Overview

Crashes involving driver-assistance or automated technology can raise difficult questions about whether the driver, vehicle manufacturer, or multiple parties are responsible. In this blog, David W. Starnes Attorney At Law explains how the type of technology, driver conduct, potential defects, and available evidence can influence liability after a Texas crash.

Introduction

Many modern vehicles can steer, brake, accelerate, or stay centered in their lane automatically. However, those features don’t necessarily relieve the person behind the wheel of responsibility for operating the vehicle. That distinction makes liability in driver-assist auto accidents increasingly relevant when determining who may be responsible for injuries and other losses after a collision.

If the technology makes a mistake, is the driver still responsible for the crash? The answer depends on the type of system operating at the time, what the driver was required to do, how both the driver and technology responded, and what ultimately caused the collision.

In some cases, the driver’s actions may be central to the claim. In others, evidence may point to an alleged defect in the vehicle or its technology. Understanding these factors is the first step toward determining where responsibility may lie.

Driver-Assist vs. Self-Driving: What’s the Difference?

Driver-assistance and self-driving technologies differ primarily in how much of the driving task the vehicle performs and how much responsibility remains with the human driver. Advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) support the person behind the wheel, while automated driving systems (ADS) can perform the entire driving task under specified conditions.

What Is ADAS?

ADAS includes technologies that help drivers steer, maintain speed, stay within a lane, or respond to potential hazards. Common examples include lane-keeping and lane-centering assistance, adaptive cruise control, and automatic emergency braking. Some systems combine steering and speed control.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) classifies Level 1 and Level 2 technologies as driver assistance rather than self-driving. At Level 1, the system can continuously assist with either steering or acceleration and braking. At Level 2, it can assist with both simultaneously. In either case, the driver remains responsible for operating the vehicle and must stay attentive to the road.

What Counts as an Automated Driving System?

Automated driving systems cover Levels 3 through 5. At Level 3, the system performs the driving task while the driver remains available to take control when requested. Levels 4 and 5 involve progressively greater automation, with Level 5 designed to handle the complete driving task under all roadway conditions.

Texas law similarly defines an ADS as Level 3, 4, or 5 technology. When an ADS is engaged, state law considers the system the vehicle’s operator for purposes that include compliance with traffic and motor vehicle laws. However, that designation doesn’t automatically determine who is civilly liable for damages after a crash.

When Can the Driver Be Liable for a Driver-Assist Crash?

A driver may be liable when they fail to use reasonable care while operating a vehicle, including when they improperly rely on a driver-assistance feature that still requires human supervision. Whether the driver is ultimately responsible depends on their conduct, the system’s capabilities, and the circumstances leading to the crash.

Failing To Monitor the Road

Driver-assistance technology doesn’t necessarily allow a driver to stop watching the road. NHTSA describes Level 2 technology as “you drive, you monitor.” Although these systems can control steering and acceleration or braking simultaneously, the driver remains responsible for driving and must stay fully engaged and attentive.

A driver who looks at their phone, falls asleep, stops monitoring surrounding traffic, or otherwise treats Level 2 assistance as fully autonomous could therefore face allegations that their inattention contributed to a collision.

Ignoring a Warning or Takeover Request

Some systems use visual displays, audible alerts, or other notifications to get the driver’s attention. Evidence showing that a driver received a warning but failed to respond could become important when determining responsibility.

However, a warning doesn’t automatically establish driver liability. Investigators may need to consider when the warning occurred, how much time the driver had to react, what the vehicle was doing, and whether road conditions affected the driver’s ability to prevent the collision.

Using the System Outside Its Intended Conditions

Drivers should also understand the limitations of the specific technology in their vehicles. NHTSA recommends reviewing the owner’s manual to understand how individual driver-assistance features operate.

Liability questions may arise if a driver continues relying on a feature when conditions interfere with its intended operation, such as on an unsupported roadway or amid construction, unclear lane markings, or adverse weather. In these cases, evidence about both the driver’s actions and the system’s performance can help determine what caused the crash.

When Can a Manufacturer Be Liable for a Crash?

Driver responsibility doesn’t necessarily rule out potential product liability. A manufacturer or another company involved with the vehicle could become relevant when evidence indicates that a defect in the vehicle, its hardware, or its automated technology contributed to the crash.

Defective Design

A design-defect claim focuses on whether the product’s underlying design created an unreasonable danger, rather than whether one particular component malfunctioned. Under Texas law, a claimant alleging a design defect generally must prove that a safer alternative design existed and that the defect was a producing cause of the injury, property damage, or death. The alternative must also meet requirements concerning its safety, utility, and economic and technological feasibility.

In a driver-assist case, for example, allegations might involve technology that steered toward another vehicle, failed to recognize an obstacle, braked unexpectedly, or failed to keep the vehicle within its intended lane. Those events alone don’t establish a design defect. Evidence would be necessary to determine what happened, why the system behaved as it did, and whether the legal requirements for a design-defect claim are satisfied.

Manufacturing or Hardware Defects

A manufacturing defect differs from a design defect because the issue concerns a particular product or component rather than the underlying design. In a vehicle equipped with driver-assistance technology, potentially relevant hardware could include cameras, radar equipment, sensors, steering components, or braking systems.

Investigators may therefore need to determine whether a component failed to function as intended and whether that failure contributed to the collision.

Inadequate Warnings or Instructions

Product liability questions can also involve warnings and instructions. For driver-assistance technology, an investigation may consider whether instructions adequately explained the system’s limitations, appropriate operating conditions, and the driver’s continuing responsibilities.

Confusing terminology or marketing doesn’t, by itself, establish liability. The specific representations, warnings, instructions, driver conduct, and connection between any alleged inadequacy and the crash can all be relevant when evaluating responsibility. Texas product liability law recognizes claims involving allegedly inadequate warnings or instructions in certain circumstances.

What Evidence Can Show Who Was Responsible?

Evidence from the vehicle itself can be particularly important after a driver-assist or automated-driving crash because it may help establish whether the system was engaged, what it did, and whether the driver attempted to intervene.

Depending on the vehicle and technology involved, relevant evidence may include:

Vehicle and event data
System engagement and disengagement records
Driver alerts and takeover warnings
Camera or sensor information
Software and system-version information
Crash-scene photos and video
Witness statements
Maintenance and repair records

Not every vehicle records or retains the same information. Data-recording and telemetry capabilities vary considerably among manufacturers and automation systems. Some vehicles can provide detailed information about system engagement and crash circumstances, while others have much more limited capabilities.

Texas law adds specific requirements for qualifying automated motor vehicles. When these vehicles operate with an automated driving system engaged, they must have a manufacturer-installed recording device capable of capturing information about the ADS and the vehicle’s status. That data can become important when reconstructing what happened immediately before a collision.

Federal reporting requirements can provide another source of information. NHTSA’s current Standing General Order requires specified manufacturers and operators to report certain crashes when ADS or Level 2 ADAS was engaged within 30 seconds of the crash. The exact reporting criteria differ between ADS and Level 2 ADAS crashes.

Preserving available evidence quickly can therefore matter. Digital records may help investigators determine whether the driver was controlling the vehicle, whether an automated feature was active, whether the system issued a warning, and how the vehicle responded in the seconds before impact. Combined with physical evidence, video, and witness accounts, this information can help distinguish the driver’s actions from the system’s behavior when determining what contributed to the crash.

Who May Be Responsible for Your Automated-Vehicle Crash?

Determining responsibility for a crash involving driver-assistance or automated technology requires looking beyond whether a feature was simply turned on. Liability may depend on the level of automation, the driver’s responsibilities, how the technology performed, and the evidence showing what caused the collision.

Depending on the circumstances, a claim could involve driver negligence, an alleged vehicle or software defect, or multiple contributing factors. These cases can require careful investigation of both human actions and vehicle technology. David W. Starnes Attorney At Law can investigate your car accident, work to preserve relevant evidence, and evaluate which parties may bear legal responsibility.

If you were injured in a crash involving automated technology, contact our office at (409) 835-9900 to discuss your case and potential legal options.

Who Is Liable When Driver-Assist Causes a Crash?