Who Is Liable When a Tesla Crashes on Autopilot in Van Nuys?

Arya Firoozmand, Esq.

Local Van Nuys Injury Attorney · UCLA Law

Arya Firoozmand is the founding partner at L&F Brown. He grew up in Woodland Hills, graduated from El Camino Real High School and UCLA Law School, and practices regularly at the Van Nuys Courthouse where most Valley injury cases are heard.

Your Tesla crashed while Autopilot or Full Self-Driving was engaged somewhere in Van Nuys, maybe on the 405, maybe on Sepulveda Blvd, maybe navigating the busy stretch of Sherman Way near the Van Nuys Airport. The first thing everyone asks, your insurer, the other driver, and eventually a court, is: who was in control? That question is more complicated than it sounds, and the answer determines who pays.

Tesla Says It's Always the Driver

Tesla's position is consistent and aggressive. Every version of Autopilot and FSD comes with disclaimers telling the driver to keep their hands on the wheel, stay attentive, and be prepared to take over at any time. When a crash happens, Tesla points to those disclaimers and says the driver failed to supervise the system.

This argument has a surface logic. But it breaks down when you look at what Tesla actually sells and how it markets these features. Tesla calls its product "Full Self-Driving." It runs ads and promotional videos showing hands-free operation. CEO statements have repeatedly implied the technology is safer than human driving. When you name something "Full Self-Driving" and then argue the driver is fully responsible when it fails, there's a disconnect that California product liability law takes seriously.

California Product Liability: The Manufacturer's Responsibility

Under California strict product liability, a manufacturer is liable when a product is defective and the defect causes injury. There are two relevant theories in Tesla Autopilot cases:

Design defect. The claim here is that Autopilot or FSD, as designed, is unreasonably dangerous. It performs in ways that a reasonable consumer would not expect, and that gap between expected and actual performance causes crashes. If the system fails to detect a stopped car on the 405 in Van Nuys, or misreads a traffic signal on Van Nuys Blvd, or makes an erratic lane change on Sepulveda Blvd, and those failures are traceable to the system's design rather than the driver's inattention, you have a design defect argument.

Failure to warn. Even if the system works as designed, Tesla may be liable if it failed to adequately warn drivers about the system's limitations. If Tesla knew Autopilot performs poorly in certain conditions, stop-and-go freeway traffic, complex intersections, construction zones, and didn't clearly communicate those limitations to drivers, that failure to warn supports liability.

Both theories exist independent of what Tesla's Terms of Service say. A manufacturer cannot contract away product liability through fine print under California law.

The Driver's Liability

This isn't binary. In many Tesla Autopilot crashes, both the driver and the manufacturer may share liability. California's comparative fault system allows a jury to assign percentages. If a jury finds the driver was 30% at fault for not intervening sooner and Tesla was 70% at fault for a system that shouldn't have required intervention in that scenario, the driver (or their insurer) pays 30% and Tesla pays 70%.

This shared-liability framework is actually common in Tesla cases. The driver's attention level matters. But the question isn't just "was the driver watching," it's also "would the crash have happened if the system had performed as a reasonable consumer would expect?" Those are two separate inquiries, and both are relevant.

Third-Party Liability

In some cases, a third driver is also at fault. If another vehicle cut into your lane on the 405 near the Sherman Way exit and your Tesla's Autopilot failed to brake in time, both the other driver and Tesla may be liable. The other driver for the dangerous lane change, and Tesla for a system that should have detected and avoided the collision.

Similarly, if a road condition contributed to the crash, a pothole on a Van Nuys street, a missing lane marking on the 405, the government entity responsible for road maintenance may share liability. Government claims have a six-month tort claim deadline in California, so identifying this angle early matters.

What Evidence Determines Who's Liable

The vehicle data is everything. Your Tesla logged what the system was doing at every moment: Autopilot status, speed, steering inputs, brake commands, sensor readings, and whether any takeover warnings were issued. This data can show whether the system failed or whether the driver failed to respond to warnings.

Preserving this data is urgent. Tesla can overwrite or lose access to cloud-stored data, and onboard data can be compromised if the vehicle is repaired or scrapped. Your attorney must send a litigation hold letter to Tesla immediately. Do not allow the car to be moved to a salvage facility or repaired before data is preserved.

Beyond Tesla data, the CHP collision report (for 405 crashes) or LAPD Van Nuys Division report (for surface street crashes) documents the scene, statements, and initial fault assessment. Witness accounts, dash cam footage from other vehicles, and surveillance footage from nearby businesses on Sherman Way or Sepulveda Blvd can all contribute to the liability picture.

NHTSA investigation records are also relevant. Federal investigations into Autopilot crashes and the 2023 recall of over two million vehicles for inadequate driver monitoring show Tesla had institutional knowledge of the system's deficiencies. A Van Nuys car accident attorney handling these cases will obtain and use those records.

How These Cases Are Different From Standard Car Accidents

A standard car accident claim goes through the at-fault driver's auto insurer. A Tesla product liability claim goes against the manufacturer directly. These are different legal proceedings with different defendants, different evidence requirements, and different levels of complexity.

Tesla product liability cases require expert witnesses (automotive engineers, software analysts, human factors specialists), extensive document discovery from Tesla, and a legal team willing to take on a well-funded corporate defendant. They also take longer and require more investment than standard insurance claims.

But the potential recovery is proportionate. Product liability claims against manufacturers are not capped by auto insurance policy limits. When the evidence shows a clear system failure and serious injuries, these cases can produce recoveries that dwarf what's available through auto insurance alone.

Take This Step Now

If your Tesla crashed with Autopilot or FSD engaged in Van Nuys, the liability question cannot be answered without your vehicle data. That data has a limited shelf life. Preserve it now by contacting an attorney who can send a litigation hold to Tesla.

L&F Brown handles Tesla Autopilot and product liability cases throughout Van Nuys and LA County. Free consultation, contingency fee, no cost unless we recover. Visit our Van Nuys personal injury page or call us today.