As autonomous vehicles (AVs) become increasingly integrated into Florida’s roadways, questions of legal liability have taken center stage, especially when companies like Tesla and Waymo are involved in accidents. Florida’s lenient regulatory environment for AVs has made it a hotspot for testing and deployment, but the legal ramifications of AV crashes remain murky.
Florida’s AV-Friendly Legal Environment
Florida has long positioned itself as a pioneer in welcoming self-driving technology. Florida Statute § 316.85 permits fully autonomous vehicles to operate without a human driver physically present in the vehicle. It also states that an AV, when operating in autonomous mode, is considered the “operator” of the vehicle for purposes of compliance with traffic laws.
This legal framing doesn’t eliminate human accountability but opens the door for litigation that targets the entities responsible for the vehicle’s design, manufacturing, and software systems, such as Tesla or Waymo.
Tesla and Waymo’s Different AV Models
To understand liability, it’s critical to differentiate between Tesla and Waymo in terms of AV architecture and operation.
- Tesla’s Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) systems are SAE Level 2 autonomy. This means the system can steer, accelerate, and brake, but the human driver must remain engaged and ready to take over at all times.
- Waymo, by contrast, deploys SAE Level 4 vehicles in geofenced areas. These vehicles do not require human oversight and can perform all driving tasks under certain conditions. In some cases, no safety driver is present in the vehicle.
This distinction is important because liability in AV crashes usually hinges on whether the human operator had any responsibility at the time of the accident or whether the machine was in full control.
Product Liability: A Central Legal Theory
Victims of crashes involving autonomous vehicles may sue Tesla or Waymo under product liability law. Product liability allows injured parties to sue manufacturers or distributors of defective products. The three main avenues of recovery under Florida product liability law include:
- Design Defect – The AV or its software was inherently unsafe, even when used as intended.
- Manufacturing Defect – The vehicle or its components deviated from design specifications due to faulty manufacturing.
- Failure to Warn (Marketing Defect) – Tesla or Waymo did not adequately inform users of the risks or limitations of the AV system.
Florida follows a strict liability standard for defective products. That means the injured party does not need to prove negligence, but only that the product was defective and caused injury while being used in a reasonably foreseeable manner.
Suing Tesla for a Crash: The Human-Machine Interface Problem
Tesla’s legal exposure largely arises from the tension between its marketing of “Full Self-Driving” and the actual capabilities of the system. Critics argue that Tesla misleads users into believing their vehicles can drive autonomously when, in reality, human supervision is required.
Key legal challenges include:
- Design Defect Claims – Plaintiffs may argue that Tesla’s driver-assist systems do not properly monitor or account for human disengagement or misuse.
- Failure to Warn – Tesla could be held liable for not adequately warning users about the limitations of Autopilot/FSD.
- Software Errors – If the crash was caused by faulty decision-making software (e.g., misidentifying an obstacle), Tesla’s code could be considered defectively designed.
For example, in Huang v. Tesla, the family of a deceased driver sued Tesla after Autopilot directed his car into a highway divider. The lawsuit claimed Autopilot failed to detect road hazards and lacked adequate warnings—core issues in product liability law.
Suing Waymo for a Crash: When the Car Is in Control
Waymo’s AVs are true driverless vehicles operating in highly controlled environments. That creates a more direct line of liability in crashes because there is no human driver to blame.
In a crash involving a Waymo vehicle:
- Waymo could be held strictly liable under Florida product liability law if the AV’s autonomous system malfunctioned.
- Negligence claims may arise if Waymo failed to properly test its software or misrepresented its vehicle’s capabilities.
- Software as a Defective Product – Although software isn’t a tangible product, courts are increasingly open to treating critical software as part of a product’s integrated system.
If a Waymo vehicle fails to respond to a pedestrian or strikes another vehicle due to a sensor or software error, Waymo could face liability just as a traditional automaker would for a faulty brake system.
The Role of Data in Proving Liability
Both Tesla and Waymo vehicles record extensive telemetry data through Event Data Recorders (EDRs), black boxes, and onboard video systems. In a legal case, these data logs can reveal:
- Vehicle speed and trajectory
- Whether the system or driver was in control
- When brakes were applied
- Lane changes and object detection
Preserving this evidence through spoliation letters or court orders is critical for plaintiffs. If the data shows that Tesla’s Autopilot was active or that Waymo’s vehicle made a decision that a reasonable system would not have made, that evidence will form the cornerstone of any product liability claim.
Can Software Developers Be Sued Separately?
Tesla and Waymo typically design, own, and update their proprietary AV software. However, if third-party software (e.g., mapping systems, object recognition libraries) played a role in the crash, plaintiffs may consider targeting those developers under negligence or product liability theories.
Software liability remains legally complex because:
- Software is often licensed, not sold, with extensive disclaimers.
- Courts may hesitate to apply strict liability to non-physical products.
- The role of the software must be clearly causative in the accident.
Still, as AV ecosystems evolve, litigation may expand to include AI developers, cloud data providers, and even cybersecurity firms if software vulnerabilities contributed to the crash.
Comparative Fault: Can the Plaintiff Be Blamed?
Florida’s modified comparative negligence rule (Fla. Stat. § 768.81) allows plaintiffs to recover damages only if they are found less than 50% at fault. This matters in AV cases involving Tesla because:
- A driver over-reliant on Autopilot may share fault.
- If the driver ignored system alerts or fell asleep, they may be deemed primarily responsible.
However, with Waymo vehicles (which often don’t have human drivers), this comparative fault issue becomes less relevant, sharpening the legal focus on corporate defendants.
Federal Regulation and Preemption Defense
One significant hurdle in suing Tesla or Waymo may be federal preemption. If either company can show they complied with federal safety standards, they may argue that state-level claims are preempted under the Supremacy Clause.
Stemming from this, since no comprehensive federal safety standards currently exist for AVs (as of 2025), this defense has limited strength so far. But as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) moves forward with AV-specific regulations, the litigation landscape could change.
Why Legal Representation Is Essential
AV accident cases are fundamentally different from traditional car accident claims. They require attorneys who understand:
- AV software architectures and sensor systems
- Product liability doctrines involving digital systems
- Technical discovery processes to obtain and interpret EDR and telemetry data
- Chain-of-command analysis within AV manufacturers
Tesla and Waymo have powerful legal departments and robust insurance defenses. Plaintiffs need equally sophisticated legal firepower to establish fault, quantify damages, and navigate emerging legal frameworks.
Injured in an AV Collision? Let a Proven Litigator Protect Your Future
Autonomous vehicle crashes require a legal fighter with a formidable record. Florida AV accident attorney Robert W. Rust, Esq. has successfully taken on powerful adversaries in and out of the courtroom. His background as a state prosecutor and deep understanding of AV technologies make him uniquely equipped to expose negligence and maximize your compensation.
At Rust Injury Law, we don’t back down against pressure from powerful defendants. Reach out to us today and put a warrior in your corner. To schedule your free case review, call us at 305-200-8856 or contact us online.