Prosecutors charge drivers, not autopilots, in eyes‑off driving cases under new law
When a driver in Austin tried out the state’s brand-new “eyes-off” law, the case didn’t stay in a parking lot for long. Two recent prosecutions - each involving a car that was busy using lane-keep or adaptive-cruise tech - have suddenly put the human behind the wheel in the legal spotlight, even though the software was doing most of the steering. Some critics say the rule might scare people off semi-autonomous features, while a few industry folks argue it simply reminds everyone that the driver still carries the buck.
As the lawsuits wind their way through the courts, you can feel the ripple on both sides: lawmakers are watching the precedent, and manufacturers are quietly sizing up what it could mean for the next batch of models. The clash between emerging automation and the old-school legal playbook is now front and center, forcing us to ask how accountability looks when a car can, for a while, drive itself.
In both cases, prosecutors went after the driver, insisting that, despite the automated aid, the person in the seat was ultimately on the hook. Automakers are probably pleased with how the rulings turned out, but there have…
In both cases, prosecutors pursued criminal charges against the human behind the wheel, theorizing that despite the presence of an automated system, the driver was the one that was ultimately responsible for the vehicle. Automakers are likely thrilled with the outcomes of these cases. But there have been other cases that have found the car company could share the liability when something bad happens.
Take for example the recent jury verdict in Florida, where Tesla was held partially responsible for a crash that killed two people. In that case, the owner of the Model S who was using Autopilot was also found liable -- but it was Elon Musk's company that was ordered to pay $243 million to the victims' families. Mike Nelson, a trial attorney who specializes in mobility, notes that legal precedent for automation-related crashes is still embryonic.
Drivers are likely to end up shouldering most of the liability as “eyes-off” systems become more common. Recent prosecutions show prosecutors still point to the human occupant, even when a Level 3 feature was engaged. Companies like General Motors have rolled out partially automated tech without clarifying how fault would shift after a crash, leaving regulators and courts to lean on old statutes.
So far, the rulings tend to keep the driver in the driver’s seat, legally speaking. Critics keep pointing out the mismatch between glossy marketing and what the law actually expects, and the lack of a clear framework raises consumer-protection worries. Automakers seem satisfied with the current precedent, but it’s unclear whether upcoming cases will follow suit or push lawmakers to act.
As more models promise “eyes-off” capability, the gap between what the tech promises and who’s accountable stays wide open. We may see policymakers finally stepping in before these systems hit the mainstream in large numbers.
More in AI Tools & Apps
Google and Replit grapple with reliable AI agents as users demand creative loops
Google and Replit are both wrestling with a problem that’s becoming familiar across the AI...
Odisha teams with OpenAI to train students and officials in AI
Odisha’s new partnership with OpenAI marks a rare direct link between a state government and a...
Meta adds Spotify AI music, Kannada/Telugu, and noise filtering to AI Glasses
Meta’s latest firmware push for its AI‑powered glasses does more than tighten up audio clarity.
LG's recent webOS update adds Microsoft Copilot app, now removable
Why does this matter for anyone who bought an LG TV this year? In January, LG and Samsung said they...
Microsoft defends holiday Copilot ad amid claims its actions are simulated
Why does the holiday Copilot spot matter? While the ad rolls out slick visuals of the AI drafting...
Common Questions Answered
How does the new “eyes‑off” driving statute influence criminal charges against drivers of vehicles with advanced driver‑assist features?
Under the eyes‑off statute, prosecutors have chosen to charge the human driver rather than the vehicle’s automated system, even when a Level 3 feature was active. The law treats the driver as the ultimate responsible party, signaling that the presence of assist technology does not shield them from criminal liability.
What significance does the activation of a Level 3 feature have in the recent eyes‑off driving prosecutions?
In both recent cases, the courts considered the Level 3 feature to be merely an aid, not a substitute for driver oversight. Prosecutors argued that the driver retained full responsibility for the vehicle’s operation, leading to criminal charges despite the system’s involvement.
How does the Florida jury verdict involving Tesla differ from the recent prosecutions under the eyes‑off law?
The Florida verdict found Tesla partially liable for a crash, suggesting that manufacturers can share responsibility when their semi‑autonomous systems fail. This contrasts with the eyes‑off cases, where prosecutors placed all blame on the human occupant, highlighting an inconsistent legal landscape for autonomous technology.
Why are automakers such as General Motors concerned about liability interpretations under the eyes‑off driving statute?
General Motors and other manufacturers worry that the lack of clear guidance on responsibility leaves them vulnerable to lawsuits and regulatory scrutiny. Without explicit rules on how liability shifts when a partially automated system is engaged, courts may continue to favor traditional driver accountability, potentially discouraging further deployment of such technology.