Hurt as a robotaxi passengerYou have rights. The terms decide where.

This page is for people hurt while riding in a driverless car in California, and for families of riders who died. People hit by a driverless car while walking or riding are covered on our page for pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists, and drivers on our page about Waymo insurance and claims. Every topic is collected on our California self-driving car accident lawyer page.

Robotaxi rides in California

As of October 5, 2026, two companies carry the public in driverless cars in California. Waymo LLC holds all four California Public Utilities Commission passenger categories, including Driverless Deployment, which allows fares. Zoox, Inc. holds the two pilot categories, and its permit "does not authorize the acceptance of any monetary compensation," so its rides are free. The CPUC permits page and the DMV permit page list current holders, and our page on California autonomous vehicle law explains the permits.

Our Waymo accidents page covers that company in depth. Waymo's service-area page lists the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles, with San Diego "Gradually adding riders." Zoox offers free rides in San Francisco from a waitlist. A Tesla ride in the Bay Area is different: in a January 30, 2026 CPUC filing, Tesla said "all rides are conducted with a safety driver in the driver's seat." See our page on Tesla Autopilot and FSD crashes.

Responsible parties

The company that operates a driverless car is usually the first party a hurt rider looks to. Vehicle Code section 38750 defines the "operator" as the person in the driver's seat or, "if there is no person in the driver's seat," the one who "causes the autonomous technology to engage." Another driver, a public agency responsible for a dangerous road, or the maker of a defective part may share responsibility. Our guide to who is liable when a self-driving car crashes walks through each.

The common carrier question

California holds paid carriers to a higher standard than ordinary drivers. Civil Code section 2100 says: "A carrier of persons for reward must use the utmost care and diligence for their safe carriage." Section 2168 makes a common carrier of "Every one who offers to the public to carry persons." The jury instruction, CACI No. 902, says common carriers "must use the highest care and the vigilance of a very cautious person."

No California court has decided whether a company that runs driverless cars for fares is a common carrier. The nearest rulings involve rideshare. In the federal Uber litigation, Pretrial Order No. 17 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2024) noted that "Uber does not dispute that it is a common carrier" under California law. Jane Doe No. 1 v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 410 held only that no carrier relationship existed while riders waited on the street.

The argument for the higher duty rests on control. In Smith v. Magic Mountain LLC (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1128, the Court of Appeal wrote: "When a passenger has not surrendered control of their safety to another, there is no common carrier relationship." A robotaxi rider surrenders all of it; Waymo's rider rules include "no touching the driving controls." Until a court rules, the higher duty is an argument we make where the facts support it, not settled law. The CPUC's August 14, 2026 letter to Waymo adds that "AV passenger service is not classified as a TNC," so the rideshare rules on our Uber and Lyft passenger page do not carry over.

Free rides and paid rides

Whether you paid can matter. Civil Code section 2096 says: "A carrier of persons without reward must use ordinary care and diligence for their safe carriage." Waymo charges fares; Zoox's pilot permit does not allow fares. A source note to CACI No. 901 quotes a Court of Appeal holding that "the 'reward' contemplated by the statutory scheme need not be a fee," and no court has decided how that applies to a free robotaxi ride. For a Zoox rider, the question is ordinary care or the utmost care, not claim or no claim.

Rider terms at a glance

Waymo's terms say its limit does not apply "for any personal injury or property damage to the extent caused by Waymo's negligence or a defect in our Services." Zoox's terms apply their limit "to the fullest extent possible by law," with no separate injury exception, and bar punitive damages in arbitration "except where permitted by statute." No court has ruled on a $100 limit against an injury claim, and Civil Code section 1668 treats contracts that exempt anyone from responsibility for a "violation of law, whether willful or negligent" as "against the policy of the law."

Arbitration and the opt-out

Arbitration is a private hearing before a paid neutral instead of a judge and jury. Waymo's terms tell riders that "you and Waymo are each waiving the right to trial by a jury," and Zoox's say even a claim allowed into court is tried without one. Neither excludes injury claims, so a rider bound by the terms should expect the company to ask a court to send the claim to arbitration.

Waymo's 30-day opt-out

A Waymo rider may "opt out of binding arbitration within thirty (30) days of the date you first accepted a version of these Terms" by emailing the address in the terms, on your own behalf, with your full name, mailing address and email address. Later changes do not reopen the window unless Waymo materially changes the arbitration section. Most riders signed up long before a crash, so the question is whether you opted out then. Before any arbitration, Waymo requires a "Claimant Notice" with "a personally signed statement from the Claimant themselves (and not their counsel)" and a 45-day settlement period, during which its terms say statutes of limitation "will be tolled."

Zoox

We found no arbitration opt-out in Zoox's August 4, 2026 terms. The clause reaches disputes about the terms, your use of the service or any relationship with Zoox, and begins with a Notice of Dispute by certified mail. Our page on Zoox robotaxi accidents covers the vehicle and its permits.

The Cruise decision

Wilkins v. Cruise, LLC (No. A173832) is a published Court of Appeal decision filed July 14, 2026. A rider hurt in a Cruise robotaxi sued Cruise and two General Motors companies. The court held that Cruise's sign-in screen formed a binding agreement and sent his claims, including those against the GM companies, to arbitration, partly because he had alleged that each defendant acted as the others' agent. The court also wrote that "the results in these cases are highly fact-specific and no general pronouncement as to the enforceability of a ride-hailing company sign-in wrap agreement can be made."

Guests and families

Both companies' terms bind anyone who uses the service "including as a guest in a ride requested by another user," and Waymo makes the account holder responsible for getting guests to agree. Whether a guest who never saw the terms agreed to arbitrate is a contract question Wilkins did not decide. A rider's family is in a stronger position. In Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. (Aug. 14, 2025), the California Supreme Court held that wrongful death claimants "are not ordinarily bound by any arbitration agreement the decedent may have signed." It described survivor claims as derivative of the decedent's own, so the estate's claim may be arbitrable. See our pages on who can file a wrongful death claim and survival actions.

Contract notice deadlines

Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 gives two years to sue "for injury to, or for the death of, an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another." A claim against a city, county or transit agency, such as over a public bus that hit the robotaxi, is due within six months under Government Code section 911.2. The rider terms add shorter clocks. Whether a court will enforce them against an injured rider is untested, so we treat the earliest date as controlling.

Children and teen riders

Waymo's terms require users to be "at least 18 years of age" outside teen accounts, which its teen account page limits to Metro Phoenix and Nashville. A minor may ride as a guest only if the account holder is "present for the entire duration" of the ride and secures the child in a proper child safety seat. Zoox's rider rules say: "Riders must be at least 8 years old, and the person hailing the ride must be 18 or over." If a robotaxi company is a common carrier, CACI No. 905 requires "as much additional care as is reasonably necessary to ensure the child's safety."

The CPUC requires driverless deployment carriers to "Ensure that the service is available only to be chartered by adults 18 years and older" (Decision 20-11-046, Ordering Paragraph 7(k)). In a complaint filed March 27, 2026 (C.26-03-035), the SEIU California State Council and three SEIU locals allege that Waymo transported minors in violation of that rule. According to an August 3, 2026 ruling, Waymo admits its service has carried unaccompanied minors but contends the rule bars minors from chartering rides, not from riding. The complaint is pending. A child's settlement needs court approval, as our child pedestrian page explains.

Leaving the car after a crash

Waymo's safety page says that when the car detects a collision, "Support will be notified and will contact you through the in-car speakers or your phone," and Waymo will "dispatch our Waymo Roadside Assistance team and contact emergency services." Its collision page warns that the car "may continue driving after a collision occurs to reach a safe spot to stop," and tells people outside to watch the roof dome light, which signals that "the Waymo Driver is aware an event has occurred." If you are injured, Waymo says to call 911; its app's 911 button "will send an urgent notification to Support and they may call into the car." For the Ojai model, Waymo publishes manual door releases and says to "Always wait for the vehicle to completely stop before attempting to exit."

Waymo says its on-site support documents the crash "to ensure insurance details are captured" and will help you hail another car. Before you take it, if it is safe, photograph the scene, get any other driver's name, plate and insurer, and ask police for the report number. The duty to stop at an injury crash in Vehicle Code section 20001 is written for "the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident," and a rider in a driverless car is not that driver. The bigger risk in leaving is a missing record. Our self-driving car crash checklist lists the steps.

Insurance behind the ride

Vehicle Code section 38750(c)(3) requires a manufacturer applying to deploy autonomous vehicles to certify that it will maintain "an instrument of insurance, a surety bond, or proof of self-insurance" of five million dollars, and the CPUC's application guidance says participants "must hold a $5 million insurance policy." That is a financial-responsibility requirement for the company, not a per-crash amount, not a cap on what you can recover and not a promise of payment. Charter-party carriers also carry the General Order 115-G minimum of $750,000 for a vehicle with "a seating capacity of 8 persons or less." The $1,000,000 rideshare rule in Public Utilities Code section 5433 does not apply.

Waymo adds a rider benefit: "We provide limited medical coverage for our riders, regardless of who's at fault or whether you have additional coverage." It does not publish the limits, so ask for them in writing. When another driver caused the crash, that driver's insurer is usually first in line, and your own medical payments or uninsured motorist coverage may apply. Proposition 213, which bars uninsured owners and drivers from recovering pain and suffering, reaches "the owner of a vehicle involved in the accident" or its operator (Civil Code section 3333.4), not a rider who neither owns nor drives the robotaxi.

Stranded riders and stoppages

The CPUC calls a robotaxi that stops and stays stopped a "stoppage event," meaning "situations where AVs have stopped and are not moving when they should be." Under Decision 24-11-002 (Nov. 7, 2024), larger carriers report each one, including whether a passenger was aboard and whether the ride was completed. Every driverless carrier's Passenger Safety Plan must explain how it will "respond to unsafe scenarios outside and within the vehicle" and ensure riders "receive a timely and complete response" (Decision 20-11-046).

During the December 20, 2025 power outage in San Francisco, Waymo wrote, a backlog of requests "led to response delays contributing to congestion," and it "temporarily paused our service in the area." In May 2026 the CPUC asked Waymo for its procedures "related to rider safety during operational disruptions," and Waymo's updated plan describes tooling "that allows agents to arrange a replacement Waymo ride when a trip is interrupted." A stop alone is not an injury claim. A claim can arise when a rider is hurt because of where the car stopped, a delayed response or an unsafe exit.

Hurt after getting out

In a June 2026 crash in San Francisco, Waymo's federal crash report (No. 30270-15636) says a rear passenger removed their seatbelt and opened the door while the car was moving. The car "detected the opened door and began to slow in-lane," the passenger stepped out, and "the rear right tire of the Waymo AV made contact with the Waymo AV passenger," who went to a hospital with unknown injuries. That is Waymo's account.

Under CACI No. 907, a passenger remains one "until the person safely leaves the carrier's vehicle," and a carrier must provide "a safe place to get on and off." A rider's own choices count too. Under comparative fault, a jury reduces an award by the injured person's share of responsibility. A rider who opens a door into a cyclist is on the other side of a claim under Vehicle Code section 22517, covered on our dooring accidents page.

Records a rider holds

Waymo's privacy policy says: "We record video inside the vehicle during trips. We only record audio during active voice calls with Rider Support or when you actively choose to enable microphones inside the car." Zoox says "The cameras record the entirety of your ride." Neither publishes how long it keeps video. The CPUC requires driverless deployment carriers to record rider communications with remote operators and keep them for one year (Decision 20-11-046, Ordering Paragraph 7(l)). Vehicle Code section 38750 requires sensor data "for at least 30 seconds before a collision," kept "for three years," but gives outsiders no right to it; our guide to evidence after a self-driving car crash covers requests. Secure these yourself:

1. The trip receipt. Screenshot the pickup, drop-off, time and car shown in the app.
2. Support messages. Save every message about the crash and the interrupted trip.
3. A data request. Waymo's policy lets users "export and download a copy" of their information and describes California privacy rights.
4. Your account. Keep it. Waymo's account page says that after deletion "Support will lose all access to your previous trip information."
5. The federal report. Our self-driving car crash lookup searches NHTSA's public file.

Your claim as a rider

A rider hurt in a robotaxi usually has a claim. The open questions are against whom, under what standard of care, and in which forum, and the rider terms may impose a one- or two-year notice deadline. At Wise Personal Injury & Accident Law, we start with the trip record and the terms you accepted, then ask the company in writing to preserve the video, support recordings and sensor data. Josh Kohanim, Esq. is the firm's founder and trial attorney. Call (424) 235-7879, where Spanish-speaking staff answer the phone, or use the form. No fee unless we recover.