From Driver to Algorithm: Re-examining Tort Liability for Self- Driving Cars
Keywords:
autonomous vehicles, United States, European Union, Traditional principlesAbstract
The development and deployment of autonomous vehicles (AVs) present one of the most complex challenges for contemporary tort law. Traditional principles of negligence and product liability, designed around the paradigm of human-operated vehicles, are fundamentally disrupted when the driving function is transferred from a human operator to an algorithmic system. This article
critically re-examines the tort liability framework applicable to self-driving cars, evaluating the adequacy of existing legal doctrines in allocating responsibility for accidents involving autonomous vehicles. Through a comparative analysis of legal approaches in the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom, this paper explores the doctrinal challenges posed by AVs,
including the identification of the responsible party, the standard of care applicable to autonomous systems, the role of product liability in addressing design and software defects, and the potential for strict liability frameworks. The article further considers the implications of algorithmic decision- making for moral and legal accountability, including the ethical dilemmas embedded in AV programming and the challenges of proving causation in complex autonomous systems. The analysis concludes with recommendations for a reformed tort liability framework that ensures adequate compensation for victims, promotes safety innovation, and provides legal certainty for manufacturers, operators, and users of autonomous vehicles.
References
American Law Institute. (1998). Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability. American Law
Institute Publishers.
Calo, R. (2015). Robotics and the lessons of cyberlaw. California Law Review, 103(3), 513-563.
European Commission. (2024). Revised Product Liability Directive. Official Journal of the
European Union.
Geistfeld, M. A. (2017). A roadmap for autonomous vehicles: State tort liability, automobile
insurance, and federal safety regulation. California Law Review, 105(6), 1611-1694.
Lin, P. (2016). Why ethics matters for autonomous cars. In M. Maurer et al. (Eds.), Autonomous
driving: Technical, legal and social aspects (pp. 69-85). Springer.
Marchetti, B. (2022). Liability for autonomous vehicles: Current frameworks and future
directions. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 13(1), 88-105.
NHTSA. (2022). Framework for automated driving system safety. National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
Prosser, W. L., & Keeton, W. P. (1984). Prosser and Keeton on the law of torts (5th ed.). West
Publishing.
SAE International. (2021). J3016: Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving
automation systems for on-road motor vehicles. SAE International.
Scherer, M. U. (2016). Regulating artificial intelligence systems: Risks, challenges,
competencies, and strategies. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 29(2), 353-400.
Selbst, A. D. (2020). Negligence and AI's human users. Boston University Law Review, 100(4),
-1376.
Selbst, A. D., & Barocas, S. (2018). The intuitive appeal of explainable machines. Fordham
Law Review, 87(3), 1085-1139.
Vladeck, D. C. (2014). Machines without principals: Liability rules and artificial intelligence.
Washington Law Review, 89(1), 117-150.
Gurney, J. K. (2013). Sue my car not me: Products liability and accidents involving autonomous
vehicles. University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy, 2013(2), 247-277.
Collingwood, L. (2017). Privacy implications and liability issues of autonomous vehicles.
Information & Communications Technology Law, 26(1), 32-45.
Gorani, S. (2026). Enhancing environmental protection through ecocide recognition: Aligning
international criminal law with SDG 15. National Journal of Environmental Law, 9(1).
https://lawjournals.celnet.in/index.php/jel/article/view/1974
Gorani, S. (2026). Intergenerational climate justice: Legal and ethical frameworks for protecting
future generation's environmental rights. Journal of Constitutional Law and Jurisprudence, 9(1).
https://lawjournals.celnet.in/index.php/Jolj/article/view/1991
Gorani, S. (2026). Cybercrime and forensic psychology: An intersectional analysis. National
Journal of Criminal Law, 9(1). https://lawjournals.celnet.in/index.php/njcl/article/view/1990
Singh, B., & Gorani, S. (2026). Exploring Health Science and Global Legal Provisions. Indian
Journal of Health and Medical Law, 9(1).
https://lawjournals.celnet.in/index.php/ijhml/article/view/2002



