Autonomous trucking is encountering increasing risks related to product liability

Legal Challenges in the Rapid Evolution of Autonomous Trucking

The field of autonomous trucking is progressing at a remarkable pace. However, as with any breakthrough technology, concerns arise when systems malfunction or do not meet expectations. One of the most pressing issues is that technological innovation is moving faster than the development of laws to govern it, which can result in complex legal dilemmas.

Product liability is a significant concern, where individuals may take legal action against manufacturers or distributors, claiming that a product caused harm—whether physical or financial. Such claims can arise from flaws in manufacturing, design, or even marketing. Overlooking these legal exposures can result in substantial financial penalties, settlements, or damages that may reach into the hundreds of millions.

Legal costs can mount swiftly. Recent lawsuits involving autonomous vehicles have largely centered on robotaxis and passenger cars. For example, in August 2025, a federal jury found Tesla partly responsible for a 2019 accident in which a pedestrian was killed and another injured while the vehicle was operating in Autopilot mode. The jury awarded $43 million for pain and suffering, plus $200 million in punitive damages to the plaintiffs.

In that incident, neither the driver nor the Autopilot system stopped at an intersection marked by a stop sign and flashing red light. Legal action was taken against both the driver and Tesla, the manufacturer of the vehicle and its technology.

The stakes may be even higher for companies producing autonomous trucks. Typically, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) supply the hardware, software firms create the autonomous driving systems, and fleets operate the vehicles. This separation of roles leads to disputes over who is ultimately responsible when an autonomous truck is involved in an accident.

This is not a theoretical issue. Commercial trucking companies recognize that accidents are inevitable, often tracking incidents per million miles driven. The critical question is not if, but when, an accident will occur—and how liability will be determined. The legal system has yet to fully address these questions, leaving significant uncertainty. Legal precedents will only be established through lawsuits that are either resolved in court or settled privately, often under confidentiality agreements.

Seeking Legal Guidance for Autonomous Vehicle Risks

To better understand the legal risks associated with autonomous vehicles, FreightWaves interviewed Tray Gober, a personal injury lawyer from Austin who specializes in cases involving new autonomous and driverless vehicle technologies.

Gober notes that vehicle automation is not entirely new. Features like cruise control, introduced in the mid-20th century, allowed drivers to delegate speed control to the vehicle.

Early semi-autonomous systems sometimes led to misunderstandings about their capabilities. Gober recalls, “As a child, I remember jokes on television and in movies about people who thought their RV’s cruise control meant they could leave the driver’s seat, not realizing the technology’s limitations.”

Although today’s autonomous vehicles are far more advanced than early cruise control, similar misconceptions persist, especially as manufacturers claim their systems can match or exceed human performance.

Gober expresses concern about the rapid deployment of these technologies. “There’s a rush among AV companies to capture early market share, which means vehicles are being released with more autonomy than is safe,” he warns. “This is contributing to the increase in incidents involving AVs.”

Truck accidents tend to be more severe due to their size and weight. Gober explains that plaintiffs’ attorneys often pursue claims against multiple parties in the supply chain to maximize recovery.

“Product liability claims are inevitable as this technology is still new. If a self-driving truck is involved in a crash, the software developer—often also the vehicle manufacturer—could be held responsible,” Gober explains. He also points out that fleet operators may be liable if their negligence contributes to an incident.

Superior Safety Does Not Eliminate Legal Exposure

Autonomous vehicles are marketed for their safety, boasting features like 360-degree sensors, redundant computing, lidar, radar, cameras, and rapid response times. However, in the eyes of the law, being safer than human drivers does not grant immunity from lawsuits.

“People are sometimes surprised that plaintiffs’ lawyers want fewer accidents. I genuinely want a safer world, and I’m glad AVs are reducing crashes. But that’s not the legal standard for holding manufacturers accountable,” Gober says.

The central issue in product liability cases is not whether the vehicle is safer than a human driver, but whether a safer alternative design was available when the vehicle was produced.

“The jury’s question is: Was there a safer way to design this vehicle at the time it was built?” Gober explains.

Complexities of Mixed Traffic and Human Behavior

Autonomous vehicles are held to a higher standard than human drivers, and unpredictable human actions—such as unwritten road customs—can complicate matters. Much of the media’s focus is on robotaxis and passenger AVs, but similar challenges exist for trucks.

Gober’s firm has handled cases where everyday human decisions have confused AVs. For example, several robotaxis in Austin failed to stop for school buses with flashing red lights—a mistake that even new human drivers know to avoid. “The AVs weren’t being reckless; they simply weren’t programmed to recognize the situation,” Gober says.

Another example involves four-way stops. While an AV might wait its turn, human drivers often yield to larger vehicles, creating unpredictable scenarios. This highlights the difficulties of sharing the road with both human and autonomous drivers. Gober notes that people sometimes feel like they are part of an experiment as the technology evolves.

“Crashes are inevitable, especially with a mix of human and autonomous vehicles operating under slightly different rules. It’s challenging for human drivers to anticipate how AVs will behave,” he observes.

Sometimes, accidents are caused by human drivers, but questions still arise about whether the AV could have anticipated or avoided the incident. “It’s not always the AV’s fault, but the legal standard is whether a safer alternative design could have prevented or lessened the impact,” Gober adds.

Evaluating Safer Alternative Designs

Even advanced safety features can be subject to product liability claims. Gober gives the example of a driver experiencing a medical emergency, such as a seizure. Technologies like lane-keeping assistance and forward collision avoidance have been standard since 2014, helping to prevent accidents in such situations.

If these safety systems are missing or malfunction, victims may pursue legal action. Public expectations around safety features support these claims. Gober mentions receiving calls about crashes where airbags failed or seatbelts came undone—failures that can form the basis of a “crashworthiness” claim, which argues that safer alternative designs were available and should have been implemented.

In cases where an AV is struck by another vehicle, liability may depend not on fault, but on whether the AV was equipped with the best available safety technology to avoid or reduce the severity of the crash.

Understanding Crashworthiness in Vehicle Design

Crashworthiness has long been a key concept in automotive product liability. Manufacturers use simulations and tests to evaluate safety, often making improvements in subsequent model years.

“Automakers routinely identify design flaws and make enhancements in newer models, even if the original vehicle met federal safety standards,” Gober explains. However, if a company is aware of safer designs but does not implement them, it can face legal risks, regardless of regulatory compliance. Manufacturers often balance the costs of improvements against potential legal exposure using statistical models.

While this approach is well established for traditional vehicles, it remains largely untested for fully autonomous ones. The lack of federal guidelines for AVs means that states may set their own rules, potentially resulting in inconsistent outcomes and eventual intervention by higher courts.

OEMs generally support federal regulations, hoping they will override state claims. “Manufacturers often argue that compliance with federal rules should shield them from liability, similar to how drug companies cite FDA approval,” Gober says. However, internal knowledge of safer alternatives can weaken such defenses. “Frequently, companies know more about their products’ risks than regulators do at the time of approval,” he adds.

Escalating Legal Risks for Autonomous Trucking

Autonomous trucks face heightened legal risks, especially as large verdicts and liability claims have become more common over the past decade. When trucking companies lack sufficient insurance or assets, plaintiffs often target manufacturers with deeper pockets.

For instance, in September 2024, Daimler Truck North America was ordered to pay $160 million following a rollover accident. In this case, a pickup truck crossed into the path of a truck, and the resulting crash left the truck driver paralyzed.

Another example involves Wabash National, a trailer manufacturer, which faced a $462 million verdict after a drunk driver collided with the rear of a 2004 trailer. The jury was not informed that the driver was intoxicated or that neither he nor his passenger wore seatbelts—facts that the company argued could have changed the outcome.

Ultimately, the Wabash verdict was reduced to a settlement of about $30 million, significantly less than the original jury award.

In both cases, manufacturers faced enormous liability even though other parties’ actions contributed to the accidents. For those developing autonomous trucks and related technologies, the legal environment is still taking shape, but future court decisions will likely set important precedents that could reshape the trucking and logistics industries.

Originally published on FreightWaves.