Our firm is about people. That is our motto and that will always be our reality.
We do our best to get to know our clients, understand their situations, and get them the compensation they deserve.
At TorHoerman Law, we believe that if we continue to focus on the people that we represent, and continue to be true to the people that we are – justice will always be served.
Without our team, we would’nt be able to provide our clients with anything close to the level of service they receive when they work with us.
The TorHoerman Law Team commits to the sincere belief that those injured by the misconduct of others, especially large corporate profit mongers, deserve justice for their injuries.
Our team is what has made TorHoerman Law a very special place since 2009.
A self-driving car accident lawyer from TorHoerman Law helps injured people and grieving families pursue compensation when automated or semi-automated driving systems contribute to a crash.
Rates of reported crashes involving automated driving systems and Level 2 driver-assistance features have risen as these technologies have spread, and federal actions (including NHTSA’s standing crash-reporting order and a recall tied to Autopilot misuse risks) reflect ongoing flaws in how these systems manage driver attention and real-world hazards.
TorHoerman Law is actively reviewing claims involving self-driving and driver-assist technology to determine whether a manufacturer, software provider, or other party should be held accountable.
Tesla vehicles and other vehicles equipped with driver-assist and semi-autonomous features have changed what a modern motor vehicle accident looks like.
In a Tesla car accident case, liability may turn on what an automated system did or failed to do in the seconds before impact, not just what the person behind the steering wheel remembers.
In many claims, courts and insurers evaluate fault for both the driver and the manufacturer when software behavior, warnings, or design choices appear to contribute to the collision.
These cases often require deeper accident investigations, including preservation of vehicle data, software versions, and time-stamped events tied to driver engagement.
Evidence from the crash scene matters too, especially where roadway markings, lighting, and traffic controls affect how driver-assist systems perceive hazards.
When automatic braking does not activate, activates too late, or activates unexpectedly, the difference can mean a minor collision versus catastrophic injury.
Some crashes also involve post-impact hazards, including vehicles that catch fire, which can raise additional questions about safety design and response after the initial collision.
A thorough case review looks at whether defective vehicles or failed critical components played a role, even when the car is marketed as advanced technology.
If you have been injured or your loved one has been tragically killed in a self-driving car accident, you may be eligible to file a claim and seek financial compensation.
Contact TorHoerman Law today for a free consultation.
You can also use the chat feature on this page for a free case evaluation to get in touch with our law firm.
A “self-driving car accident” is a crash involving vehicles equipped with automated or semi-automated driving functions: systems that can steer, accelerate, and brake under certain conditions, while still requiring human supervision in many real-world situations.
SAE’s automation framework distinguishes between driver-assistance (where the human remains responsible) and higher levels of automation (where the system performs more of the driving task).
In the U.S., regulators track these crashes closely through NHTSA’s Standing General Order, which requires reporting of certain crashes involving vehicles with automated driving systems (ADS) or Level 2 advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS).

In practical terms, these cases often look like ordinary wrecks at the crash scene (a damaged vehicle, debris, injuries, and a police report) but the cause analysis can be very different.
A detailed investigation may focus on whether automated features were active, what the system “saw,” whether warnings were issued, and how the human responded.
That distinction matters when a tesla driver (or any driver) says they were supervising the system, yet the vehicle still failed to react to a hazard.
Understanding how automation is classified helps explain why liability in self-driving car accidents is often disputed.
Vehicles marketed as “self-driving” may still require constant human supervision, depending on the level of automation involved.
Federal regulators and safety organizations categorize automation to distinguish between driver-assist features and systems that perform more of the driving task.
These distinctions matter because responsibility can shift between the driver and the manufacturer based on what the system was designed to do.
In lawsuits, the specific level of automation active at the time of a crash often shapes how fault is evaluated.

Common levels of vehicle automation include:
Crashes involving self-driving or semi-autonomous vehicles often occur in predictable situations that expose the limits of automated systems.
Many of these incidents involve unique challenges that do not exist in ordinary motor vehicle accidents, such as system disengagement or delayed driver alerts.
Distracted driving becomes especially dangerous when drivers rely on autopilot features and fail to recognize hazards in time.
These crashes frequently cause extensive damage, making the preservation of critical evidence essential for later investigation.
In some cases, post-impact dangers such as battery fires or power loss complicate rescue and recovery efforts.
Each scenario requires careful analysis of vehicle data and scene conditions to understand how the technology performed.

Common crash scenarios include:
Not every crash involving automated driving features results in a viable claim, but many injured people and families may qualify.
The key question is whether the automated system, a defect, or a failure to warn contributed to the collision and your injuries.
These cases often require a more technical legal process than a standard wreck, including collecting vehicle data and preserving evidence before it is overwritten.
A qualified personal injury lawyer or accident attorney will look for proof that the technology malfunctioned, was misused in a foreseeable way, or that Tesla failed (or another manufacturer failed) to address known limitations.
Getting prompt medical attention also matters, both for your health and for documenting what the crash caused.

You may qualify for a self-driving car accident claim if:
These claims can still move forward even if responsibility is disputed, because a crash is not always explained by neither the driver nor the manufacturer being at fault.
Sometimes both contribute in different ways.
An experienced accident attorney can evaluate the evidence, identify the responsible parties, and protect you from pressure to accept an unfair settlement.
The sooner a Tesla accident lawyer gets involved, the easier it is to preserve data, interview witnesses, and secure expert review.
If you have questions, a personal injury lawyer can help you understand your options and what the next steps in the legal process look like.
Evidence is what turns a serious Tesla crash or other automated-driving collision into a case capable of proving liability.
These claims often hinge on a combination of traditional proof (like eyewitness accounts) and technical proof that explains how the vehicle and its systems behaved.
The earlier you preserve records, the harder it is for an insurance company to minimize what happened or shift blame without support.

Evidence may include:
In a self-driving car accident claim, “damages” are the losses the law may allow an injured person or a family to recover after a crash.
Lawyers assess damages by collecting proof of harm (medical records, billing statements, employment documentation, and expert opinions) to show what the accident cost you now and what it will cost in the future.
This calculation includes both financial losses, like medical expenses and lost wages, and personal harms that are harder to quantify, such as pain, limitations, and emotional distress.
In severe cases, attorneys may also pursue punitive damages or a wrongful death recovery when the facts support those claims.

Damages may include:
Liability in a self-driving car accident often involves more than one party because automated systems can affect how a vehicle accelerates, brakes, and steers.
Investigations focus on what the human driver did, what the system did, and whether a defect or failure to warn contributed to the crash.
In many cases, responsibility is shared, especially when driver-assist features required supervision but the technology also performed unpredictably or failed to respond to hazards.
A thorough legal review identifies every potentially responsible party so victims do not leave compensation on the table.

Parties who may be held liable include:
The actions you take immediately after a self-driving car accident can affect both your recovery and your ability to pursue a claim.
Your safety and health come first, especially because injuries may not be obvious right away.
Proper documentation at the scene helps preserve evidence that may later be critical in proving how the automated system or driver behavior contributed to the crash.
Reporting the incident creates an official record that can support your case. Acting quickly also reduces the risk that important data or witness information will be lost.

Steps to take after a self-driving car accident:
Hiring a Tesla car accident lawyer from TorHoerman Law gives victims access to attorneys who understand both personal injury law and the complexities of modern vehicle technology.
These cases often involve Autopilot systems, software data, and technical evidence that require immediate and careful investigation.
TorHoerman Law works quickly to preserve vehicle data, review crash reports, and identify whether a defect or system failure contributed to the accident.
Our attorneys collaborate with engineers, accident reconstruction experts, and medical professionals to build strong, evidence-based claims.

We handle all communication with Tesla, insurers, and opposing counsel so clients can focus on recovery.
Every case is approached with personal attention and a commitment to accountability. With TorHoerman Law, victims have an experienced advocate prepared to pursue full and fair compensation.
Self-driving and automated vehicle crashes raise serious questions about safety, accountability, and responsibility when technology fails.
Victims and families should not be left to navigate these complex claims on their own, especially when powerful manufacturers and insurers are involved.
TorHoerman Law brings the resources, technical knowledge, and experienced lawyers needed to investigate how automated systems, driver behavior, and defects contribute to these accidents.

If you or a loved one were injured or killed in a self-driving car accident, contact TorHoerman Law today for a free consultation.
Our experienced lawyers are ready to review your case and help you pursue the compensation and accountability you deserve.
Self-driving car accident claims usually rely on two core legal theories: product liability and negligence, and they require evidence that shows not only what happened at the crash scene, but what the vehicle’s systems were doing in the seconds leading up to impact.
Product liability focuses on defects in the vehicle or its software, while negligence addresses a failure to use reasonable care, which can apply to drivers, manufacturers, software developers, or even government entities responsible for road design and traffic control.
Because legal liability in these cases often shifts beyond the driver, data logs and black boxes become crucial for determining fault, especially when the automated system’s behavior is disputed.
In Tesla cases, the onboard computer can record operational data such as speed, brake usage, and Autopilot engagement, and Tesla vehicles store additional information in an event data recorder that can document feature status, driver engagement, and alerts.
Eyewitness accounts and official police reports still matter, but they are often paired with this digital evidence to show whether the system performed safely and whether a defect contributed to the crash.
A manufacturer can be held liable if it can be proven the vehicle was defective when sold and that defect caused the accident, and proving liability may require a detailed analysis of operational data and driver engagement records.
Accessing Tesla’s operational data often requires specialized tools or formal legal processes, which is why proving fault in these cases typically demands attorneys who understand both the law and the technology involved.
Self-driving and semi-autonomous systems can reduce workload, but Tesla’s Autopilot is a Level 2 ADAS that still requires active supervision, and regulators have cited gaps in driver engagement controls.
NHTSA has opened and closed major investigations into Autopilot and then moved into follow-on review of recall effectiveness, reflecting ongoing concerns about system design and real-world performance.
For victims, these risks matter because liability can hinge on whether the driver-assist system encouraged inattention, failed to respond to hazards, or lacked safeguards that a reasonable design would include.
If you were hurt in a crash involving driver-assist or automated features, preserving vehicle data and getting a technical review early can be decisive in proving what happened.
Responsibility in a self-driving or driver-assist crash is not automatically assigned to the driver or the manufacturer.
It depends on what the system was designed to do, what it did in the moments before impact, and what the driver did to supervise it.
In many cases, a driver may still carry fault because Level 2 systems require hands-on supervision, but manufacturers and software developers can also be liable if a defect, inadequate warnings, or unsafe design contributed to the collision.
Liability can extend further if poor maintenance, defective components, or unsafe roadway design played a role.
That’s why these cases usually require a technical review of vehicle data, crash-scene evidence, and expert analysis to determine how responsibility should be allocated.
Recent incidents involving Tesla vehicles have produced wrongful-death filings, defect allegations, and a major Autopilot verdict, showing how quickly a crash can become a product-liability dispute.
In several cases, reporting describes situations where a Tesla hit a fixed object or another vehicle and the litigation turned on whether the vehicle’s design, warnings, or driver-assist behavior contributed.
One of the most closely watched outcomes came when a federal jury weighed Autopilot evidence and returned a plaintiff verdict, with public comments from Elon Musk about appealing.
Other lawsuits have focused on post-crash survivability, especially whether occupants could escape when power was lost and the vehicle burned.
Some incidents are also known primarily because Tesla reported (or authorities reported) the crash publicly, which later became part of a legal claim or investigation record.
Incidents (chronological order):
These examples show why case outcomes depend on specifics: whether driver-assist was active, what the vehicle recorded, and how the crash unfolded second-by-second.
In the Florida case, the Autopilot narrative and trial evidence were central, and the verdict drew national attention because it tested how jurors allocate fault between Tesla and the driver.
In the Wisconsin matter, the litigation focus shifted toward post-crash escape and survivability, claims that the design turned a collision into a fatal event for five occupants.
Owner & Attorney - TorHoerman Law
Here, at TorHoerman Law, we’re committed to helping victims get the justice they deserve.
Since 2009, we have successfully collected over $4 Billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of injured individuals.
Would you like our help?
At TorHoerman Law, we believe that if we continue to focus on the people that we represent, and continue to be true to the people that we are – justice will always be served.
Do you believe you’re entitled to compensation?
Use our Instant Case Evaluator to find out in as little as 60 seconds!
In this case, we obtained a verdict of $495 Million for our client’s child who was diagnosed with Necrotizing Enterocolitis after consuming baby formula manufactured by Abbott Laboratories.
In this case, we were able to successfully recover $20 Million for our client after they suffered a Toxic Tort Injury due to chemical exposure.
In this case, we were able to successfully recover $103.8 Million for our client after they suffered a COX-2 Inhibitors Injury.
In this case, we were able to successfully recover $4 Million for our client after they suffered a Traumatic Brain Injury while at daycare.
In this case, we were able to successfully recover $2.8 Million for our client after they suffered an injury due to a Defective Heart Device.
Here, at TorHoerman Law, we’re committed to helping victims get the justice they deserve.
Since 2009, we have successfully collected over $4 Billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of injured individuals.
Would you like our help?