The rapid advancement of autonomous vehicle technology has driven the growth of the global market for self-driving cars, which was already valued at over 41 billion U.S. dollars in 2024. As driverless technology evolves, a key question remains: Who is liable when a self-driving car causes a crash that results in catastrophic injury or wrongful death?
The public’s attention turned to Miami on August 1, 2025, as a federal jury found Tesla one-third liable in a fatal crash involving one of its autonomous vehicles and ordered the tech company to pay $243 million in damages, citing misleading safety claims and design flaws. This landmark outcome establishes a significant precedent for those navigating the legal nuances of crashes caused by autonomous vehicles and opens the door for potential legislative action.
Clifford Law Offices partner, Craig J. Squillace, who leads the firm’s auto accident practice group, joined WGN Radio’s Karen Conti to discuss the complexities surrounding driverless car cases and why it’s essential to understand your rights as a victim or a consumer and when to take action.
Understanding “Autonomous” Vehicles
Despite the marketed names for car models and their software, most vehicles on the road today are not truly autonomous. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) developed and published a classification system that defines the level of autonomy for any given vehicle:
- Level 0: No automation. The driver does everything.
- Level 1: Driver assistance (e.g., adaptive cruise control or lane keep assist).
- Level 2: Partial automation. The car can steer and accelerate/decelerate, but the driver must remain engaged at all times.
- Level 3: Conditional automation. The car can handle most aspects of driving, but the driver must be ready to take over.
- Level 4: High automation. The car can drive itself in certain conditions, with no driver intervention needed in those cases.
- Level 5: Full automation. No steering wheel or pedals; a human driver is not required at any time.
“[Companies are] giving a false illusion, even by the name ‘Autopilot,’ that the vehicle is doing the driving and that the driver doesn’t have to be attentive… which is completely not what that is intended to do.”
Craig Squillace, partner at Clifford Law Offices
According to SAE standards, Tesla’s Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) systems are generally considered Level 2, even though marketing may imply more autonomy. Craig clarifies that this distinction was a determining factor in the Miami trial, where plaintiffs argued that Tesla’s branding gave drivers a false sense of safety.
Common Dangers of Self-Driving Cars
False marketing claims and overreliance on technology remain common risks of self-driving cars. As demonstrated in the Tesla case, terms like “autopilot” can mislead consumers into believing a car is more autonomous than it actually is. These issues can lead to devastating outcomes when a vehicle fails to respond to a traffic signal or detect a pedestrian.
Craig shares that another public concern is the lack of regulation and legislation surrounding autonomous vehicles, and the question of whether these technologies are being pushed to consumers without sufficient testing and oversight.
“There’s a lot of criticism that exists about whether or not we’re getting the proper data and whether the federal government and state government are actually regulating these types of vehicles in a way that is going to help the safety of the people on the roadway.”
Determining Liability in a Driverless Car Accident
Liability in driverless car cases often involves many factors, both human and machine. Depending on the specific circumstances of a case, liability can be placed on a number of involved parties, including drivers, software developers, manufacturers, and others.
Craig emphasizes that even with autopilot systems engaged, drivers are often still legally responsible for monitoring the road and maintaining control of their vehicle. “You have a duty as a driver to maintain a proper lookout and to maintain the control of your vehicle… and avoid putting yourself into predicaments where you can cause bodily harm to people,” he explains. However, when automated features are involved, the legal analysis should also consider negligence and responsibility.
“If there is an allegation that… the vehicle was supposed to stop and it didn’t, then the analysis goes to whether or not the system was defective. And if so, that could expose not only the manufacturer of the vehicle to liability, but the company that may have created the software.”
Accountability in the Age of Automation
The Tesla trial demonstrates that tech companies and manufacturers can be held responsible, especially when their products are misrepresented or fail in predictable ways. This level of accountability can potentially drive corporations to instate changes that protect the general public and avoid future lawsuits.
“Verdicts that go adversely against companies sometimes can bring positive change.”
In his WGN interview, Craig discusses how verdicts in these early cases can potentially shape future laws and regulations, setting necessary legal standards for how self-driving technology is governed. In the absence of federal regulation, court decisions that involve financial consequences could push automakers to improve safety, transparency, and accountability.
He reiterates that until regulation is established, “Drivers under these scenarios are still required to keep their hands on the wheel, be attentive, and more importantly, be there in case the vehicle does malfunction.”
Craig Squillace and the Clifford Law Offices team have extensive experience handling complex auto and product liability cases. If you or a loved one has been injured by the negligence of an autonomous vehicle or its driver, you may be entitled to compensation. Contact us today to schedule your free case review.