A Houston autonomous vehicle lawyer represents people injured by self-driving cars, driver-assist systems like Tesla Autopilot, robotaxis, and commercial driverless trucks — and the families of those killed when an automated driving system failed. At Amaro Law Firm, our attorneys handle autonomous vehicle injury cases against automakers, software developers, sensor manufacturers, and fleet operators across Texas.
Texas is one of the most active autonomous vehicle environments in the United States. Aurora began regular commercial driverless truck deliveries between Dallas and Houston on Interstate 45 in May 2025 — the first commercial Level 4 self-driving heavy-truck service on U.S. public roads. Waymo operates robotaxis in Austin. Tesla — headquartered in Austin — recalled approximately 2 million vehicles in December 2023 to address Autopilot misuse concerns. Texas product liability claims must be filed within two years of injury under Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 16.003. Amaro Law Firm represents autonomous vehicle injury victims on a contingency fee basis. You pay nothing unless we win your case.
Compiled by Amaro Law Firm — Texas-licensed trial attorneys serving Houston, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, and families across Texas.
Call 713-352-7975 for a free, confidential consultation.
If You Were Hurt by an Autonomous Vehicle, You Are Not Alone
If you are reading this page, you are likely in one of three situations.
You were hit by another driver who told police — or whose vehicle data shows — that an autopilot or driver-assist system was engaged at the time of the crash. You are now wondering whether the driver, the manufacturer, or both are responsible.
You were hit by a robotaxi or a driverless commercial truck. There is no human driver to point to. You are not sure who you sue when no person was in the seat.
Or you were driving a vehicle with Autopilot, Full Self-Driving (FSD), BlueCruise, Super Cruise, or another automated system engaged when the system failed and you were injured. You are wondering whether the manufacturer can be held responsible when the system you trusted let you down.
This page answers the questions Texas autonomous vehicle accident victims and families ask most often. For the broader legal framework that applies to all vehicle defect cases, see our Texas Vehicle Defect Lawyer hub page.
Texas Autonomous Vehicle Law: The Essentials
Three pieces of law shape every Texas autonomous vehicle case.
Statute of limitations. Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 16.003, you have two years from the date of injury to file a personal injury lawsuit. For wrongful death claims, the two-year clock runs from the date of death.
Texas product liability framework. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 82 governs claims against the vehicle and system manufacturers. Plaintiffs can pursue strict liability (design defect, manufacturing defect, or failure to warn), negligence, breach of warranty, and — in cases involving misleading capability claims — fraud and misrepresentation theories.
Texas’s permissive AV testing law. Texas Senate Bill 2205, enacted in 2017, permits autonomous vehicles on Texas roads without a human driver, subject to minimum insurance and safety requirements. Texas has positioned itself as one of the most AV-friendly states in the country — which is why Tesla relocated its headquarters to Austin, why Waymo expanded robotaxi service to Austin, and why Aurora chose the I-45 corridor between Dallas and Houston for the nation’s first commercial driverless trucking service.
For deeper treatment of Texas product liability law as applied to vehicle defect cases, see our Texas Vehicle Defect Lawyer hub page.
Understanding the Levels of Vehicle Automation
The Society of Automotive Engineers defines six levels of driving automation under SAE J3016. The level matters because it determines who is supposed to be driving — and therefore who is responsible when something goes wrong.
- Level 0 — No automation. The driver controls all aspects of driving.
- Level 1 — Driver assistance. The vehicle can assist with steering OR braking/acceleration, but not both. Adaptive cruise control alone is a typical example.
- Level 2 — Partial automation. The vehicle can control steering AND braking/acceleration simultaneously. The driver must remain attentive and ready to take control at any moment. This includes Tesla Autopilot, Tesla Full Self-Driving (Supervised), Ford BlueCruise, GM Super Cruise, and most “self-driving” features available on consumer vehicles today.
- Level 3 — Conditional automation. The vehicle handles all driving tasks within a specific operational design domain. The driver does not need to monitor but must be available to take over when prompted. Mercedes Drive Pilot is the only certified Level 3 system available to U.S. consumers.
- Level 4 — High automation. The vehicle handles all driving tasks within a defined operational design domain without human intervention. Waymo robotaxis and Aurora self-driving trucks operate at Level 4 within their service areas.
- Level 5 — Full automation. No human input needed under any condition. No Level 5 system is currently available.
The critical legal point: most “self-driving” vehicles on U.S. roads today are Level 2, not actually self-driving. The driver is legally responsible for the vehicle’s operation. Confusion about this — created in part by manufacturer marketing — is at the heart of many autonomous vehicle injury cases.
Types of Autonomous Vehicle Cases We Handle
Autonomous vehicle injury cases fall into several distinct categories.
Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving Cases
Tesla’s Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (Supervised) — both Level 2 systems — have been the subject of multiple NHTSA investigations and a major recall. In December 2023, Tesla recalled approximately 2 million vehicles to address concerns that the Autopilot driver monitoring system did not sufficiently ensure driver attention. Tesla Autopilot cases involve crashes where the system failed to recognize stationary emergency vehicles, parked tractor-trailers, motorcycles, and pedestrians, as well as cases involving alleged misrepresentation of system capabilities.
Robotaxi Cases
Waymo operates Level 4 robotaxi service in Phoenix, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Austin, Atlanta, and other markets. Robotaxis have no human driver in the vehicle. When a robotaxi causes a crash, liability falls on the vehicle manufacturer, the software developer, the fleet operator, and any component supplier whose defect contributed. GM’s Cruise robotaxi service — which had operated in Houston before being suspended — was effectively wound down after an October 2023 incident in which a Cruise robotaxi struck a pedestrian and then dragged her approximately 20 feet.
Commercial Driverless Truck Cases
Aurora Innovation began regular commercial driverless heavy-truck deliveries on Interstate 45 between Dallas and Houston in May 2025 — the first commercial Level 4 self-driving truck service on U.S. public roads. As of late 2025, Aurora had completed more than 100,000 driverless miles and expanded operations to a Fort Worth–El Paso route. Aurora’s customers include Uber Freight, Hirschbach Motor Lines, McLane, Detmar Logistics, FedEx, and Schneider. Driverless commercial trucks operating at highway speeds present significant injury risk if the system fails, and cases against Aurora and its commercial partners involve some of the most complex liability questions in autonomous vehicle law.
Driver-Assist System Cases
Ford BlueCruise and GM Super Cruise are Level 2+ hands-free driving systems available on certain vehicles. Both have been the subject of NHTSA investigations following fatal crashes. Driver-assist cases often involve questions about how the system marketing was understood by the driver, how the driver-attention monitoring functioned, and whether the system operated outside its designed operational domain.
Over-the-Air (OTA) Software Update Cases
Modern autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles receive frequent over-the-air software updates that change vehicle behavior after the sale. When a post-sale software update introduces or fails to fix a defect, the analysis of when the defect existed — and what version of the software was running at the time of the crash — becomes critical to the case.
Sensor and Software Defects
Autonomous vehicles rely on camera, radar, lidar, and ultrasonic sensors processed by complex software systems. Sensor failures, sensor fusion errors, and software bugs cause both failure-to-react incidents (vehicle does not respond to a hazard) and phantom-braking incidents (vehicle brakes for a hazard that does not exist).
Major Autonomous Vehicle Incidents and Investigations
The legal landscape for autonomous vehicles is being shaped by several active investigations and high-profile cases.
Tesla Autopilot recall (December 2023). Following a two-year NHTSA investigation, Tesla recalled approximately 2 million vehicles — covering nearly every Tesla sold in the U.S. with Autopilot — to address concerns that the driver monitoring system did not sufficiently ensure driver attention. The recall was implemented through an over-the-air software update.
Walter Huang case (settled 2024). Walter Huang, an Apple engineer, was killed in 2018 when his Tesla Model X on Autopilot crashed into a highway barrier on U.S. 101 in California. Tesla settled the wrongful death case in April 2024 on the eve of trial.
Cruise pedestrian incident (October 2023). A GM Cruise robotaxi struck and then dragged a pedestrian in San Francisco. California regulators suspended Cruise operations, and GM ultimately wound down Cruise robotaxi service.
NHTSA Standing General Order. Since 2021, NHTSA has required automakers and operators of Level 2 and higher automated systems to report crashes involving those systems. This data underlies many ongoing NHTSA investigations and provides discoverable evidence in private litigation.
NHTSA Tesla FSD investigation (continuing). NHTSA has opened multiple investigations into Tesla Full Self-Driving following crashes involving pedestrians and stationary objects. These investigations are ongoing as of this writing.
Who Can Be Held Liable in a Texas Autonomous Vehicle Case
Autonomous vehicle cases involve a more complex chain of potential defendants than traditional auto cases. Potentially liable parties include:
- The vehicle manufacturer — for design defects in the vehicle and its integrated systems
- The autonomous driving system developer — often the same as the manufacturer (Tesla) but sometimes a separate company (Aurora, Waymo, Mobileye)
- The fleet operator — for robotaxi and commercial driverless truck operations
- Sensor manufacturers — for defective cameras, radar, lidar, or ultrasonic sensors
- Software suppliers — for defective algorithms, AI systems, and supporting software
- Map and data providers — for inaccurate high-definition maps used by the system
- The driver — in Level 2 and Level 3 systems where driver attention or readiness was required and not exercised
- The repair facility or service center — for negligent service of the autonomous system
For commercial driverless truck cases, additional defendants may include the carrier that contracted for the driverless service, the truck manufacturer (PACCAR, Volvo), and the operator’s safety case process. Identifying every party in the chain expands the available insurance coverage and is one of the most important parts of the legal investigation.
How Manufacturers Defend Texas Autonomous Vehicle Claims
Automakers and AV companies have well-developed defense playbooks. Understanding the playbook is the first step in beating it.
“Driver inattention” defense. In Level 2 cases, manufacturers argue the driver was responsible for monitoring the vehicle and the road, and the driver’s failure to do so caused the crash. This defense ignores the role of manufacturer marketing in creating consumer confusion about system capability.
“System worked as designed within ODD.” Manufacturers argue the autonomous system was operating within its designed operational design domain (ODD) and performed as intended. Defeating this argument often requires reconstructing the exact circumstances of the crash and comparing them to the system’s published operational parameters.
“Marketing was clear about limitations.” Manufacturers point to warnings buried in owner’s manuals, on-screen disclaimers, and terms of service to argue the driver was warned about system limitations. Plaintiffs argue that more prominent marketing language — like “Full Self-Driving” or “Autopilot” — contradicts those fine-print warnings.
Federal preemption. Manufacturers argue that federal motor vehicle safety standards preempt state product liability claims. Courts have generally rejected broad preemption, but the doctrine remains a live defense.
Trade secret protection. Manufacturers seek to protect proprietary software, AI training data, and sensor calibration data from discovery on trade secret grounds. Skilled AV plaintiffs’ counsel pierce these protections with appropriate protective orders and expert support.
Data access restrictions. Unlike traditional EDR data, autonomous vehicle data is held on manufacturer cloud servers and is often accessible only through manufacturer cooperation. Manufacturers can be slow to produce data and may produce only partial datasets without aggressive plaintiff demands.
Common Mistakes After an Autonomous Vehicle Crash
Five mistakes hurt AV cases more than any others.
- Letting the vehicle be repaired, scrapped, or insurance-totaled. The vehicle, its sensors, and its software version at the time of the crash are critical evidence. A routine totaling can send the vehicle to auction and destroy the evidence.
- Allowing OTA software updates to overwrite the system state. Modern AVs receive frequent over-the-air updates that can change the software running on the vehicle. Preserving the exact software version at the time of the crash requires fast action.
- Giving a recorded statement to the manufacturer’s investigators or insurer. The manufacturer’s incident response team may contact you quickly. Anything you say can be used against the claim.
- Not securing dashcam, traffic camera, and witness video. Visual evidence of what the AV did — and when — is often the most powerful evidence in the case.
- Waiting to consult counsel. Vehicle storage, software version preservation, cloud-data demand letters, and expert engagement all need to happen on a compressed timeline. The manufacturer’s lawyers are already working.
How Amaro Law Firm Handles Texas Autonomous Vehicle Cases
Our process is built around the unique evidence demands of autonomous vehicle litigation.
Step 1: Investigation. We obtain the crash report, scene photos, witness statements, traffic camera footage, dashcam footage, and any public NHTSA incident reports filed by the AV operator.
Step 2: Vehicle, sensor, and software preservation. We send formal spoliation letters demanding preservation of the vehicle, all sensors, the autonomous driving computer, the exact software version running at the time of the crash, and all cloud-stored data the system uploaded before and after the incident.
Step 3: Data extraction and analysis. We engage experts to extract Event Data Recorder data, sensor data, and software-state data. For Tesla and other manufacturers that store significant data in the cloud, we serve preservation and production demands targeting that data specifically.
Step 4: Technical defect investigation. We engage automotive engineers, software engineers, sensor specialists, and AV-specific experts to identify the failure mode — whether sensor failure, software bug, sensor fusion error, ODD violation, or system design defect.
Step 5: Liability mapping. We identify every party in the chain — vehicle manufacturer, system developer, fleet operator, sensor supplier, software supplier, map provider — that may share fault, to maximize available insurance coverage.
Step 6: MDL coordination where appropriate. Major AV defect cases — particularly Tesla Autopilot cases — often involve coordinated litigation in federal multidistrict proceedings. When a case warrants MDL coordination, we work with national MDL counsel to position the case for the best result.
Step 7: Negotiation and litigation. We present a documented demand to the manufacturer and operator. When they refuse to offer fair compensation, we file suit and prepare the case for trial.
Why Choose Amaro Law Firm for Your Texas Autonomous Vehicle Case
- Trial attorneys, not settlement mills. Our litigators have experience taking cases through state district courts, federal courts, and the Texas Courts of Appeals.
- Resources for technically complex cases. Autonomous vehicle cases require software engineers, sensor experts, AV specialists, and accident reconstructionists. We front those costs.
- MDL coordination experience. When a case warrants coordination with national MDL counsel, we connect with attorneys who have specific experience in Tesla, robotaxi, and other AV litigation.
- Houston-based. Our principal office is in Houston, with attorneys familiar with the Texas state and federal courts where AV cases are heard.
- No fee unless we win. Our autonomous vehicle lawyers work on a contingency fee basis. You pay nothing unless we recover compensation for you.
- 24/7 availability. We respond around the clock.
Texas Autonomous Vehicle FAQ
How long do I have to file an autonomous vehicle lawsuit in Texas?
Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 16.003, you have two years from the date of injury to file a personal injury lawsuit. For wrongful death claims, the two-year clock runs from the date of death.
Who is liable when a self-driving car causes a crash?
Autonomous vehicle cases involve a more complex chain of potential defendants than traditional auto cases. Potentially liable parties include the vehicle manufacturer, the autonomous driving system developer, the fleet operator, sensor manufacturers, software suppliers, map and data providers, the driver (in Level 2 and Level 3 systems where driver attention or readiness was required), and the repair facility or service center. For commercial driverless truck cases, additional defendants may include the carrier and truck manufacturer.
Is Tesla Autopilot actually self-driving?
No. Tesla Autopilot and Tesla Full Self-Driving (Supervised) are both Level 2 driver-assistance systems under SAE J3016. The driver is legally responsible for the vehicle’s operation and must remain attentive and ready to take control at any moment. Most “self-driving” vehicles on U.S. roads today are Level 2, not actually self-driving. Confusion about this — created in part by manufacturer marketing — is at the heart of many autonomous vehicle injury cases.
Are driverless trucks legal in Texas?
Yes. Texas Senate Bill 2205, enacted in 2017, permits autonomous vehicles on Texas roads without a human driver, subject to minimum insurance and safety requirements. Aurora began regular commercial driverless heavy-truck deliveries on Interstate 45 between Dallas and Houston in May 2025 — the first commercial Level 4 self-driving truck service on U.S. public roads. Routes have since expanded to Fort Worth–El Paso, with additional expansion planned.
What was the Tesla Autopilot recall?
In December 2023, Tesla recalled approximately 2 million vehicles — covering nearly every Tesla sold in the U.S. with Autopilot — to address concerns that the driver monitoring system did not sufficiently ensure driver attention. The recall was implemented through an over-the-air software update following a two-year NHTSA investigation.
Who do I sue if a robotaxi hits me?
When a robotaxi causes a crash, liability falls on the vehicle manufacturer, the software developer, the fleet operator, and any component supplier whose defect contributed. Because there is no human driver, the case is typically a product liability and corporate negligence case rather than a traditional motor vehicle accident case.
How much does a Houston autonomous vehicle lawyer cost?
Amaro Law Firm handles Houston autonomous vehicle cases on a contingency fee basis. You pay nothing unless we win your case. There are no upfront costs and no hourly fees. Our fee is a percentage of the recovery, agreed to in writing before we start.
What if a loved one was killed by an autonomous vehicle?
Surviving spouses, children, and parents may file a wrongful death claim under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 71.002. Damages may include lost financial support, lost companionship, mental anguish, and funeral expenses. The estate may also bring a survival claim for the decedent’s pre-death pain and suffering and medical bills.
Should I let the insurance company total the vehicle?
Not until an attorney is involved. The vehicle, its sensors, the autonomous driving computer, and the exact software version running at the time of the crash are critical evidence in an autonomous vehicle case. Once a vehicle is totaled and sent to salvage or auction, critical evidence can be lost. Contact a lawyer before signing anything from the insurer.
Talk to a Houston Autonomous Vehicle Lawyer Today
If you or a loved one was hurt by a self-driving car, a driver using Autopilot or another driver-assist system, a robotaxi, or a driverless commercial truck, time is working against you. Vehicles get repaired, scrapped, or sent to auction. Software versions get overwritten by over-the-air updates. Cloud-stored sensor data gets purged on manufacturer schedules. The manufacturer’s investigators are already working.
Amaro Law Firm offers free, confidential consultations. We will review your case, explain your options, and tell you honestly whether we believe we can help. You pay nothing unless we win your case.
Call 713-352-7975 or request a free case review online.