California roads now have self-driving cars that are no longer just experimental technology. Waymo robot taxis drive around San Francisco without any people in them. Tesla’s Autopilot and Full Self-Driving systems work on highways all over the state. This change in technology brings up important legal questions: Who is responsible when software controls a car that crashes?
In the past, it was very hard for accident victims to prove that someone was careless in an autonomous vehicle crash. Law enforcement couldn’t write down system failures at crash scenes because there were no human drivers to blame for traffic violations. Manufacturers were in charge of all digital evidence, and victims had to deal with the “black box” problem: proprietary software and data that they couldn’t see or challenge.
Assembly Bill 1777 changed this in California in 2026. This law lets peace officers give formal citations directly to manufacturers and operators when self-driving cars break traffic laws. These “notices of noncompliance” are official government findings that can be used as strong evidence in civil injury cases. They change the way victims prove negligence related to software errors and system failures. If you’ve been injured in an autonomous vehicle crash, a best car accident lawyer can help you understand your legal rights and pursue compensation.
The Legal Problem Before 2026
The “No Driver” Liability Gap
The standard auto negligence law says that a human driver has a duty of care and breaks that duty by doing or not doing certain things, which leads to harm. Self-driving cars changed this system by taking the human element out of real-time driving decisions.
Law enforcement couldn’t give a Waymo car a ticket for making an illegal U-turn or not yielding at a crosswalk because there was no “natural person” behind the wheel. This lack of enforcement made every part of negligence claims harder. It was very hard to prove duty, breach, and causation when the person who was supposed to do something wrong was software code instead of a person.
Defenses for Manufacturers Without Citations
Before AB 1777, manufacturers took advantage of the fact that there were no official citations. Common defenses included claims that systems were “operating as designed,” that there were no confirmed software bugs, that crashes were caused by human error, or that unusual environmental conditions made situations no reasonable system could handle.
Victims had to prove manufacturing or design defects under product liability theories, which required expensive expert testimony, extensive technical discovery, and access to proprietary software information that manufacturers worked hard to protect.
The Data Behind Reform
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s data showed that the number of accidents involving self-driving cars was going up as testing fleets grew. Reported AV incidents went up from 742 in 2022 to 924 in 2023, then to 1,384 in 2024, a 50.3% increase from the previous year.
Between 2021 and 2025, San Francisco had 863 reported Waymo incidents, including phantom braking events and emergency vehicle obstructions, which created public safety problems existing traffic laws could not adequately address.
The Autonomous Vehicle Enforcement Protocol in California
How AB 1777 Works
Assembly Bill 1777, written by Assemblymember Philip Ting and going into effect in 2026, sets out detailed rules for how police can interact with self-driving cars. The law creates Vehicle Code Section 38752, which establishes the “Notice of Autonomous Vehicle Noncompliance” (NAVN).
When autonomous vehicles break the Vehicle Code or local traffic laws while using autonomous technology, peace officers can issue NAVNs directly to manufacturers or operators. The notice records the date, time, location, license plate number, and confirmation that autonomous technology was engaged.
Manufacturers must submit copies of issued notices to the Department of Motor Vehicles within 72 hours, creating real-time safety logs used by the DMV to evaluate permits and deployments.
Technology and Reporting Requirements
AB 1777 requires self-driving vehicles to meet specific operational standards. Beginning July 1, 2026, manufacturers must provide dedicated emergency response phone lines accessible within 30 seconds. Vehicles must have two-way voice communication devices for first responders.
In emergencies, geofencing must redirect vehicles within two minutes. Remote operators must be able to disable or reposition vehicles to resolve traffic hazards. Manufacturers must submit monthly testing reports or quarterly deployment reports documenting all Dynamic Driving Task failures.
What the Law Does Not Do
AB 1777 does not automatically establish liability or eliminate the plaintiff’s burden of proving causation. Section 38752(d) clarifies that issuing a NAVN does not create a presumption that vehicles are unsafe, preventing minor violations from triggering automatic operational bans.
Why Official Citations Matter in Negligence Claims
Proving the Four Elements of Negligence
To recover damages after a self-driving car accident, plaintiffs must prove duty, breach, causation, and damages. AB 1777 strengthens each element.
Manufacturers assume legal duties when applying for DMV permits. NAVNs document breaches by recording violations such as failure to yield, illegal lane changes, or red-light violations. These notices provide objective, third-party evidence of system failures.
When NAVNs directly correspond to crash mechanisms, causation becomes clearer. Damages are tied to official crash records supported by NAVNs, linking documented system errors to injuries or property losses.
Public Records of System Failures
Before AB 1777, many cases were resolved through confidential settlements that hid system failures. The new law makes noncompliance records public. Plaintiffs’ attorneys can analyze NAVN histories to identify patterns of repeated failures, supporting claims of knowing misconduct and potential punitive damages.
Using Noncompliance Notices as Evidence
Types of System Failures
NAVNs allow attorneys to categorize failures. Perception failures occur when vehicles fail to detect pedestrians or cyclists.
Operational design domain exceedance occurs when systems operate outside tested conditions. Prediction and planning failures arise when software misjudges traffic behavior. In May 2025, Zoox recalled robotaxis after wide turns into opposing traffic lanes—violations NAVNs would formally document.
Negligence Per Se Under Evidence Code Section 669
California Evidence Code § 669 establishes negligence per se when statutory violations cause harm. NAVNs documenting Vehicle Code violations allow plaintiffs to invoke this doctrine.
Plaintiffs must show that defendants violated safety laws, that injuries resulted, that the harm was the type laws were designed to prevent, and that victims were part of the protected class. Once established, manufacturers must justify or excuse violations, requiring disclosure of internal system data.
Who May Be Held Liable
Manufacturers and System Designers
Manufacturers receive most noncompliance notices, including software developers and system integrators such as Waymo and Zoox. These entities are responsible for ensuring safe system operation.
Fleet Operators and Parts Suppliers
Fleet operators may be liable for negligent maintenance or supervision. Parts suppliers may be responsible for hardware failures, such as malfunctioning LiDAR units.
Drivers of Semi-Autonomous Vehicles
In semi-autonomous systems like Tesla’s Autopilot, human drivers remain significant. In a 2025 Miami case, jurors assigned 67% fault to a distracted driver and 33% to Tesla for system defects and misleading marketing.
Responsibility of the Victim
Pedestrians, cyclists, and non-occupants bear no responsibility for system design or operation. Liability appropriately rests with manufacturers and operators.
Common Injury Scenarios in AV Crashes
Pedestrian and cyclist crashes are often severe due to detection challenges. Phantom braking can cause rear-end collisions when vehicles stop suddenly without cause. Intersection perception errors have been linked to front-end collisions involving semi-autonomous systems.
Injuries are often serious because victims do not expect autonomous vehicles to behave unpredictably, leaving little time to react.
Preserving Evidence After an AV Crash
Immediate Steps at the Scene
Call 911 and request a formal investigation. Ensure officers document whether autonomous mode was active and issue NAVNs for violations. Photograph sensors, vehicle identifiers, and indicator lights. Avoid discussions with company representatives at the scene.
Evidence Preservation After the Crash
Send spoliation letters immediately to preserve system logs and footage. Autonomous vehicles must store 30 seconds of read-only sensor data. After the reporting period, request NAVNs and related reports from the DMV and check federal databases for recalls or investigations.
A New Accountability Framework
AB 1777 connects regulatory enforcement with civil justice, similar to aviation and commercial trucking standards. Software conduct is now measured against the Vehicle Code, allowing police to cite companies directly.
The Notice of Noncompliance becomes central evidence, reducing reliance on costly software audits and breaking corporate secrecy barriers.
Questions and Answers
What Is AB 1777?
AB 1777 is a California law effective in 2026 establishing enforcement rules for autonomous vehicles, including noncompliance notices and emergency communication requirements.
Does a Citation Automatically Establish Liability?
No, but NAVNs strongly support negligence per se under Evidence Code § 669.
Can Companies Like Waymo or Tesla Be Cited Directly?
Yes, when vehicles operate autonomously. Human drivers are cited when systems are disengaged.
What If AVs Were Legal but Still Crashed?
Claims may proceed under negligence or product liability theories.
Does the Law Apply Statewide?
Yes, with local ordinances providing additional enforcement authority.
Can Injured Passengers Sue?
Yes. Robotaxi passengers are often treated as common carrier passengers entitled to heightened care.
What Makes AV Cases Different?
NAVNs provide objective government documentation of system failures, eliminating “he said/she said” disputes.
Technology and Responsibility
Self-driving cars are now a permanent part of California’s transportation system. AB 1777 transforms accountability by documenting system failures at crash scenes and requiring state reporting.
Black box algorithms can no longer conceal official findings. Victims now have meaningful access to evidence needed to pursue justice. An experienced autonomous vehicle accident attorney can help you navigate these complex cases and hold manufacturers accountable.
We at Big Ben Lawyers monitor developments in autonomous vehicle law and help injured individuals understand how these changes affect their cases. If you or someone you know was injured in a self-driving car crash, understanding how AB 1777 applies may be critical to protecting your legal rights. A trusted self-driving car accident lawyer can help you pursue maximum compensation for your injuries.