An autonomous vehicle accident feels different from any other crash. Instead of arguing about speed or stop signs, liability often hinges on algorithms, data logs, and software versions. In 2025, self-driving cars share the road with millions of traditional vehicles.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has reported that while AVs may reduce some risky behaviors, they will not eliminate accidents. Crashes still happen, and when they do, the question becomes: who is legally responsible?
You cannot assume fault will be obvious. Was it a system defect? A human driver failing to intervene? Or a manufacturer that pushed out a flawed software update?
Each answer shifts the case in a different direction. That is why self driving car liability requires careful review of technology and law together.
If you have been in an AV collision, your first step should be securing evidence and legal guidance. An AV crash lawyer can translate technical records into courtroom arguments and hold the correct party accountable.
Current Federal and State AV Regulations
There is no single federal law that governs autonomous vehicles. Instead, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued guidance documents such as “Automated Vehicles 4.0”, but these are not enforceable rules.
NHTSA does collect crash data under its Standing General Order, which requires manufacturers and operators to report collisions when automated driving systems were active within 30 seconds of impact. This reporting process continues to evolve as more AVs enter public roads.
States set the tone for regulation. Some, like Nevada, were early adopters and created frameworks for AV testing. Others, such as California, allow only testing under strict permitting rules.
Texas will require AV operators to obtain state permits starting in September 2025. Meanwhile, states like Tennessee and Alabama have written statutes addressing automated operation, reporting duties, and even teleoperation of commercial trucks.
Knowing which set of rules applied at the time of a crash is the starting point in any AV liability case. A collision in Nashville may be evaluated under Tennessee’s Automated Vehicles Act, while one in Birmingham might fall under Alabama’s Chapter 9B rules for commercial AVs. Each creates a different foundation for claims.
Data Logs and Sensor Metadata as Evidence
When an autonomous vehicle crashes, the most important evidence may not be witness statements or skid marks. It is the digital record stored in the car’s systems.
AVs capture sensor inputs from cameras, radar, and lidar. They store object detection logs, GPS locations, vehicle speed, and even handoff alerts to the driver. These records function like aviation black boxes, providing a moment-by-moment account of what the vehicle detected, what it decided, and what actions it took.
Event Data Recorders (EDRs), required in most vehicles, already store crash metrics such as speed, braking, and seatbelt use. Autonomous systems go further by tracking perception frames and decision-making algorithms. This data can show whether the vehicle misclassified a pedestrian, delayed braking, or issued a takeover prompt to the driver.
To preserve fault evidence, it is important to request data quickly. Manufacturers may only store some logs temporarily, and cloud-based systems can be overwritten if preservation letters are not sent immediately.
Product Liability Versus Driver Negligence
A key question after an autonomous vehicle accident is whether the crash was caused by a defect in the system or by human error.
Product liability claims focus on defects in design, manufacturing, or software. If the vehicle failed to recognize an obstacle or if its braking algorithm malfunctioned, liability may fall on the manufacturer. These cases mirror traditional product defect lawsuits, but they require technical proof drawn from system logs, update histories, and expert analysis.
Driver negligence still plays a role in many AV crashes. Most current vehicles are not fully driverless and require a human operator to remain attentive. If the driver ignored takeover warnings or misused the technology, they may share or even bear full responsibility.
Often, both theories overlap. A software failure might occur at the same moment a driver delayed intervention. In these cases, evidence must be parsed carefully to assign percentages of fault.
Role of Software Updates in Defect Claims
One of the unique challenges in AV litigation is the role of software updates. Unlike traditional cars, AVs receive over-the-air updates that can alter performance instantly.
A recent example is Tesla’s Autopilot recall, which required millions of vehicles to receive new driver monitoring features through software patches. If a crash happens shortly after an update, lawyers must determine whether the update introduced a new defect, failed to correct a known one, or was installed incorrectly.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys often build a timeline of update releases, install dates, and crash reports. This timeline can reveal whether a manufacturer rushed an update to market or failed to issue it quickly enough to prevent known risks. Updates are no longer just improvements—they are evidence.
Comparative Negligence Where A Human Takes Control
Not every crash is caused solely by the vehicle or the software. Sometimes, the human driver’s actions come under review. That is where comparative negligence principles apply.
In states like Tennessee, courts use modified comparative fault. If the human operator is found less than 50 percent responsible, they may still recover damages, reduced by their percentage of fault. For example, if the system failed but the driver also reacted too slowly, liability might be split 70 percent to the manufacturer and 30 percent to the driver.
In Alabama, contributory negligence is still the rule. That means if the driver is even 1 percent at fault, they may be barred from recovering damages in a negligence claim. For AV cases, that rule can complicate claims where human response was involved, and lawyers often look to product liability or wantonness claims as alternative strategies.
Accident Reconstruction and Expert Validation
Accident reconstruction has always been part of personal injury litigation, but AV crashes raise the bar. Specialists now review vehicle telemetry, perception models, and software behavior. They map sensor inputs against environmental conditions like rain, glare, or traffic density.
These experts can demonstrate whether the system made reasonable choices based on its design. For example, if logs show the AV detected a cyclist but classified them incorrectly, that supports a defect claim.
If the system handed over control with less than one second of warning, that supports negligence on the manufacturer rather than the human driver.
Without expert validation, juries may struggle to follow technical arguments. That is why accident reconstruction tied to AV data is often decisive.
State and City Crash Context
Autonomous vehicles do not exist in a vacuum—they share the road with conventional traffic. Knowing the broader safety record in your state helps frame expectations in court.
In Alabama, 986 highway fatalities were reported in 2022, according to the Fatality Analysis Reporting System. Seat belt use was estimated at 92.7 percent. These numbers create the backdrop for any negligence or product liability argument.
In Tennessee, speeding contributed to an estimated 217 deaths in 2023, and fatalities among young drivers have been climbing. This context can matter if an insurer argues that road conditions or reckless driving were the dominant cause of a crash involving an AV.
By grounding AV cases in local traffic realities, lawyers strengthen arguments about comparative safety and real-world risk.
Practical Steps After an AV Crash
If you are involved in an autonomous vehicle accident, here are immediate steps to take:
- Call law enforcement and request a full accident report.
- Photograph the vehicle, road conditions, and any warning messages on the dashboard.
- Preserve your vehicle app data, which may include software version and update dates.
- Request medical evaluation within the first 72 hours to link injuries to the crash.
- Contact an AV crash lawyer quickly so preservation letters can be issued before data is lost.
These steps help build a foundation for proving liability, whether against a driver, a manufacturer, or both.
Your Next Move After an Autonomous Vehicle Accident
Fault in an AV crash is not about guesswork. It is about data, statutes, and timing. Self driving car liability cases often turn on logs that most people never see and laws that vary by state. That is why having the right lawyer matters.
Cory Watson Attorneys has decades of experience handling product liability and motor vehicle claims. Our team understands how to secure evidence, work with reconstruction experts, and press claims against both drivers and manufacturers.
If you or someone you love was hurt in an autonomous vehicle accident, contact us today. Speak with an AV crash lawyer who can protect your rights, hold the right party accountable, and guide you through the legal process.