As autonomous vehicles (AVs) become increasingly common on Florida’s roads, questions about legal responsibility for accidents involving these vehicles grow more pressing. Florida’s relatively lenient regulations for autonomous vehicles have encouraged companies to test and deploy these cars, but their presence introduces complexities into the traditional framework of auto accident liability. When an accident occurs involving a self-driving car, determining who is responsible can be challenging. Below, our Florida car accident lawyer takes a closer look at who may be held liable for such incidents, examining potential defendants and applicable laws.

Understanding the Basics: Autonomous Vehicles and Liability

Autonomous vehicles are designed to operate with minimal or no human intervention, relying on sensors, machine learning, and AI algorithms to navigate roads and avoid hazards. While AV technology promises increased safety and efficiency, it also comes with risks—malfunctions, software glitches, or inadequate responses to unexpected situations can lead to accidents. In traditional auto accidents, the driver is typically the primary person held responsible. However, with autonomous vehicles, the question arises: if no one is physically driving the car, who is at fault?

In Florida, the law regarding autonomous vehicles is still developing, but there are some clear guidelines and potential defendants in AV accidents. These may include the following:

1. The Vehicle’s Owner
2. The Manufacturer or Software Developer
3. The Autonomous Vehicle Operator (if Present)
4. Government Entities or Maintenance Contractors

1. The Vehicle’s Owner

Even if the vehicle was in autonomous mode during the accident, the owner of the car might still be liable. Florida law requires vehicle owners to carry insurance and remain responsible for their cars, even if a defect or a third party’s actions caused the accident. If the AV owner failed to properly maintain the vehicle or tampered with its safety features, they could be held partially responsible.

For instance, if the owner ignored maintenance requirements or allowed software to go without updates, any resulting accident might shift some liability to them. Additionally, Florida follows a “dangerous instrumentality doctrine,” which holds that owners can be liable if their vehicle is involved in an accident, regardless of whether they were driving. Though this doctrine applies traditionally to drivers, there’s a potential it could extend to autonomous cars, especially if courts decide that an autonomous car, regardless of driver, is an inherently dangerous machine.

2. The Manufacturer or Software Developer

One of the most likely defendants in AV-related accidents is the vehicle manufacturer or the software developer behind the self-driving technology. If the vehicle’s technology fails to function correctly, a product liability claim may arise, where the injured party claims that a design flaw, manufacturing defect, or failure to warn about potential risks caused the accident.

In Florida, product liability claims can proceed under strict liability, negligence, or breach of warranty theories. Strict liability allows plaintiffs to recover damages without proving that the manufacturer was negligent—only that the defect directly caused the injury. For AVs, proving the existence of a defect or a malfunctioning algorithm becomes essential, as autonomous cars operate under complex machine-learning systems. A manufacturer could be liable if:

• Software Malfunctioned: For example, the AI misinterpreted a traffic signal, causing the car to proceed unsafely.
• Sensor Failure: Sensors are critical for detecting other cars, pedestrians, and road obstacles. If sensors fail to register another vehicle, a manufacturer could be held responsible.
• Inadequate Testing and Design: If the AV software or hardware lacks rigorous testing, manufacturers may be accountable for defects that lead to accidents.

3. The Autonomous Vehicle Operator (if Present)

In Florida, Level 4 and 5 autonomous vehicles, which can operate without human intervention, may still have a human present as a precaution. If the person inside the AV has the capacity to intervene, they may be partly responsible if they failed to do so. While the vehicle’s AI typically handles driving decisions, humans are often expected to take control when safety demands it.

A driver in the vehicle could be held liable if they ignored system alerts or failed to take corrective action when prompted by the vehicle’s safety system. However, in fully autonomous modes where driver intervention isn’t possible or feasible, this type of liability becomes more complex.

4. Government Entities or Maintenance Contractors

Poorly maintained roads, unclear road markings, or faulty traffic signals can contribute to AV accidents. Because autonomous vehicles rely heavily on clearly defined lane markings and functioning traffic signals, any deficiencies could impact their performance. If it’s found that poor infrastructure contributed to the accident, a government entity might share liability. Maintenance contractors, similarly, might be liable if they were responsible for keeping roadways and signs in condition but neglected their duties.

However, suing a government entity in Florida involves special rules and limitations. Sovereign immunity laws provide government entities some protection against lawsuits, but injured parties may pursue claims under certain conditions, particularly if gross negligence is evident.

Challenges in Proving Fault and Liability

Proving fault in autonomous vehicle accidents can be challenging. It often involves retrieving vehicle data, analyzing software performance, and working with technical experts who can assess the car’s AI and sensor system. Key evidence in these cases includes:

• Black Box Data: AVs record extensive data about their operations, similar to airplane black boxes. This data may show the vehicle’s decision-making process and could support a claim against the manufacturer or another party.
• Maintenance Records: Proper maintenance of both software and hardware is crucial. Maintenance records help establish if the vehicle’s systems were up-to-date and functioning as intended.
• Expert Testimony: AI and engineering experts are often essential in explaining complex systems to juries, helping them understand how software or sensor errors might have contributed to an accident.

Legal Implications for AV Accident Victims

For accident victims in Florida, the legal process of recovering damages following an autonomous vehicle accident may be different from traditional car accidents. Victims may have to pursue claims through multiple avenues—such as the manufacturer, vehicle owner, or even government entities—depending on the specifics of the accident. In general, victims in Florida can seek compensation for:

• Medical bills
• Lost wages
• Pain and suffering
• Property damage

Hurt in an Accident Involving a Self-Driving Vehicle? Contact a Car Accident Lawyer Today

As autonomous vehicles become more common on Florida’s roads, legal and insurance frameworks will likely continue to evolve. Determining who is responsible for an autonomous vehicle accident can be complex, involving multiple parties and detailed technical investigations. Understanding potential avenues of liability, as well as Florida’s laws and precedents, can help accident victims and their attorneys navigate the process more effectively.

If you or someone you know has been involved in an accident with an autonomous vehicle in Florida, consulting with an experienced car accident lawyer familiar with AV technology and Florida’s evolving legal landscape can be a critical first step. The legalities may seem complicated, but a knowledgeable attorney can help ensure that responsible parties are held accountable and that victims receive the compensation they deserve. Contact us today.

The post Autonomous Vehicle Accidents in Florida: Who Do You Sue? appeared first on Searcy Law.