For more than a century, automobile liability has rested on the assumption that a human controlled the vehicle. Whether evaluating negligence, determining fault, or analyzing insurance coverage, courts have traditionally focused on the conduct of the individual behind the wheel. As automated driving systems (ADS) become increasingly capable of driving without human intervention, liability no longer turns exclusively on human decision-making.
Courts and insurers may be called upon to evaluate software performance, sensor functionality, mapping accuracy, cybersecurity, and the conduct of multiple entities involved in designing, deploying, maintaining, and operating autonomous vehicles. Although autonomous vehicle litigation remains in its infancy, the legal questions it presents are considerably more complex than those arising from traditional motor vehicle accidents.
Georgia (a major logistics hub) and Tennessee (a major freight and distribution corridor) are particularly significant jurisdictions in this emerging area of law, and autonomous trucking may arrive faster than many insurers expect. Both states sit at the center of Southeast transportation networks, and both states have enacted legislation authorizing autonomous vehicle operations years before widespread commercial deployment occurred, reflecting a legislative recognition that existing transportation laws would require adaptation to accommodate the rapidly evolving technology. In June 2025, Waymo and Uber launched commercial autonomous vehicle service throughout portions of Atlanta, making Georgia one of the first states in the Southeast to host large-scale commercial autonomous vehicle operations.
As autonomous vehicle deployment accelerates, insurers also face a new reality. Autonomous vehicles fundamentally alter the theories of liability. Traditional negligence principles remain relevant, but they increasingly intersect with product liability, technology services, cybersecurity, and complex insurance coverage questions. Understanding where those doctrines overlap, and where they diverge, will become increasingly important as courts begin addressing claims arising from autonomous vehicle operations.
Georgia and Tennessee Have Positioned Themselves at the Forefront of Autonomous Vehicle Deployment
Unlike many jurisdictions that have adapted a cautious approach to autonomous vehicles, Georgia and Tennessee have each enacted comprehensive statutory frameworks designed to facilitate their operation while preserving traditional principles of tort liability.
Georgia: Georgia's Autonomous Vehicles Act authorizes the operation of fully autonomous vehicles without a human driver physically present in the vehicle, provided several statutory conditions are satisfied. Among other requirements, the vehicle must comply with applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards, be capable of achieving a "minimal risk condition" if the automated driving system fails (the system can bring the vehicle to a full stop), maintain minimal liability insurance, and satisfy statutory accident-reporting obligations. O.C.G.A. § 40-8-11. The General Assembly also amended other portions of Georgia's motor vehicle code to recognize that certain statutory duties historically imposed upon human drivers may instead be performed by an automated driving system.[i]
Tennessee: Similarly, Tennessee likewise adopted one of the nation's most comprehensive autonomous vehicle statutes through the Tennessee Automated Vehicles Act. Rather than creating an entirely new body of liability law, the legislature largely incorporated autonomous vehicles into existing legal doctrines. Most notably, Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-30-106 provides that liability involving an ADS-operated vehicle is determined under existing product liability law, common law, and other applicable law. The statute further provides that when the automated driving system is fully engaged and operating in compliance with the manufacturer's instructions, the automated driving system is deemed the "driver or operator" for purposes of determining liability.
The Tennessee statute raises a particularly intriguing legal question. If an automated driving system is treated as the "driver" while engaged, what becomes of negligence principles that historically depended upon human judgment? Future litigation will almost certainly require courts to reconcile traditional negligence law with product liability principles, commercial relationships among technology providers, and insurance coverage disputes involving multiple potentially responsible parties.
The Shift from Driver Negligence to Technology Liability
Perhaps the most significant legal consequence of autonomous vehicle technology is not the elimination of driver negligence, but rather its transformation. Human error will continue to play a role in many autonomous vehicle collisions, particularly as partially automated systems require varying degrees of driver oversight. Even in vehicles capable of fully autonomous operation, questions involving vehicle ownership, maintenance, fleet management, and compliance with manufacturer instructions will continue to implicate traditional negligence principles. However, autonomous vehicles also introduce an entirely new layer of potential liability by shifting judicial inquiry from human conduct to technological performance.[ii]
Rather than asking whether a driver exercised reasonable care, litigants may ask whether the automated driving system performed as intended. Did the vehicle correctly identify a pedestrian or bicyclist? Did sensors accurately detect surrounding traffic? Was the software operating with system's performance? Were weather conditions beyond the operational design domain for the automated driving system? These questions move the focus of the litigation from human judgment to engineering, software design, and system performance.
The distinction is significant because the legal theories available to plaintiffs likewise expand. While negligence claims against drivers or vehicle owners may remain viable, autonomous vehicle litigation is also likely to involve product liability, negligent design, failure-to-warn claims, negligent maintenance, contractual indemnity disputes, and claims involving technology services. A single accident may therefore give rise to multiple, overlapping theories of recovery against numerous parties whose roles in the operation of the vehicle differ substantially.
Product Liability Takes Center Stage
As automated driving systems assume responsibility for navigating public roadways, product liability principles are likely to occupy an increasingly prominent role in autonomous vehicle litigation. Unlike traditional automobile accidents, where liability frequently turns on a driver's split-second decision, autonomous vehicle claims may require courts to evaluate whether the technology itself was defectively designed or performed in an unintended manner.
Most jurisdictions recognize three primary categories of product defects: (1) manufacturing defects, (2) design defect, and (3) inadequate warnings or instructions. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability section § 1-2(1998). Each theory has potential application to autonomous vehicle technology.
- Manufacturing defect claims may arise if a sensor, camera, radar component, or LiDAR unit deviates from its intended specifications and contributes to a collision. Although these claims resemble traditional automotive defect cases, the technical complexity of autonomous driving systems may require extensive forensic analysis of electronic hardware and system diagnostics.[iii]
- Design defect claims are likely to present even more challenging questions. Plaintiffs may contend that the automated driving system's decision-making algorithms inadequately recognized roadway hazards, improperly classified objects, failed to respond appropriately to foreseeable driving conditions, or were insufficiently tested before deployment. These allegations differ markedly from traditional automobile defect claims because they frequently concern software architecture and machine decision-making rather than purely mechanical components.[iv]
- Failure-to-warn claims may likewise evolve in new directions. Manufacturers may face allegations that they inadequately disclosed limitations of autonomous driving systems, overstated system capabilities, or failed to provide sufficient instructions regarding circumstances requiring human intervention. As automated driving features become increasingly sophisticated, courts may be asked to determine whether warnings adequately conveyed the operational limitations of complex software systems to ordinary consumers.[v]
Negligence Does Not Disappear
Despite the growing importance of product liability, negligence claims are unlikely to disappear. Instead, they may increasingly target entities other than the individual occupying the driver's seat. Fleet operators, for example, may face allegations that they failed to maintain autonomous vehicles in accordance with manufacturer specifications, neglected to install critical software updates, inadequately trained personnel responsible for supervising autonomous operations, or permitted vehicles to operate outside their designated operational design domains. Likewise, maintenance providers may be accused of improperly servicing sensors or calibration systems essential to autonomous operation.
Questions also may arise concerning the responsibilities of vehicle owners. If an owner ignores manufacturer recalls, disables safety features, modifies vehicle software, or knowingly operates an autonomous vehicle with malfunctioning equipment, traditional negligence principles may continue to apply notwithstanding the vehicle's autonomous capabilities. Autonomous vehicle litigation should not be viewed as replacing negligence with product liability. Rather, the technology expands the range of potentially responsible actors while requiring courts to analyze how traditional negligence principles intersect with increasingly sophisticated technological systems.
Evidence Will Drive the Litigation
Autonomous vehicle litigation also promises to transform the nature of discovery. Traditional automobile cases frequently rely upon eyewitness testimony, police reporters, photographs, physical evidence, and accident reconstruction. Autonomous vehicle cases will undoubtedly continue to utilize many of these forms of proof, but they also introduce vast quantities of electronic evidence that may prove equally, if not more, important.[vi]
Relevant evidence may include event data recorder information, sensor outputs, LiDAR recordings, radar data, camera footage, GPS and mapping information, over-the-air software update histories, diagnostic logs, remote assistance communications, cybersecurity records, and system performance data generated immediately before and during a collision.[vii] Preservation of this electronically stored information may become critical during the earliest stages of litigation.
Investigations may require coordination with technical experts capable of identifying and preserving digital evidence before it is altered through routine software updates or data retention policies. Discovery disputes may increasingly focus on proprietary software, trade secret protections, source code, and electronically stored information that has little counterpart in traditional automobile litigation. As courts begin addressing these issues, insurers and their counsel will need to adapt established litigation strategies to accommodate a category of evidence that is far more technical, voluminous, and dynamic than routine physical evidence.
Insurance Coverage Considerations and Litigation Strategy for Domestic Carriers and the London Market
Traditional automobile accidents generally involve a familiar coverage framework centered on an automobile liability policy. Autonomous vehicle litigation, however, has the potential to implicate multiple insurance products simultaneously. A collision involving a commercially operated autonomous vehicle may result in claims against the vehicle owner, fleet operator, manufacturer, software developer, maintenance contractor, and component suppliers. Each entity may maintain separate insurance programs issued by different carriers. Depending upon the allegations, a single claim may involve commercial automobile coverage, commercial general liability coverage, product liability coverage, technology errors and omissions ("E&O") policies, cyber liability coverage, or other specialized forms of insurance.[viii]
These disputes are unlikely to be resolved solely through traditional negligence principles. Instead, both domestic carriers and London market insurers alike are adapting as they will be required to analyze contractual indemnity provisions, vendor agreements, software licensing arrangements, maintenance contracts, and commercial service agreements to determine the respective obligations of the parties involved in the deployment and operation of autonomous vehicle technology.
Emerging Subrogation Opportunities
Autonomous vehicle technology may also reshape subrogation practices. Historically, automobile insurers paying first-party property damage claims often pursued recovery against another negligent driver. As technology increasingly assumes responsibility for vehicle operation, insurers may identify additional opportunities to pursue recovery against manufacturers, software developers, component suppliers, or other entities whose products or services allegedly contributed to the loss.[ix]
Practical Considerations for Claims Professionals
Although autonomous vehicle litigation remains an emerging field, several practical considerations are apparent.
- Early investigation will become increasingly important. Claims involving autonomous technology may require the prompt preservation of electronic evidence, coordination with forensic experts, and careful evaluation of contractual relationships among numerous potentially responsible entities.
- Insurers should anticipate that these cases will require expertise extending beyond traditional automobile litigation. Product liability, technology litigation, cybersecurity. electronic discovery, and insurance coverage issues may all converge within a single lawsuit.
- Claims professionals should recognize that the legal landscape remains unsettled. While Georgia and Tennessee have enacted statutory frameworks authorizing autonomous vehicle operations, relatively little case law currently addresses the allocation of liability arising from autonomous driving systems. Until courts develop a more substantial body of precedent, insurers should expect evolving legal arguments concerning product defects, comparative fault, software performance, and insurance coverage.
Conclusion
Autonomous vehicles represent more than an incremental advancement in transportation technology. They challenge longstanding assumptions regarding fault, responsibility, and insurance coverage that have shaped automobile litigation for decades. Georgia and Tennessee have positioned themselves among the states leading the deployment of autonomous vehicle technology through comprehensive statutory frameworks that authorize autonomous operations while incorporating existing principles of negligence and product liability. The most consequential disputes will concern who bears responsibility when autonomous systems fail, how liability is apportioned among multiple participants in the technology chain, and which insurance products ultimately respond. As commercial autonomous vehicle operations continue to expand, domestic and London market insurers operating throughout the Southeast should anticipate increasingly sophisticated claims involving multiple defendants, overlapping insurance programs, and complex technological evidence.
Although many of the legal questions surrounding autonomous vehicles remain unanswered, it is clear future litigation will extend well beyond the actions of the individual occupying the driver's seat. Successful claim resolution will require a multidisciplinary approach combining experience in transportation litigation, product liability insurance coverage, electronic discovery, and emerging technologies.
As these issues continue to develop, insurers should work closely with experienced counsel capable of navigating both established legal doctrines and the novel questions presented by autonomous vehicle technology. Early strategic evaluation, thorough investigation, and an understanding of the evolving statutory and regulatory landscape.
__________________________
[i] Senate Bill 219 (Act 214) of the 2017 Georgia General Assembly, which is codified across multiple sections of the O.C.G.A.
[ii] Kubica, Maria Lubomira. The American Journal of Comparative Law, Volume 70, Issue Supplement 1, October 2022, Pages i39–i69.
[iii] Villasenor, John. Products Liability & Driverless Cars: Issues and Guiding Principles for Legislation. Brookings. April 24, 2014.
[iv] Id.
[v] Id.
[vi] Copp, Christopher & Markus Kemmelmeier. Are Judges and the Justice system Ready for Driverless Cars? Judicature, Duke Law School. Vol.105 No. 2 (2021).
[vii] Diane Lifton, Esq., Elizabeth Raines, Esq., and Maya Jacob. Tech & Telecom, Professional Perspective - The Litigation Landscape for Autonomous Vehicle Crash Liability, Part 2: New Tech, New Claims. Bloomberg Law.
[viii] Beilman, Vincent and Ryan Schoeb. Navigating Liability in the Age of Autonomous Vehicles. Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman. May 30, 2025.
[ix] Johnson, Denise. The Impact of Autonomous Cars on Claims. Claims Journal. March 2, 2017.
