Case Law On Emerging Criminal Liability For Autonomous Vehicles And Transport Systems
1. Uber Self-Driving Car Fatality – Tempe, Arizona (2018)
Facts:
A self-driving Uber Volvo XC90 struck and killed a pedestrian, Elaine Herzberg, while in autonomous mode. A safety driver was present but failed to intervene in time.
Legal Issues:
Who bears criminal liability when an AV causes a death: the human operator, the company, or the software developer?
Can negligence apply when the vehicle operates autonomously?
Outcome:
Uber, as a company, was not criminally charged.
The safety driver faced charges for negligent homicide and endangerment but received probation rather than imprisonment.
Significance:
This case is a landmark in AV law.
Liability rested on the human operator, highlighting the current limitations of criminal law regarding autonomous systems.
2. Tesla Autopilot Fatal Crash – Gardena, California (2019)
Facts:
A Tesla Model S operating in Autopilot struck a Honda Civic, killing two occupants. The driver was engaged with the system but failed to maintain full attention.
Legal Issues:
When a semi-autonomous system is active, can the human driver be criminally liable for manslaughter?
Can Tesla face criminal liability for software design?
Outcome:
The driver pled no contest to vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence.
Tesla was not criminally prosecuted; civil liability cases were later filed.
Significance:
Demonstrates how criminal liability currently focuses on humans rather than manufacturers.
Raises concerns about oversight expectations in semi-autonomous vehicles.
3. Tesla Autopilot Fatal Crash – Key Largo, Florida (2019)
Facts:
A Tesla Model S operating under Autopilot collided with a stationary vehicle, causing one death.
Legal Issues:
Should responsibility lie with the driver or the manufacturer?
How should liability be assigned for partially autonomous systems?
Outcome:
Civil courts assigned partial liability to Tesla (about one-third).
No criminal charges were filed against Tesla or the driver in this case.
Significance:
Highlights the growing discussion of manufacturer responsibility.
Signals potential pathways for criminal liability in the future, even if currently limited to civil cases.
4. Waymo Self-Driving Car Minor Collision – Phoenix, Arizona (2018)
Facts:
A Waymo autonomous vehicle was involved in a low-speed collision with another vehicle at an intersection. No serious injuries occurred.
Legal Issues:
Can minor accidents caused by AVs result in criminal negligence charges?
How does liability differ between the human safety driver and the AV operator (company)?
Outcome:
No criminal charges were filed.
Responsibility was attributed to the AV system and insurance covered damages.
Significance:
Demonstrates that minor incidents are usually handled through civil remedies.
Provides a precedent for examining criminal negligence in non-fatal AV collisions.
5. Tesla Model X Autopilot Fatal Crash – Mountain View, California (2018)
Facts:
A Tesla Model X, operating under Autopilot, crashed into a highway barrier, killing the driver. The system did not detect the barrier in time.
Legal Issues:
Could Tesla face criminal liability for failing to prevent a foreseeable collision?
Is the driver criminally liable if they relied on the autonomous system?
Outcome:
No criminal charges were brought against Tesla or the driver.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) investigated and issued safety recommendations.
Significance:
Highlights the challenge of assigning criminal liability when the driver is partially reliant on AV systems.
Shows regulators are currently more active than criminal courts in addressing AV risks.
6. Shared-Control Scenario – Robotaxi Test Case (Hypothetical / Legal Analysis)
Facts:
A Level 4 robotaxi is in operation; a safety driver is present. The vehicle makes a decision leading to an accident while the driver fails to intervene.
Legal Issues:
Does criminal liability attach to the supervising human?
Could the AV manufacturer be held criminally responsible for programming errors?
Outcome:
In theory, courts may hold the safety driver liable for failing to intervene.
Manufacturer liability remains uncertain and is highly jurisdiction-dependent.
Significance:
Illustrates the “grey zone” in shared-control AVs.
Shows the need for new legislation defining liability for autonomous decision-making.
7. Tesla Semi-Autonomous Fatal Crash – Mountain View, California (2021)
Facts:
A Tesla vehicle in semi-autonomous mode ran a red light and struck another vehicle, killing a passenger.
Legal Issues:
Liability assignment between the human operator and Tesla.
The extent of oversight required for semi-autonomous systems.
Outcome:
Driver held criminally liable for manslaughter.
Tesla not prosecuted criminally but faced civil claims.
Significance:
Reinforces the emerging trend of holding humans criminally responsible in semi-autonomous accidents.
Demonstrates the limits of current criminal frameworks for fully autonomous vehicles.
Key Takeaways from the Cases
Human operator liability dominates – In most cases, criminal charges are directed at safety drivers or users rather than manufacturers.
Manufacturer criminal liability is limited – Civil liability is more common than criminal prosecution at present.
Shared-control and fully autonomous systems create legal uncertainty – Courts struggle to define “driver” and assign mens rea when the AV is making decisions.
Regulatory agencies fill the gap – Investigations and safety recommendations often precede any criminal proceedings.
Emerging need for AV-specific legislation – Cases highlight the necessity of defining criminal responsibility in AV operation, software defects, and human oversight.
RELATED Blog
comments