The rise of autonomous vehicle (AV) technology has introduced a complex legal conundrum. When a self-driving car is involved in a crash in Florida, who is liable: the human behind the wheel, the vehicle manufacturer, or the developer of the software controlling the vehicle?
The answer is not straightforward and depends on a nuanced analysis of negligence law, product liability doctrines, federal and state regulatory frameworks, and the evolving definition of “control” in autonomous vehicles.
The Legal Landscape: Florida’s Approach to Autonomous Vehicles
Florida is among the most AV-friendly states in the country. In 2019, it passed legislation (Fla. Stat. § 316.85) allowing fully autonomous vehicles to operate on public roads without a human driver physically present in the vehicle.
Under Florida law, a “fully autonomous vehicle” is one that can operate without any driver input. The statute also allows the operator (whether in the vehicle or remote) to be considered as the “driver” for legal purposes, even if they aren’t manually controlling the car.
Florida’s statutory language recognizes that a vehicle’s Automated Driving System (ADS) can be the operator, and thus, potentially the party responsible in case of a crash. However, despite this legal foundation, liability in an actual accident scenario remains an evolving battleground involving drivers, manufacturers, and software developers.
Driver Liability: When Human Error Still Matters
Most self-driving cars on the road today are classified by the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) as Level 2 or 3 automation. This still require some degree of human oversight. In such systems, the driver must remain alert and ready to take over at any time.
In these cases, driver negligence can still be a significant factor. Examples include:
- Failing to intervene when the system makes an obvious error
- Operating the AV in an unsafe or improper environment (e.g., using autopilot in areas where the system is not rated for use)
- Misusing the vehicle’s features (e.g., falling asleep or engaging in distracted driving)
Under Florida’s modified comparative negligence rule (as amended by HB 837 in 2023), if the driver is found 50% or more at fault, they are barred from recovery. Therefore, if a human misused the vehicle’s self-driving capabilities or failed to respond appropriately during a malfunction, they could be wholly or partially liable.
Manufacturer Liability: The Role of Product Defects
Vehicle manufacturers may be liable under product liability laws, particularly if a defect in the design or manufacture of the car contributed to the crash. This liability could arise under several theories:
- Strict Liability: The plaintiff does not need to prove negligence, but only that the vehicle was defective and the defect caused the injury.
- Negligence: The plaintiff must show that the manufacturer failed to exercise reasonable care in the design or assembly of the vehicle.
- Breach of Warranty: If the vehicle did not perform as guaranteed, the manufacturer may be held liable.
In a self-driving car crash, examples of manufacturer liability could include:
- A faulty LIDAR or radar system that fails to detect a pedestrian
- Malfunctioning emergency braking systems
- Structural issues leading to injury upon impact
Manufacturers are increasingly deploying over-the-air (OTA) updates, which complicate liability even further. If a crash occurs due to a bug introduced in a software update, is the manufacturer responsible or the software provider?
Software Developer Liability: When the Code Goes Wrong
Software developers play a central role in autonomous vehicle performance. In many cases, especially in companies like Tesla, Waymo, or Cruise, software developers create and update the algorithms that handle:
- Object detection and classification
- Navigation
- Obstacle avoidance
- Decision-making protocols under uncertain conditions
A coding error or a flaw in the decision-tree logic could lead to tragic outcomes—for instance, if the vehicle misidentifies a stopped firetruck as an overhead sign and fails to brake.
However, holding a software developer liable under existing tort frameworks is extremely challenging. Software is often viewed as a service rather than a tangible product, which complicates claims under traditional product liability law. Moreover:
- Software licensing agreements often include disclaimers and limit liability.
- The “learned intermediary” doctrine may insulate developers if the manufacturer failed to implement or test the software adequately.
- Plaintiffs may struggle to prove causation—i.e., that the specific software error directly caused the crash.
Still, in rare but increasingly plausible scenarios, plaintiffs may pursue claims under negligent programming, failure to warn, or even cybersecurity negligence if the system was vulnerable to hacking or unauthorized manipulation.
What About Shared Liability? Comparative Fault in Florida
In many self-driving car accidents, liability is shared among multiple parties. Under Florida’s modified comparative negligence system, the court can assign a percentage of fault to each responsible party. For instance:
- 40% fault to the human driver (for distracted driving)
- 30% fault to the car manufacturer (for a defective braking system)
- 30% fault to the software developer (for misclassification of an obstacle)
This approach allows victims to recover from multiple sources, but only if their own percentage of fault is below 50%. Strategic legal analysis is essential in such cases to correctly identify and apportion liability.
Black Box Data and Evidence Preservation in AV Crashes
Determining liability in a self-driving car crash often hinges on vehicle data logs. AVs are equipped with event data recorders (EDRs), which can capture:
- Speed, acceleration, braking
- Lane position
- Driver intervention
- System status (manual vs. autonomous mode)
Florida attorneys handling AV crashes must move quickly to send spoliation letters and preserve this critical data. These digital footprints can establish which party had control, whether the system failed, and how the driver responded.
The Role of Federal Regulation and NHTSA Guidance
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued voluntary guidelines for AVs, including its Automated Vehicles 4.0 framework. Although federal law currently lacks a comprehensive liability regime for AVs, these guidelines are increasingly cited in litigation to support or refute claims of reasonable conduct by manufacturers.
Moreover, if federal safety standards are established for AVs in the future, they may preempt certain state-level tort claims under the Supremacy Clause. Until then, Florida’s state tort law will continue to dominate AV crash litigation.
Insurance and Liability Shifts in the AV Era
The AV revolution may also transform insurance models. Instead of driver-focused policies, we may see manufacturer or product-based coverage, with companies like Tesla, Volvo, or GM absorbing primary responsibility through their own insurance programs.
For now, however, Florida Statutes § 324.021 still require all motor vehicle owners to carry minimum liability insurance, and these policies are typically the first to respond after an accident even in AV scenarios. But if the driver was not actively controlling the vehicle, litigation may shift upstream to higher-tier parties like the OEM (original equipment manufacturer) or developer.
The Trial-Ready Advocate You Need After an AV Crash
If you have been injured in an autonomous vehicle accident, don’t face big tech companies and insurers alone. Florida AV accident lawyer Robert W. Rust brings rare courtroom grit as a former prosecutor and years of personal injury experience. He’ll move fast, preserve evidence, and fight with passion to hold negligent parties accountable. At Rust Injury Law, your financial recovery is our top priority. To schedule your free case review, call us at 305-200-8856 or contact us online.