Who is liable when a self-driving car crashesOften the company that runs the car.

This page is for people hurt in a crash involving a driverless car in California: riders, people walking or on a bike or motorcycle, drivers of other cars, and families after a death. It covers who can be responsible and the legal theory for each. It does not cover rider contracts in detail, which are on our robotaxi passenger injuries page, or claim steps with an insurer, which are on our Waymo insurance and claims page. Every topic is collected on our California self-driving car accident lawyer page.

Possible defendants at a glance

The operator of a driverless car

California's autonomous vehicle statute names an operator for every self-driving car. Under Vehicle Code section 38750(a)(4), it is "the person who is seated in the driver's seat, or, if there is no person in the driver's seat, causes the autonomous technology to engage." The DMV's 2026 regulations add that a passenger "may summon a vehicle or input a destination, but does not engage the technology, monitor the vehicle, or drive or operate the vehicle."

That points to the company running the car, not the rider. The DMV's permit list calls each permit holder the "AV Manufacturer," and the statute's "manufacturer" includes a company that converts a vehicle "by installing autonomous technology." Police notices of traffic violations go to that manufacturer. The permit statute sets licensing, insurance and data rules, and fault for a particular crash is still decided under the ordinary law of negligence and product liability. As of October 5, 2026, we have not found a published California appellate decision that decides fault for a driverless car's driving.

The company's own negligence

Negligence means failing to use reasonable care, and a company can be negligent in how it builds and runs a driverless fleet. A claim may point to how the driving system was designed and tested, where and when the company chose to operate it, how the cars were maintained, or how the company responded when a car asked for help. Each is a decision the company made, so each can be measured against what a reasonably careful company would have done.

The 2026 DMV rules require each applicant to describe a "safety case," defined as "the manufacturer's structured argument, supported by a body of relevant evidence," that its system "does not pose an unreasonable risk of accident, death, injury, or exacerbating injury." Documents like that, with crash reports and internal reviews, are the kind of records sought once a case is filed. Our page on evidence after a self-driving car crash lists them.

Remote assistance and staff

Driverless cars are supported by people working elsewhere. In a February 17, 2026 letter to Senator Markey, Waymo said its remote assistance agents "provide advice and support to the Waymo Driver but do not directly control, steer, or drive the vehicle," and that "The ADS can also reject RA suggestions if it deems it appropriate." Waymo also described a tool that lets a trained agent prompt a stopped car "to move forward at 2 mph for a short distance," which it said "has never been used outside of training."

If a crash followed a remote agent's advice, a slow response or a staffing gap, the company's choices about remote support become part of the claim. DMV rules require a manufacturer to describe "the process for determining how many agents are required to be available to respond to requests at a given time." A company is also generally responsible for the work its employees do on the job; our commercial vehicle accident page explains that rule for company drivers.

Traffic law violations

Breaking a safety statute can establish negligence. Under Evidence Code section 669, "The failure of a person to exercise due care is presumed" if the person violated a statute, the violation caused the injury, the injury was the kind the statute was meant to prevent, and the injured person was in the class it protects. California's jury instruction, CACI No. 418, tells jurors that if those facts are proved, they "must find" the violator negligent unless the violation was excused.

Applying that rule to software is untested. The presumption can be rebutted by proof that the violator "did what might reasonably be expected of a person of ordinary prudence," and no published California decision we found explains how a company proves that for a machine's maneuver. A police Notice of Autonomous Vehicle Noncompliance does not settle the question either: by statute it "shall not create a presumption that the autonomous vehicle is unsafe." The violation itself, proved with video and data, is what a claim has to show.

Product liability claims

A product liability claim targets a defect rather than careless conduct. California's jury instructions recognize a manufacturing defect, a design defect and inadequate warnings (CACI No. 1200). Under the consumer expectation test in CACI No. 1203, a design is defective if the product "did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected it to perform." The maker of a base vehicle or a failed part can face these claims for a hardware defect.

Whether a company's own driving software is a product is unsettled. In the federal Uber litigation, Pretrial Order No. 17 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2024) held at the pleading stage that "the Uber app would be considered a product under the Restatement," rejecting arguments that "boil down to an outdated fetishization of physical objects." A robotaxi company may answer with Ferrari v. Grand Canyon Dories (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 248, which said an airline "is itself the end user of the product and imposition of strict liability would be inappropriate."

A negligent design claim sidesteps most of that fight, because it turns on the company's conduct. Under CACI No. 1220, the injured person proves the defendant "was negligent in designing" the product and that the negligence was "a substantial factor" in the harm. We have not found a California decision ruling on these questions for a driverless car.

The AI defense ban

Since January 1, 2026, Civil Code section 1714.46 has closed one argument. In a case against a defendant "who developed, modified, or used artificial intelligence," the defendant "may not assert, that the artificial intelligence autonomously caused the harm to the plaintiff." The statute defines artificial intelligence as "an engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy" and can infer from its input "how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments."

The rule is narrow. It creates no liability by itself, and it preserves "any other affirmative defense, including evidence relevant to causation or foreseeability," and evidence of "the comparative fault of any other person or entity." We have not found a decision applying it to a self-driving car. Its effect is to keep attention on the company's choices rather than on the software as an independent actor.

Other drivers who cause crashes

A robotaxi in a crash is not always the cause. In a report Waymo filed with NHTSA, an unoccupied Waymo was stopped in a queue of traffic in San Francisco in January 2025 when "an SUV approached from behind at an extreme rate of speed" and struck the car behind it, which then struck the Waymo. Waymo reported that, according to the San Francisco Police Department, one occupant of the vehicles and a domestic animal died at the scene, and that five people in four vehicles were injured.

In a crash like that, the claim runs against the driver who caused it and that driver's insurer. The robotaxi company may be a witness: its report marked video and a police report as available. Our pages on rear-end fault, uninsured motorist claims and fatal car accidents cover those claims. A car owner who lets someone else drive is liable under Vehicle Code section 17150, but section 17151 limits that to $15,000 for one person's injury when it does not arise from employment or agency.

Public agencies and roads

A city, county, transit agency or the state can share responsibility when a public vehicle or a dangerous road or signal played a part. The deadline is short: Government Code section 911.2 requires a claim for injury or death to be presented "not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action." A missed claim can bar the case against the agency even while the case against the company stays open. Our page on government and postal vehicle accidents explains where each claim goes.

Shared fault between parties

California divides fault among those who caused a crash. Under Civil Code section 1431.2, in a case "based upon principles of comparative fault," each defendant's liability for non-economic damages, such as pain, suffering and emotional distress, "shall be several only and shall not be joint." Each defendant pays only its own percentage of those damages. That limit does not reach economic losses such as medical bills and lost earnings.

Fault can also be argued against the injured person, and section 1714.46 keeps that evidence available. A rider, who by DMV definition "has no role in the operation" of the car, is a narrower target than a driver. An uninsured driver hit by a robotaxi faces another rule: under Civil Code section 3333.4, an uninsured owner, or a driver who cannot show financial responsibility, cannot recover non-economic losses.

Riders and families

Riders may be owed more care. Civil Code section 2100 says "A carrier of persons for reward must use the utmost care and diligence for their safe carriage," and section 2168 makes "Every one who offers to the public to carry persons" a common carrier. No California court has decided whether a robotaxi company is one. Riders also accepted the company's terms. Waymo (updated September 29, 2026) calls for "binding, individual arbitration" through JAMS, and both Waymo and Zoox (updated August 4, 2026) say their terms bind someone riding "as a guest in a ride requested by another user."

Families stand apart. In Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. (Aug. 14, 2025, S285429), the California Supreme Court said wrongful death claimants "are not ordinarily bound by any arbitration agreement the decedent may have signed." A person walking, cycling or driving another car did not accept rider terms by being hit, although holding an account with the company can raise a separate question. See our pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists page and our wrongful death pages on who can file and survival actions.

Deadlines by defendant

Waymo's terms say a claim not noticed in time "is permanently barred." Zoox's say a dispute not noticed within a year is waived. The safe course is to act well inside the shortest window that might apply.

Permit holder names and brands

The name on the car is not always the name on the permit, and a claim is made against a legal entity. The DMV permit lists and the CPUC permits page show the entity behind each brand.

Mercedes-Benz shows why the record matters: the DMV's June 8, 2023 announcement issued the DRIVE PILOT deployment permit to Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, while the current list names a different Mercedes entity. Our self-driving car crash lookup shows a company's California permits and any federal crash report, and our Waymo accidents and Zoox accidents pages cover each operator.

Tesla and driver-assist cars

A car using a driver-assist system is a different case. Vehicle Code section 38750 excludes systems that cannot drive "without the active control or monitoring of a human operator," so a claim usually starts with the person behind the wheel and that driver's insurer. A claim against the carmaker is still possible: Vehicle Code section 24011.5(d) says its marketing rules do not "limit the civil liability of a manufacturer or dealer, including, but not limited to, claims for negligence or product defect." Our Tesla Autopilot and FSD crashes page covers those claims.

Your claim and next steps

Who is liable for a self-driving car crash depends on what caused it: the company's driving system and support, another driver, a defect in the car, or a public road. Often the answer is the company that runs the car, and sometimes several parties share the fault. The next step is the same in each case: identify the permit holder and every other party, preserve the records, and track the shortest deadline. Our self-driving car crash checklist covers the scene, and our California autonomous vehicle law page has the rules behind this page.

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.