No autonomous features are in play aside from giving warnings (i.e., coming close to an object) and providing momentary assistance.
Level 1 or driver assistance: Although the driver is in control of the vehicle, the technology still provides either steering or braking/acceleration support.
Level 2 or partial automation: The vehicle has combined automation features, such as steering and braking/acceleration support. The driver must still be engaged in order to use these features.
Level 3 or conditional automation: The driver has to be ready to take control of the vehicle if necessary but is not required to be in control of monitoring the surrounding environment.
Level 4 or high automation: The driver has the option to control the vehicle, but the automated system is capable of performing all driving functions under certain conditions.
Level 5 or full automation: The technology is capable of performing all driving functions in all conditions, but the driver retains the option of taking control of the vehicle.
Questions about Liability
There seems to be a never-ending list of inquiries concerning liability in accidents involving autonomous vehicles. Until legislation catches up and provides a clear legal precedent for car crash victims, there are several important questions that we still need to ask. Here are just a few examples of these questions:
After investigating the recent Tesla crash, police officers said that no one was sitting in the driver’s seat when autopilot was being used. (Remember: Tesla’s autopilot tech is allegedly unusable if a driver is not engaged and attentive.) Tesla representatives, however, claim that the police’s findings are incorrect and that one of the occupants (two in total died in the deadly crash) would have had to be in the driver’s seat in order to use the autopilot feature in the first place. If an occupant was able to “trick” the technology into thinking he or she was in the driver’s seat but was in fact not, is the technology liable or the occupant? Is the technology responsible for catching this error?
How safe is safe enough when it comes to these emerging self-driving technologies? Cars with autopilot features boast being able to drastically reduce car accident personal injury and fatality rates, but just how safe do we need to require them to be before they become more widely available to the public?
Did an accident result from a technological error, such as a malfunctioning sensor or a defect in the system, or from a driver’s mistake? Can both the technology and the driver be liable for the incident?
Automated Vehicle Car Accident Victims
The good news is that although there is not a clear legal answer to liability for accidents that involve self-driving vehicles, victims still have options when it comes to filing a legal claim for their injuries and other damages. Since most of the automated vehicles on American roadways require some degree of driver involvement to operate, it is more likely than not that most of the responsibility for the accident would fall on the at-fault driver. That does not mean that the manufacturer has no liability, though. If a vehicle had a defective steering or braking system, for example, the manufacturer would be liable for contributing to the collision. If the automated features that a driver was using were faulty or designed defectively, the technology itself, as well as its creators, could be liable as well.
As you can see, determining liability in a car accident is a complicated process. This is why it is always a good idea to speak with an experienced personal injury lawyer who can examine your accident from every angle and identify who or what was responsible, along with any other relevant factors.
By Galfand Berger, LLP, Pennsylvania
CONTACT US:
Lawyers in Da Nang:
99 Nguyen Huu Tho, Quan Hai Chau, Da Nang city
Lawyers in Hue:
56A Dien Bien Phu, Hue City, Thua Thien Hue
336 Phan Chu Trinh, Hue City, Thua Thien Hue
Lawyers in Phu Quoc:
65 Hung Vuong, Duong Dong town, Phu Quoc island district
Lawyers in Quang Ngai:
359 Nguyen Du, Quang Ngai City, Quang Ngai Province.
Lawyers in Ha Noi
Room 501, 5th Floor, No. 11, Lane No. 183, Dang Tien Dong Street, Dong Da District, Ha Noi
Lawyers in Nghe An
No. 19 V.I Lenin street, Vinh City, Nghe An Province
Website: www.fdvn.vn www.fdvnlawfirm.vn www.diendanngheluat.vn www.tuvanphapluatdanang.com
Email: fdvnlawfirm@gmail.com luatsulecao@gmail.com
Phone: 0935 643 666 – 0906 499 446
Fanpage LUẬT SƯ FDVN: https://www.facebook.com/fdvnlawfirm/
Legal Service For Expat: https://www.facebook.com/fdvnlawfirmvietnam/
TỦ SÁCH NGHỀ LUẬT: https://www.facebook.com/SayMeNgheLuat/
DIỄN ĐÀN NGHỀ LUẬT: https://www.facebook.com/groups/saymengheluat/
Other Articles
- ÁN LỆ SỐ 86/2026/AL VỀ SỰ KIỆN PHÁP LÝ LÀM PHÁT SINH CĂN CỨ ĐỂ XEM XÉT KHÁNG NGHỊ THEO THỦ TỤC TÁI THẨM / CASE LAW NO. 86/2026/AL ON A LEGAL EVENT GIVING RISE TO GROUNDS FOR CONSIDERATION OF A PROTEST UNDER REOPENING PROCEDURES
- ÁN LỆ SỐ 87/2026/AL VỀ THỨ TỰ ƯU TIÊN THANH TOÁN KHI XỬ LÝ TÀI SẢN BẢO ĐẢM / CASE LAW NO. 87/2026/AL ON PRIORITY OF PAYMENT UPON ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY ASSETS
- ÁN LỆ SỐ 88/2026/AL VỀ ỦY QUYỀN THAM GIA TỐ TỤNG TRONG VỤ ÁN TRANH CHẤP VỀ NUÔI CON / CASE LAW NO. 88/2026/AL ON AUTHORIZATION TO PARTICIPATE IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN A CHILD CUSTODY DISPUTE CASE
- BÀI HỌC TIẾNG ANH PHÁP LÝ: CẤU TRÚC UNLESS
- ÁN LỆ SỐ 89/2026/AL VỀ VIỆC BỒI THƯỜNG, HỖ TRỢ KHI NHÀ NƯỚC THU HỒI ĐẤT ĐỐI VỚI TÀI SẢN LÀ NHÀ MUA THANH LÝ ĐỂ Ở TRÊN ĐẤT CỦA CƠ QUAN NHÀ NƯỚC / CASE LAW NO. 89/2026/AL ON COMPENSATION AND SUPPORT UPON STATE RECOVERY OF LAND FOR HOUSES PURCHASED THROUGH L
- ÁN LỆ SỐ 90/2026/AL VỀ THẨM QUYỀN HỦY GIẤY CHỨNG NHẬN QUYỀN SỬ DỤNG ĐẤT CỦA TÒA ÁN / CASE LAW NO. 90/2026/AL RE: ON THE COURT’S AUTHORITY TO REVOKE A LAND USE RIGHTS CERTIFICATE
- TỔNG LƯỢC 08 ÁN LỆ MỚI NHẤT CÓ HIỆU LỰC TỪ NGÀY 01/7/2026 / OVERVIEW OF 8 NEW CASE LAWS EFFECTIVE FROM JULY 1, 2026
- LEARNING LEGAL ENGLISH WITH FDVN LAW FIRM: WHILST AND WHILE
- THỜI HẠN GIAO NỘP TÀI LIỆU, CHỨNG CỨ TRONG VỤ ÁN DÂN SỰ / TIME LIMIT FOR SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES
- THỜI ĐIỂM NỘP VĂN BẢN TRÌNH BÀY Ý KIẾN CỦA BỊ ĐƠN VỀ NỘI DUNG KHỞI KIỆN CỦA NGUYÊN ĐƠN / TIME LIMIT FOR A DEFENDANT TO SUBMIT A WRITTEN STATEMENT OF OPINION ON THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
- NGƯỜI LAO ĐỘNG ỦY QUYỀN CHO CÁ NHÂN KHÁC NHẬN LƯƠNG THÌ CÓ CẦN CÔNG CHỨNG, CHỨNG THỰC VĂN BẢN ỦY QUYỀN KHÔNG? / IS NOTARIZATION OR CERTIFICATION REQUIRED WHEN AN EMPLOYEE AUTHORIZES ANOTHER PERSON TO RECEIVE SALARY ON HIS/HER BEHALF?
- TỔNG HỢP 12 MẪU HỢP ĐỒNG HỢP TÁC CỦA MỘT SỐ QUỐC GIA TRÊN THẾ GIỚI / COLLECTION OF 12 COOPERATION AGREEMENTS FROM VARIOUS COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD
- TỔNG HỢP MỘT SỐ BÀI BÁO PHÁP LÝ QUỐC TẾ VỀ BẢO VỆ DỮ LIỆU / COLLECTION INTERNATIONAL ARTICLES ON DATA PROTECTION
- PHÂN BIỆT GIÁM HỘ & ĐẠI DIỆN TRONG DÂN SỰ / DISTINCTION BETWEEN GUARDIANSHIP & CIVIL REPRESENTATION
- ĐIỀU KIỆN, HỒ SƠ VÀ TRÌNH TỰ CÔNG NHẬN, CHO THI HÀNH BẢN ÁN LY HÔN CỦA TÒA ÁN NƯỚC NGOÀI TẠI VIỆT NAM
- TRÁCH NHIỆM KHI KHÔNG CHẤP HÀNH QUYẾT ĐỊNH THI HÀNH ÁN / LIABILITIES UPON FAILURE OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT DECISION



