Abstract representation of self-driving car liability.

Driverless Dilemmas: Who's to Blame When Self-Driving Cars Cause Harm?

Nico Varela in Law & Justice July 2025 • 4 min read.

"Exploring the Complexities of Criminal Liability in the Age of Autonomous Vehicles"

Self-driving cars are no longer a futuristic fantasy; they're increasingly a part of our everyday lives. This technological leap, however, introduces complex legal and ethical questions, particularly when these autonomous vehicles malfunction and cause harm. Can robots be held responsible for their actions, or does the blame lie with the humans who design, program, and deploy them?

Today's robots, including self-driving cars, are not suitable recipients of criminal punishment. They lack the capacity for moral reasoning and cannot understand the concept of retributive justice. However, the humans who create and manage these robots can potentially be held liable for intentional or negligent actions.

This article delves into the challenges of assigning criminal liability when self-driving cars cause accidents, exploring the perspectives of German and U.S. legal systems. It examines the responsibilities of manufacturers, programmers, and operators in ensuring the safety of autonomous vehicles and discusses the potential for limiting liability to foster innovation.

Who Is Responsible? Untangling the Web of Liability

Abstract representation of self-driving car liability.

The rise of self-driving cars presents a unique challenge to traditional legal frameworks. Unlike human drivers, autonomous vehicles operate without a fully defined operational mode. These 'Intelligent Agents' rely on smart technology to analyze data, identify patterns, and react without human intervention. This raises critical questions about accountability when accidents occur. Is it the manufacturer, the programmer, or the 'driver' who should be held responsible?

One of the core issues is whether robots can genuinely 'act' in a way that satisfies legal definitions. In German criminal law, for example, an 'act' typically requires an autonomous will. Robots, however sophisticated, operate according to their programming and lack the capacity for moral self-determination. This makes it difficult to assign blame in the traditional sense.

The Engineer/Manufacturer: Responsible for the design and construction of the vehicle. Could be liable if defects in manufacturing or design contribute to an accident.
The Programmer: Responsible for the software and algorithms that control the vehicle's actions. Could be liable if errors in programming lead to dangerous behavior.
The Operator/Owner: The person using the vehicle. Their responsibility lies on the usage and compliance with laws.

Even if a robot can be said to have acted, the question of blameworthiness remains. Traditional legal thought relies on the idea that individuals can choose between right and wrong and can be held accountable for their decisions. Robots, as machines operating on algorithms, lack this capacity for moral choice. This presents a fundamental challenge to the concept of criminal liability.

Finding the Right Balance: Innovation vs. Accountability

As self-driving technology continues to evolve, societies must grapple with the complex issue of assigning liability when accidents occur. While robots themselves may not be suitable subjects of criminal punishment, the humans who design, program, and operate them must be held accountable for ensuring their safety. Striking the right balance between promoting innovation and protecting the public from harm is essential for realizing the full potential of autonomous vehicles.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: 10.2139/ssrn.2724592, Alternate LINK

Title: If Robots Cause Harm, Who Is To Blame? Self-Driving Cars And Criminal Liability

Journal: SSRN Electronic Journal

Publisher: Elsevier BV

Authors: Sabine Gless, Emily Silverman, Thomas Weigend

Published: 2016-01-01

Everything You Need To Know

Who is legally responsible when a self-driving car causes an accident?

In the event of an accident involving a self-driving car, the legal responsibility is complex, but it typically falls upon the humans involved in the vehicle's creation and operation. The main parties that could be held liable are the Engineer/Manufacturer, responsible for design and construction; the Programmer, accountable for the software and algorithms; and the Operator/Owner, who is in charge of the vehicle's use. Since the autonomous vehicle lacks the capacity for moral reasoning and cannot understand the concept of retributive justice, it cannot be held responsible. The focus, therefore, shifts to the human elements that contribute to the vehicle's behavior.

Can a robot be held criminally liable for actions that cause harm, like in the case of a self-driving car accident?

No, robots, including self-driving cars, are not suitable subjects of criminal punishment. They lack the capacity for moral reasoning and cannot understand concepts like retributive justice. Criminal liability relies on the ability to choose between right and wrong, a capability that robots, operating on algorithms, do not possess. This makes it difficult to assign blame in the traditional sense. Instead, the focus of liability shifts towards the humans who design, program, and operate these Intelligent Agents.

What is the role of the programmer when a self-driving car causes an accident, and how does this differ from the role of the manufacturer?

The Programmer is responsible for the software and algorithms that control the self-driving car's actions. They could be held liable if errors in the programming lead to dangerous behavior. The Engineer/Manufacturer, on the other hand, is responsible for the design and construction of the vehicle. The manufacturer's liability could arise from defects in manufacturing or design that contribute to an accident. Both roles are critical in determining responsibility, as each can introduce factors that affect the vehicle's safety and operational integrity. Both are part of the Intelligent Agents system.

How does the concept of an 'act' differ in the context of German criminal law when applied to self-driving cars?

In German criminal law, an 'act' typically requires an autonomous will. This presents a challenge when considering the actions of a self-driving car. These vehicles operate according to their programming and lack the capacity for moral self-determination, making it difficult to assign blame in the traditional sense. This legal perspective highlights the difference between human and artificial agency, which is a key factor in determining accountability in accidents involving self-driving cars.

What are the implications of assigning liability in the context of self-driving car accidents for fostering innovation?

Striking the right balance between assigning liability and promoting innovation is essential for realizing the full potential of autonomous vehicles. Limiting liability, in certain circumstances, could encourage manufacturers and programmers to take risks and develop more advanced technology. However, the public must be protected from harm. If liability is too lenient, it could lead to unsafe vehicles. Conversely, if liability is too strict, it could stifle innovation. Therefore, societies must carefully consider how to assign responsibility to ensure public safety while encouraging technological advancement. The Operator/Owner also has the responsibility to follow the laws.