Case Law Update

Relevant Facts & Procedural History

Under Florida law, commercially available cars that drive themselves without human intervention are known as “autonomous vehicles.” As of today, there are no reported Florida appellate or trial court decisions specifically addressing personal injury claims arising from accidents involving fully autonomous vehicles. The absence of controlling Florida case law creates both uncertainty and opportunity.

Florida has enacted specific legislation governing autonomous vehicle operation.

Florida Statute §316.85 provides that when an automated driving system is engaged, the ADS shall be deemed to be the operator of an autonomous vehicle, regardless of whether a person is physically present in the vehicle while the vehicle is operating with the automated driving system engaged.

Under current Florida law, the “operator” of a fully autonomous vehicle is the car’s computer system, not a person who can be held liable for roadway incidents.

Furthermore, Florida Statute §627.749 establishes mandatory insurance requirements for fully autonomous vehicles operating on on-demand autonomous vehicle networks or engaged in prearranged rides. The statute requires three categories of coverage:

• primary liability coverage of at least $1 million for death, bodily injury, and property damage;
• personal injury protection benefits meeting minimum coverage amounts under Florida Statutes §§ 627.730–627.7405; and
• uninsured and underinsured vehicle coverage as required by Florida Statute § 627.727.

Fla. Stat. §316.86 also addresses manufacturer liability for third-party vehicle conversions. The original manufacturer of a vehicle converted by a third party into an autonomous vehicle is not liable in, and shall have a defense to and be dismissed from, any legal action brought against the original manufacturer by any person injured due to an alleged vehicle defect caused by the conversion of the vehicle, or by equipment installed by the converter, unless the alleged defect was present in the vehicle as originally manufactured.

Key Holdings and Practical Implications for Attorneys

Florida Statute §316.85 has several important implications:

Displacement of Human Operator Liability

The statute’s plain language indicates that when an ADS is engaged, the automated system, not a human occupant, bears the legal status of operator. This designation forecloses traditional negligent driver liability theories against human occupants merely by virtue of their physical presence or absence in the vehicle.

Shift in Liability Focus

By designating the ADS as the operator, the statute signals a shift in liability analysis from individual human conduct toward the systems, entities, and actors responsible for the ADS itself. This supports liability theories grounded in product liability, negligent design, negligent deployment, and negligent maintenance rather than traditional driver negligence.

Immediate Factual Investigation

Plaintiffs should conduct immediate factual investigation to establish:

• Vehicle Origin: Determine whether the vehicle is a manufacturer-built autonomous vehicle or a third-party retrofit. This determination affects the applicability of the conversion immunity statute and identifies viable defendants.
• Operator Identity: Identify the entity or entities that deployed and operated the autonomous vehicle. This may include fleet operators, vehicle owners, or autonomous vehicle service providers.
• Insurance Coverage: Determine whether the vehicle was operating on an on-demand network or engaged in a prearranged ride at the time of the accident. If so, the mandatory insurance requirements under §627.749 apply.
• Statutory Compliance: Investigate whether the defendant complied with applicable statutory requirements, including insurance coverage and operational restrictions.

Available Liability Theories

Plaintiffs’ counsel should consider multiple liability theories:

Vicarious Liability Under Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine: The vehicle owner or fleet operator may be vicariously liable under Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine. The doctrine imposes strict vicarious liability on owners who voluntarily entrust vehicles to others whose negligent operation causes injury. Although the ADS is designated as the operator under §316.85, the owner’s deployment of the ADS with retention of beneficial ownership and control may constitute sufficient entrustment to trigger vicarious liability.

Product Liability: The ADS manufacturer or vehicle manufacturer may be liable under product liability theories for defects in the autonomous system. Product liability claims may be based on design defects, manufacturing defects, or failure to warn of system limitations or risks.

Negligence: Defendants may be liable for negligence in deploying, maintaining, or operating the autonomous vehicle. Negligence theories may include negligent deployment of an ADS outside its design parameters, negligent maintenance of the vehicle or ADS, or negligent selection of an unsafe ADS.

This case law update is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. Florida autonomous vehicle law is developing and fact-specific; consult a licensed Florida attorney about your situation. Attorneys at Shiner Law Group are Members of The Florida Bar. This is attorney advertising.