Liability for damage caused by autonomous vehicles – who is legally responsible?

Autonomous vehicles are one of the most revolutionary technologies in the automotive industry, generating both enthusiasm and legal concerns. One of the key questions raised by experts and legislators is the issue of liability for damage caused by these modern means of transport. Although the development of autonomous vehicles promises to improve road safety, legal challenges related to determining who will be liable for any accidents are inevitable. Are existing Polish regulations and liability rules sufficient in the context of new technologies? In this article, we analyse how the current regulations apply to the principles of repairing damage caused by autonomous vehicles and what changes may be necessary to ensure adequate social and economic protection in the era of digital innovation in transport.

Civil liability of vehicle owners – the principle of risk and autonomous vehicles

In Polish law, the basis for liability for traffic damage is Article 436 of the Civil Code, which provides for liability on the basis of risk. This means that the owner of a motor vehicle is liable for damage caused regardless of fault. In principle, therefore, even in the case of an autonomous vehicle, its owner may be held liable.

Is this rule sufficient in the context of vehicles that operate without human involvement? On the one hand, yes. These vehicles still pose a threat on the road, if only because of their weight, speed or the possibility of system failure. On the other hand, human involvement in their use is minimal, which calls into question the fairness of assigning liability directly to the user or owner.

It is also worth noting that road accident statistics in Poland show that the human factor remains the main cause of road accidents (91% of accidents in 2023. By comparison, accidents resulting from technical failures and other non-human causes accounted for only 2.5% [1]). However, in the case of autonomous vehicles, there is still a risk of algorithm errors, component failures, connectivity problems and cybersecurity breaches, which can lead to situations where accidents cannot be avoided. Autonomous technologies therefore do not eliminate risk entirely, and the vehicles themselves still pose a threat, if only because of their weight and speed.

Exoneration of the owner and the role of force majeure

The question arises as to the adequacy of exoneration grounds in the context of autonomous means of transport. Traditionally, force majeure could be a basis for exclusion of liability. In the case of modern vehicles that communicate with infrastructure and are capable of detecting extraordinary events, the application of this exception may be limited. Furthermore, technical failures are generally not considered force majeure, and the risk of their occurrence is borne by the vehicle owner.

Driver fault and the level of vehicle autonomy

Polish law provides for a special case of liability for traffic accidents, regulated in Article 436 § 2 of the Civil Code. This is a departure from strict liability, introducing the principle of fault in the case of vehicle collisions (this applies only to mutual claims between owners) or so-called courtesy transport. This solution raises significant legal doubts, especially in the context of autonomous vehicles.

Autonomous vehicles with a high level of autonomy are designed in such a way that the user cannot take control of the vehicle. This excludes the attribution of liability for driving errors or the imposition of obligations that could later be considered culpable under current traffic regulations. Such cases may lead to an inability to assign blame, as it is difficult to establish clear and fair criteria for assessing the behaviour of a vehicle passenger. In the context of autonomous vehicles, the only exceptions may be extreme cases, such as deliberate damage to the vehicle.

The problem also arises in situations where autonomous vehicles require the user to take control in emergency situations. This can lead to confusion about the responsibilities of the person in the vehicle and their role as an ‘emergency’ driver. In practice, liability for damage caused by autonomous vehicles could only be attributed in fairly narrow cases, e.g. when the user failed to take control in time.

In addition, in the event of a collision involving traditional and autonomous vehicles, the current legal framework may lead to unfair consequences. The liability of the owner of a traditional vehicle will be easier to prove and enforce, which cannot be said for claims against the owner of an autonomous vehicle. In such cases, alternative solutions are proposed, such as assigning liability to the owner of the autonomous vehicle regardless of fault, by way of exception.

Manufacturer’s liability for autonomous vehicles as dangerous products

Finally, manufacturer’s liability for dangerous products can be analysed in the context of autonomous vehicles. According to the Civil Code, Directive 85/374/EEC and the newly adopted but not yet implemented PLD Directive (2024/2853), the manufacturer’s liability is based on the principle of risk, which means that the manufacturer is liable for damage regardless of fault. This liability may also extend to other entities involved in the production or distribution of vehicles, such as material manufacturers or importers (the new provisions extend this list).

In the context of autonomous vehicles, this means that liability for damage may be transferred to their manufacturers, who benefit from bringing these technologies to market. Such a regime aims to encourage manufacturers to develop safer solutions that minimise the risk of compensation payments.

The basis for applying the provisions on liability for dangerous products is to determine whether autonomous vehicles can be considered such products. A product is considered dangerous when it does not provide the expected level of safety in normal use. In the case of autonomous vehicles, advanced technology does not exempt them from this criterion. On the contrary, the complex design of these vehicles argues in favour of subjecting them to a strict liability regime.

Although current legislation may have some shortcomings, which will be partially addressed by new regulations, manufacturer liability regardless of fault, combined with additional measures such as compulsory civil liability insurance, could be an effective way of compensating for damage caused by modern technologies.

AI system operator – a new liable entity?

The 2020 European Parliament Resolution on civil liability for artificial intelligence introduces the concept of a new category of entity – the artificial intelligence system operator.

An operator who manages an AI system, whether front-end or back-end, could be liable on a risk basis for any damage caused by the physical or virtual actions of a high-risk AI system, as well as devices and processes using that system, and therefore also, with a high degree of probability, autonomous vehicles. The operator would be liable for damage caused by other systems on a fault basis, and it would not be possible to invoke the fact that the damage was caused by the autonomous operation of the system as a defence.

This opens the door to the creation of a new, more flexible category of liability that could cover both users and AI system operators.

However, there is still no precise definition of ‘operator’, and the scope of their responsibilities remains a matter of debate – whether they will exercise ongoing control over the integrated vehicle movement algorithm or be assigned to a specific device as a kind of individual ‘guardian’.

There are also ideas to create a compensation fund or to make this group subject to compulsory civil liability insurance. Such a fund could be financed by vehicle manufacturers, users and car-sharing companies, but the details of how it would work are still pretty abstract.

The need for legislative changes – the future of legal regulations

Autonomous vehicles, as high-risk technologies, require a new legislative approach. Experts point to the need to:

• adapt the provisions of the Civil Code to the realities of autonomous transport;
• create a precise definition of an ‘AI system operator’;
• extending the list of responsible entities;
• developing a system of compulsory third-party liability insurance for autonomous vehicles and entities involved in their operation;
• considering the creation of a compensation fund.

Summary: liability for damage in the era of autonomous transport

The issue of liability for damage caused by autonomous vehicles is a problem that still has no clear solution. Current regulations are not keeping pace with the rapid development of technology, especially when it comes to highly automated vehicles. Traditional fault-based liability seems insufficient here, and the need to introduce strict liability is becoming increasingly apparent. There is also a need to define the role of vehicle operators and clarify their potential obligations. It will also be important to adapt insurance regulations to ensure effective compensation for damages. This entire process requires flexibility in regulations, which should take into account both the technological revolution and the protection of the interests of injured parties.

[1] National Police Headquarters, Traffic Department, Road accidents in Poland in 2023, https://statystyka.policja.pl/st/ruch-drogowy/76562,wypadki-drogowe-raporty-roczne.html, p. 25.