Michael Pines | October 2, 2026 | Car Accidents \ Personal Injury
For generations, determining liability after a car accident has largely centered on human behavior. Did a driver run a red light? Follow too closely? Speed? Look at a phone instead of the road?
Autonomous vehicles are beginning to change that analysis.
As vehicles become capable of steering, braking, accelerating, recognizing obstacles, changing lanes, and – in some circumstances – operating without anyone behind the wheel, a personal injury investigation may have to look beyond what a human driver did.
The questions can increasingly become: What did the vehicle do? What did its sensors detect? Which automated system was controlling it? Was the software functioning correctly? Was a human supposed to intervene? And which company was responsible for the technology involved?
Those questions are particularly relevant in California, one of the country’s most active states for autonomous vehicle development. They are now relevant in San Diego as well. On September 1, 2026, Waymo announced that it had begun offering fully autonomous rides to its first public riders in San Diego, with access expected to expand gradually.
As autonomous vehicles become a more familiar part of California roads, personal injury law will have to continue adapting to accidents in which the line between driver error and technological failure is increasingly complicated.
Quick Highlights
- Autonomous vehicle accidents may involve traditional driver negligence, product liability, or a combination of both.
- Not every vehicle marketed as “self-driving” is actually capable of driving without human supervision.
- Determining who – or what – was controlling a vehicle immediately before a crash may become one of the most important questions in an injury claim.
- Potentially responsible parties can include drivers, vehicle manufacturers, autonomous-driving developers, fleet operators, maintenance companies, and other motorists.
- Vehicle sensor data, cameras, software logs, driver-monitoring information, GPS records, and electronic event data may become critical evidence.
- California substantially updated its autonomous vehicle regulations in 2026, including opening a pathway for heavy-duty autonomous vehicle testing and deployment.
- Autonomous technology may change how personal injury cases are investigated, but it does not eliminate the fundamental question of whether someone’s conduct or a defective product caused an injury.
“Autonomous” Does Not Always Mean Driverless
One of the first challenges in discussing autonomous vehicles is terminology.
Cars on the road today can include everything from relatively simple driver-assistance features to vehicles capable of completing an entire trip without anyone sitting in the driver’s seat.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration distinguishes between different levels of driving automation.
At Level 1, a system may continuously assist with either steering or acceleration and braking.
At Level 2, the system may assist with both steering and acceleration or braking simultaneously. However, NHTSA emphasizes that the person behind the wheel must remain engaged and attentive because the human driver remains responsible for driving the vehicle.
More advanced automated-driving systems can perform increasingly substantial portions of the driving task.
That distinction may become crucial following a collision.
A crash involving a driver using adaptive cruise control or lane-centering technology raises very different liability questions from a crash involving a vehicle operating with no human driver at all.
How Autonomous Vehicles Change the Traditional Negligence Analysis
A traditional car accident investigation usually begins with the actions of the people behind the wheel.
Attorneys and insurers may examine whether a driver:
- Was speeding
- Ran a traffic signal
- Failed to yield
- Followed too closely
- Made an unsafe lane change
- Drove while distracted
- Drove while impaired
- Failed to maintain control of the vehicle
Those questions do not disappear simply because a vehicle includes automated technology.
Instead, autonomous systems can add another layer to the investigation.
Suppose a vehicle equipped with an advanced driver-assistance system fails to brake before striking another car. Investigators may need to determine whether the human driver should have intervened, whether the driver was paying attention, whether the system issued a warning, whether its sensors detected the vehicle ahead, and whether the braking system responded as designed.
In a truly driverless vehicle, the focus may shift even further toward the companies and technology responsible for operating the vehicle.
The Growing Importance of Product Liability
As technology assumes more responsibility for the driving task, some accident investigations may begin to look less like conventional negligence cases and more like product liability cases.
California product liability law recognizes claims involving defective products, including claims based on manufacturing and design defects under appropriate circumstances. California’s civil jury instructions make clear that strict product liability is distinct from ordinary negligence, although strict liability does not mean a manufacturer automatically becomes responsible whenever an accident occurs.
In an autonomous vehicle case, investigators might examine whether an injury was connected to problems involving:
- Cameras
- Radar
- LiDAR or other sensors
- Automatic emergency braking
- Steering systems
- Object-recognition software
- Vehicle positioning or mapping
- Driver-monitoring technology
- Software updates
- Communication systems
- Automated-driving algorithms
- Mechanical components
The presence of a technological problem does not automatically establish that a vehicle was defective or that a manufacturer is liable. The evidence must establish what went wrong and whether that problem legally caused or contributed to the accident and resulting injuries.
Who Could Be Liable for an Autonomous Vehicle Accident?
One of the biggest changes autonomous vehicles may bring to personal injury law is an expansion in the number of parties who could potentially be involved in an accident investigation.
Depending on how the crash happened, those parties could include:
The Human Driver
Human drivers remain important in vehicles that require supervision.
If a driver activates an assistance system and then stops paying attention despite being required to monitor the road, traditional negligence principles may still apply.
The driver’s actions immediately before the crash – including whether warnings were ignored or whether the person attempted to take control – could become critical.
The Vehicle Manufacturer
A vehicle manufacturer could potentially become part of a claim if evidence indicates that a defective vehicle or system caused or contributed to an accident.
The relevant question could involve the physical vehicle itself or integrated technology responsible for controlling it.
An Autonomous-Driving Technology Company
Some autonomous-driving systems are developed or operated by companies separate from the manufacturer of the underlying vehicle.
If software, sensors, or an automated-driving system allegedly malfunctioned, identifying which company designed, controlled, updated, or operated the relevant technology may be necessary.
A Robotaxi or Fleet Operator
Fully autonomous transportation increasingly involves commercial fleets rather than privately owned vehicles.
A company responsible for deploying, monitoring, maintaining, or managing an autonomous fleet could potentially become relevant to an investigation depending on the cause of an accident.
Maintenance and Repair Providers
Autonomous vehicles still depend on properly functioning brakes, tires, steering systems, cameras, sensors, and other equipment.
Improper repairs, calibration, or maintenance could potentially contribute to a collision.
Another Driver
The fact that one vehicle is autonomous does not mean it caused the accident.
A human driver may run a red light, make an unsafe turn, cut off an autonomous vehicle, or otherwise create a situation that leads to a collision.
In some cases, multiple parties could share responsibility.
Accident Evidence Is Becoming Increasingly Digital
Perhaps one of the most significant ways vehicle technology is changing personal injury cases involves evidence.
Traditional accident cases commonly rely on photographs, police reports, witness statements, physical vehicle damage, skid marks, medical records, and testimony from the drivers.
Those sources remain important.
But a modern automated vehicle can potentially generate an enormous amount of information about what happened immediately before an accident.
Depending on the vehicle and system involved, potentially relevant evidence could include:
- Event Data Recorder information
- Vehicle speed
- Steering inputs
- Brake application
- Accelerator input
- Automatic emergency braking activity
- Sensor information
- Vehicle camera footage
- Driver-monitoring information
- GPS and location records
- Autonomous-system status
- System warnings
- Software versions
- Software-update records
- Fault or diagnostic codes
- Fleet-monitoring information
- Communications with remote support personnel
Other advanced vehicle technology may reveal whether an automated system was engaged and what the vehicle detected immediately before impact.
This means the physical accident scene may represent only one part of the evidence.
The vehicle itself may contain another.
What Did the Autonomous System “See”?
Consider a pedestrian accident involving an automated vehicle.
A traditional investigation might ask whether the driver saw the pedestrian before the collision.
An autonomous vehicle investigation may instead ask whether the vehicle’s technology detected and correctly classified the pedestrian.
Investigators might want to determine:
- When the pedestrian first became visible to the vehicle’s sensors
- Whether the system classified the object as a pedestrian
- Whether the vehicle predicted the pedestrian’s path
- Whether the system initiated braking
- Whether a human operator received a warning
- Whether the system attempted an evasive maneuver
- Whether a sensor was obstructed or malfunctioning
- Whether the vehicle was operating within the conditions for which its automated system was designed
Answering those questions may require engineers, accident reconstruction specialists, software experts, or other technical professionals in addition to the evidence traditionally used in personal injury litigation.
The Importance of Preserving Electronic Evidence
Digital evidence also creates a new challenge: preservation.
A damaged bumper remains visible until it is repaired. Digital information may be easier to overwrite, update, or lose.
After an accident involving an autonomous or highly automated vehicle, it may therefore be important to identify potential electronic evidence quickly.
Data generated by self-driving vehicles – including information from sensors, cameras, and onboard systems – may be relevant when investigating these crashes.
An attorney investigating a serious collision may need to determine what information exists, who possesses it, how long it is retained, and what legal steps may be appropriate to preserve it.
Federal Regulators Are Collecting Automated-Vehicle Crash Data
Government regulators are also increasingly focused on the digital side of automated vehicle safety.
NHTSA currently requires identified manufacturers and operators to report certain crashes involving Automated Driving Systems and Level 2 Advanced Driver Assistance Systems under its Standing General Order on crash reporting.
The agency says the reporting program is intended to provide timely information about crashes that could indicate potential safety defects and assist with investigation and enforcement. NHTSA’s current public data covers qualifying incidents involving both ADS and Level 2 ADAS vehicles.
NHTSA cautions, however, that the crash-reporting data has limitations. Reports may contain incomplete information, classifications can change, and duplicate reporting can occur. Those numbers therefore should not be treated as a simple measure of whether one automated-driving system is safer than another.
California’s Autonomous Vehicle Rules Are Evolving Too
California has developed one of the country’s most extensive regulatory systems for testing and deploying autonomous vehicles.
The California Department of Motor Vehicles currently regulates AV activity through different permit categories for testing with a safety driver, driverless testing, and deployment.
California significantly revised that regulatory framework in 2026.
On April 28, 2026, the DMV announced approval of new regulations that strengthened AV safety, oversight, reporting, and enforcement requirements while also allowing manufacturers to apply to test and deploy heavy-duty autonomous vehicles in California.
That last development could eventually become particularly important for personal injury law.
The legal questions surrounding an autonomous passenger car collision are already complicated. A crash involving an autonomous commercial truck could combine those technological questions with the enormous forces and complex corporate relationships already associated with trucking accidents.
California also requires manufacturers testing autonomous vehicles to report qualifying collisions involving property damage, injury, or death. The DMV maintains autonomous vehicle collision reports and other regulatory information for the public.
Autonomous Vehicles Are Already Becoming Part of San Diego Transportation
For San Diego residents, autonomous vehicles are no longer something that exists only in Silicon Valley or experimental test facilities.
Waymo announced on September 1, 2026 that it had begun welcoming its first public riders in San Diego for fully autonomous trips.
California DMV records also show that numerous companies currently hold permits to test autonomous vehicles with a safety driver in California.
As deployment expands, San Diego drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians, motorcyclists, and passengers will increasingly share the road with vehicles using different degrees of automation.
That makes understanding responsibility after a collision increasingly important.
Could Autonomous Vehicles Reduce Personal Injury Accidents?
One of the primary goals of vehicle automation is improved safety.
Technology does not become tired, intoxicated, angry, or distracted by a text message in the same way that a human driver can. Advanced safety features can also identify hazards and respond faster than a person under some circumstances.
But automation introduces different risks.
Sensors can encounter difficult conditions. Software can behave unexpectedly. Systems must interpret unpredictable human behavior. Vehicles can experience mechanical failures. Roads and construction zones change. Human drivers may misunderstand the limitations of driver-assistance technology.
And for the foreseeable future, autonomous vehicles must operate in a transportation system populated by human drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, emergency vehicles, road crews, and countless unpredictable situations.
Autonomous vehicles may ultimately change the frequency or nature of crashes, but they are unlikely to eliminate the need to investigate why serious collisions happen.
How Insurance Could Change in an Autonomous Future
Auto insurance has traditionally focused heavily on the risks created by individual drivers.
Autonomous technology could gradually shift some of that focus toward vehicles, manufacturers, fleet operators, and commercial insurance.
That does not necessarily mean traditional auto insurance disappears.
For years, American roads are likely to include a mixture of conventional vehicles, driver-assisted vehicles, and increasingly automated vehicles. Claims may therefore involve overlapping questions of driver negligence, insurance coverage, corporate responsibility, and product liability.
A single accident could potentially trigger several insurance policies and legal theories.
Determining which coverage applies may depend on who owned the vehicle, who operated the automated system, whether a human driver was required to supervise it, why the system failed, and which parties contributed to the crash.
Personal Injury Law May Become More Technically Complex
The fundamental purpose of a personal injury investigation is unlikely to change.
Someone who has been injured still needs to determine:
What caused the accident, who was legally responsible, and what losses resulted from the injury?
What is changing is the amount of technical evidence that may be required to answer those questions.
Tomorrow’s car accident lawyer may increasingly need to understand not only traffic laws and accident reconstruction but also vehicle automation, software, sensor technology, data preservation, electronic discovery, and product liability.
The question may no longer simply be:
“What did the driver do?”
It could instead become:
“What did the driver, vehicle, software, manufacturer, and automated-driving system each do in the seconds before the crash?”
What Should You Do After an Accident Involving an Autonomous Vehicle?
Many of the immediate steps following an autonomous vehicle accident are the same as after any serious collision.
Seek medical attention when necessary, contact law enforcement, obtain photographs and video if you can safely do so, identify witnesses, and preserve any dashcam footage or other information you possess.
However, an accident involving automated technology may make early preservation of evidence particularly important.
Important information could be stored by the vehicle manufacturer, autonomous-driving company, fleet operator, or another company rather than simply inside the damaged vehicle.
An investigation may need to identify the technology involved, determine whether an autonomous or driver-assistance system was active, and preserve relevant electronic records before they are overwritten or otherwise become unavailable.
Injured in an Autonomous Vehicle Accident in San Diego?
Self-driving technology may be changing how vehicles operate, but people injured in accidents still need answers.
When an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle is involved, determining responsibility can require investigating both human behavior and technology. Evidence involving drivers, manufacturers, software, sensors, fleet operators, maintenance companies, vehicle data, and other motorists may all become relevant.
The San Diego car accident lawyers at Pines Salomon Personal Injury Lawyers can investigate the circumstances surrounding an autonomous vehicle crash, identify potentially responsible parties, preserve relevant evidence, and help injured people understand their legal options.
Pines Salomon has represented injury victims in San Diego for more than 30 years and reports recovering more than $100 million for clients.
If you or a loved one has been injured in an accident involving a self-driving or automated vehicle, contact Pines Salomon Personal Injury Lawyers for a free consultation.
We proudly serve San Diego, San Diego County, and its surrounding areas:
Pines Salomon Injury Lawyers – San Diego Office
835 5th Avenue #302, San Diego, CA 92101
(858) 551-2090
Available 24/7
Pines Salomon Injury Lawyers – La Jolla Office
4660 La Jolla Village Dr. San Diego, CA 92122
(858) 585-9031
Available 24/7
Enjoy this article? Add us as a Preferred Source on Google or Add us as a trusted source on ChatGPT