A Tesla on Autopilot rear-ends a stopped vehicle on I-85. A self-parking feature malfunctions in a Greenville parking garage. An autonomous delivery vehicle runs a red light in Anderson. These scenarios are increasingly plausible as automated driving technology becomes more common, raising legal questions that traditional car accident law wasn't designed to answer.
When an autonomous vehicle causes an accident, determining responsibility requires a completely different approach. An Anderson car accident attorney with experience in emerging vehicle technology cases can help injury victims understand their rights when a computer system, not just a person, was controlling the vehicle.
Understanding Self-Driving vs. Driver-Assist Technology
Many vehicles marketed with "self-driving" or "autopilot" features are actually advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS), typically SAE Level 2 automation. Level 2 systems require the driver to stay engaged and monitor the roadway at all times, even though the system can control steering, acceleration, and braking under certain conditions.
Higher automation ranges from SAE Level 3 to Level 5. Level 4 exists in limited, geofenced deployments in a few U.S. cities; it isn't generally available in consumer-owned vehicles. Level 5 (full automation in all conditions) remains in development.
This distinction matters legally. With Level 2 systems, you're generally still responsible for monitoring. With Level 3, responsibility can depend on whether the system was operating within its design domain and whether a takeover was requested. Liability ultimately depends on the vehicle's actual automation level, its operational design domain, what warnings were given, driver behavior, and applicable insurance policy language.
Why Are Autonomous Vehicle Crashes Different?
Traditional car accidents involve straightforward questions: Was the driver speeding? Texting? Impaired? Self-driving car crashes involving automated systems require asking entirely different questions.
Consider this hypothetical scenario: Sarah activates her vehicle's highway self-driving mode on Highway 76. The system fails to detect a disabled vehicle ahead and collides with it at full speed. Sarah suffers a traumatic brain injury and $300,000 in medical bills.
Is Sarah fully responsible for trusting the technology? Or is it the manufacturer for overstating capabilities, the software developer whose algorithm failed, or the sensor manufacturer whose hardware malfunctioned? Unlike traditional car crashes, autonomous vehicle accidents often involve multiple potentially responsible parties.
This differs fundamentally from "ghost ride" accidents, where parked vehicles roll away due to parking brake failure. Ghost rides involve mechanical failure and gravity. Autonomous crashes involve active technology making real-time decisions about speed, braking, and steering.
Legal Framework: Combining Negligence and Product Liability
South Carolina has no comprehensive autonomous-vehicle operation or liability statute, though related bills have been proposed. Most autonomous vehicle injury cases involve two distinct types of claims:
- Negligence claims target human operators or other drivers who failed to exercise reasonable care.
- Product liability claims target vehicle manufacturers, software developers, and component suppliers when the automated system itself was defective or unreasonably dangerous.
Who Can Be Held Liable?
Several potential parties may be held accountable in self-driving car crashes:
- Vehicle manufacturers may face liability for manufacturing defects, design defects, or failure to warn.
- Software developers and technology companies might bear independent liability if algorithm failures or inadequate machine learning cause car accidents.
- Component manufacturers, like those for cameras and ultrasonic sensors, may share responsibility if these parts fail or provide inaccurate data.
- Human operators (drivers) may be held liable if they ignore system warnings, use autonomous features outside designated conditions, or are impaired or distracted when they are required to monitor.
Under South Carolina's modified comparative negligence rule, injury victims can recover damages as long as they're less than 51% responsible for causing the accident
Critical Evidence in Autonomous Vehicle Cases
Autonomous vehicle accident cases require different evidence than traditional car crashes:
- Vehicle data downloads. Autonomous vehicles record extensive operational data. This "black box" data is critical but often encrypted and controlled by manufacturers.
- Software version logs. Knowing which software was running during the crash, and whether known bugs existed, can establish manufacturer liability.
- Similar incident data. Unlike typical traffic accidents, autonomous failures often show patterns across vehicles running identical software.
- Expert reconstruction. Specialists reconstruct what the system "saw," how it interpreted data, and why it made crash-causing decisions.
Before vehicle repairs, towing storage disposals, or data overwrites, a South Carolina personal injury lawyer should promptly send formal spoliation notices to the vehicle manufacturer, insurance companies, repair facilities, and towing companies. These legal demands require recipients to preserve all physical evidence, electronic data, and documentation. Without these timely demands, critical evidence can quickly disappear.
Get the Right Legal Help After Self-Driving Car Crashes
Autonomous vehicle crashes require attorneys who understand both the technology and how to present technical evidence clearly to judges and juries unfamiliar with these systems. Early involvement allows attorneys to conduct independent investigations before evidence is destroyed.
If you've been injured in a crash involving autonomous vehicle technology, we'll explain your legal options clearly and help you understand what recovery looks like in your specific situation. Time matters in these cases. Reach out today to protect your rights.