CALL US NOW
EMAIL US NOW
California is a national leader in autonomous vehicle testing and deployment. The Department of Motor Vehicles issues autonomous vehicle permits under Vehicle Code Section 38750 and the regulations adopted under it, and the California Public Utilities Commission separately authorizes autonomous vehicle passenger service for hire. When a driverless vehicle is involved in a crash, the liability question can reach the vehicle manufacturer, the company operating the fleet, the developer of the automated driving system, and any human safety driver who was aboard. California applies its existing negligence and products liability principles to these claims, but the way those principles fit a vehicle with no one driving is still being worked out case by case. Attorney Damoun Yazdi at The Accident Network Law Group evaluates autonomous vehicle accident claims throughout Southern California.
Key Takeaways
- Two California agencies regulate driverless vehicles: the DMV licenses testing and deployment under Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Article 3.7 (Sections 227.00 and following) for testing and Article 3.8 (Sections 228.00 and following) for post-testing deployment, and the CPUC authorizes passenger service for hire
- Products liability: when a defect in the automated driving system, its sensors, or its hardware causes a crash, the manufacturer can be held strictly liable for a design defect, a manufacturing defect, or a failure to warn, without proof that anyone was careless
- A human safety driver who was required to monitor the vehicle and did not take control when a hazard was apparent may share responsibility along with the employer
- Manufacturers must report any collision involving a permitted autonomous vehicle that caused property damage, bodily injury, or death to the DMV within 10 days on form OL 316 under 13 CCR Section 227.48, and the DMV publishes those reports
- California’s two-year statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure Section 335.1 applies to autonomous vehicle injury claims, and a much shorter six-month deadline applies if a public agency operated the vehicle
Shabnam Solati
My dad was recently in an auto accident and I wanted to get a second opinion. Attorney Damoun Yazdi at Riverside, was willing and super helpful in explaining the process and making sure I was fully aware of little details which had originally went unnoticed with my dad. I’m very thankful to have consulted with the Accident Network Law Group
Who Is Liable When a Driverless Car Causes an Accident
The manufacturer or automated driving system developer. When the vehicle’s software, sensor suite, mapping data, or hardware caused or contributed to the crash, California strict products liability applies. Under the doctrine California adopted in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (1963), an injured person can recover for a design defect, a manufacturing defect, or a failure to warn without proving that the manufacturer was negligent. Because the automated driving system makes the steering, braking, and throttle decisions, the design of that system is often the central issue rather than a side issue.
The company operating the fleet. A company that puts autonomous vehicles on California roads has to operate within the terms of its DMV permit and, if it carries passengers for hire, within its CPUC authority. Where an operator violated a regulation written to prevent the kind of harm that occurred, California Evidence Code Section 669 supplies a presumption that the operator was negligent, provided the violation caused the injury and the injured person is within the class the regulation protects. That presumption is rebuttable, so it strengthens a claim rather than deciding it.
The human safety driver, when one was aboard. DMV permits are tiered. A manufacturer begins testing with a trained safety driver behind the wheel before it can seek a driverless testing permit and then a deployment permit. A safety driver who was responsible for supervising the vehicle and did not intervene when a hazard was apparent may be personally responsible, and the employer is generally responsible for its employee’s conduct on the job.
Another driver. If a different driver’s negligence created the situation the automated system failed to handle, that driver remains responsible for their share of the harm. California applies pure comparative fault under Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975), so responsibility can be divided among several parties and an injured person who is partly at fault still recovers, reduced by their own percentage.
What the California Record Actually Shows
The framing of the question matters here. There is not yet a long run of independent, apples-to-apples crash rate comparisons between driverless vehicles and human drivers, so confident claims in either direction should be treated carefully. What does exist is a public reporting record, and it comes mostly from the California DMV and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
The DMV reported that vehicles operating under California autonomous vehicle testing permits covered more than 9 million autonomous test miles between December 1, 2024 and November 30, 2025. Separately, every manufacturer must file a collision report for each crash involving a permitted vehicle that results in property damage, bodily injury, or death, and the DMV had received well over 900 of those reports as of March 2026.
In April 2026 the DMV adopted updated autonomous vehicle regulations that expand collision reporting, add reporting on system failures, vehicle immobilizations, and hard braking events, require vehicle miles traveled data, and allow the department to impose targeted operating restrictions on a manufacturer, including limits on fleet size, geographic area, speed, and weather conditions. The same package opened the door to heavy-duty autonomous freight vehicles and to autonomous transit vehicles operated by public agencies and universities, which means the range of vehicles capable of causing serious injury is widening.
For someone who has actually been hurt, the abstract debate about whether the technology is good or bad is beside the point. The practical questions are narrower: which entity was responsible, what the vehicle’s own data shows about the seconds before impact, and who has that data.
How to Document a Driverless Vehicle Crash
Report the collision to law enforcement so there is an independent record. Photograph the vehicle, its company markings, its license plate, its sensor housings, and all damage. Note whether anyone was in the driver’s seat and whether the vehicle was carrying passengers. Identify the permit holder by name, because the operator, the vehicle manufacturer, and the software developer are not always the same company.
The operator has its own filing obligation. Under 13 CCR Section 227.48 a manufacturer whose permitted autonomous vehicle is involved in a collision causing property damage, bodily injury, or death must report it to the DMV within 10 days on form OL 316, identifying the people involved and describing how the collision happened. Deployment participants also file collision reports with the CPUC. Applicants for a deployment permit must certify that their vehicles carry an autonomous technology data recorder that captures sensor data for at least 30 seconds before a collision, which is why moving quickly matters: that recording is in the company’s possession, not yours.
Attorney Yazdi sends preservation demands to the operator, requests the DMV collision report, and pursues the recorder data and the permit file early, before the vehicle is repaired and the internal logs age out.
Deadlines That Can End an Autonomous Vehicle Claim
Most injury claims arising from an autonomous vehicle crash are governed by the two-year limit in Code of Civil Procedure Section 335.1, measured from the date of injury.
A much shorter deadline applies if a public entity was involved, which is newly relevant now that California authorizes autonomous transit vehicles operated by public agencies and universities. Government Code Section 911.2 requires a claim for personal injury to be presented to the public entity within six months of the incident. Missing that presentation deadline can end an otherwise strong case before the two-year statute is anywhere near expiring.
Talk With The Accident Network Law Group About a Driverless Vehicle Crash
Nearly every piece of useful evidence in an autonomous vehicle case begins in the hands of the company that built or operates the vehicle: the sensor log, the automated driving system’s decision record, the remote assistance communications, the permit file. Attorney Damoun Yazdi moves early to demand that material and to obtain the operator’s DMV collision report while the record is still fresh, then brings in the reconstruction and software expertise these cases require. Your first consultation costs nothing, and our firm works under a No Recovery, No Fee arrangement, so our fee comes out of a recovery or not at all.
We handle autonomous vehicle and other motor vehicle injury claims from our offices in Costa Mesa, Riverside, Rancho Cucamonga, Apple Valley, Victorville, and Bakersfield, and we take cases throughout Southern California. Se habla espanol.
Legal Disclaimer
This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The outcome of any case depends on its specific facts and circumstances. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Contact The Accident Network Law Group for advice about your individual situation.
