A consumer in the United States looking for a new car is presented with a remarkable number of models containing technology that only 15 years ago were beyond most drivers’ imagination. Today, nearly 93% of new cars sold feature some sort of advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS). These systems fall into the Level 1 and Level 2 categories of automation sophistication; a system at this level still requires full driver attention “continuous assistance”. Some of these modern features include adaptive cruise control and lane-keep assist technology, while car manufacturers such as Ford, Tesla, and GM have incorporated into their vehicles partial self-driving systems with the ability to effectively drive the car through varied terrain and speeds. The proliferation of ADAS’s is perceived as a positive development in the realm of car safety; according to one Consumer Reports survey, 57% of respondents said that their ADAS features helped them avoid a crash. Id. Another survey by CCCIS reported that 84% of drivers believed ADAS features promote safe driving. Id.
All this added technology, however, runs the risk of making drivers complacent – and therefore less safe. Results from a study conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety showed that the longer drivers used a partial self-driving system – like those offered by Tesla, Ford, and GM – the more likely they were to become distracted and disengaged from driving, “with a significant increase in the odds of participants taking both hands off the steering wheel”. Ian J. Reagan et al., Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Disengagement from driving when using automation during a 4-week field trial 1 (2021). A driver’s lack of focus on the road increases the likelihood of being involved in an automobile accident. Despite lofty expectations, partial self-driving technology clearly will not eliminate car accidents any time soon.
A natural question emerges from this set of facts: when a driver injures another, be it a fellow driver or a pedestrian, and partial self-driving technology was engaged at the time of the crash, how should courts assign liability in the resulting trial? Typically, when an automotive “defect” plays a part in causing an accident, a plaintiff can pursue damages against the automotive manufacturer with a products liability action. However, the application of products liability law to a plaintiff injured by a vehicle using partial self-driving is unpromising, considering how most jurisdictions handle such actions. 63 Am. Jur. 2d Products Liability § 10 (A products liability action generally requires proof of a “defective” product. 63 Am. Jur. 2d Products Liability § 6. A defect in a product may consist of a mistake in manufacturing, improper design, or the inadequacy or absence of warnings regarding the use of the product.)
Success in a products liability action almost invariably requires proving that the product was actually defective, or lacked adequate warnings about the dangers attending its use. 63 Am. Jur. 2d Products Liability § 10. Owners’ manuals for vehicles with partial self-driving technology typically contain explicit warnings about the dangers of reduced attention to the road, which would seemingly foreclose any attempt to claim the partial self-driving technology was “defective”. However, an open question exists as to whether a warning contained in an owner’s manual is sufficient by itself to defend against a products liability action. Compare Bloxom v. Bloxom, 512 So.2d 839 (1987) (holding that an adequate warning would have been futile because the user did not actually read the manual) with Ford Motor Co. v. Rushford, 868 N.E.2d 806 (2007) (holding that the manufacturer had no duty to provide additional warnings beyond those in the manual, and the user’s failure to read the manual did not impose additional liability on the manufacturer).
To date, the case law on this point is sparse. At the state level, a Florida Appellate Court tackled the issue of manufacturer liability in the context of punitive damages, ruling that the record did not show Tesla “knew, or reasonably should have known” Tesla’s driving assistance technology was “likely to cause death or great bodily injury”. Tesla, Inc. v. Banner, No. 4D2023-3034, 2025 WL 610816 at *4 (Fla. App. 2025). Rather, the Court credited the fact that Tesla “repeatedly warned” drivers “against misuse of the features” by providing extensive warnings in the owners’ manual. Banner, 2025 WL 610816 at *4. While the standard of negligence for the imputation of punitive damages is higher than that for products liability, these same defenses would apply to at least diminish liability in a products liability action, if not defeat it entirely. 63 Am. Jur. 2d Products Liability § 10; note 8, supra. Furthermore, only one federal court has heard an action against a car manufacturer for products liability as a direct result of use of partial self-driving technology. Umeda v. Tesla, Inc., No. 20-cv-02926-SVK, 2020 WL 5653496 at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Unfortunately, this case was dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds, so the district court never reached the merits of the case. Umeda, 2020 WL 5653496, at *7.
All in all, it appears the widespread adoption of ADAS’s and the gradual adoption of partial self-driving technology has yet to meaningfully change age-old liability rules regarding auto accidents. This is likely attributable to the fact that these driver-assistance technologies have not yet evolved past the point of providing driving aid, rather than a fully automated driving experience. Even for the most sophisticated technology on the road, the driver is still expected to maintain a watchful eye over their surroundings. See note 10, supra. As driver-assistance technology continues to evolve, however, one would expect more auto-accident plaintiffs to consider the role this technology may have caused in bringing about their harm.
Samuel Falter is an Associate Editor on the Michigan Technology Law Review.