Electric vehicles (EVs) and autonomous vehicles (AVs) are transforming transportation. Many South Carolinians are considering buying an EV with “self-driving” features or riding in a driverless taxi. With these new technologies, it’s natural to wonder: if a car is driving itself, who is responsible in a crash?
This article explains how accident liability works in our state and how EVs and AVs are changing the picture. We’ll cover South Carolina’s traditional accident liability rules, the special issues EVs and AVs introduce, and what it means for insurance and lawsuits. By the end, you’ll understand your rights and responsibilities if you’re behind the wheel (or just a passenger) of these high-tech vehicles.
In South Carolina, most car accident liability is based on negligence – a driver’s failure to use reasonable care on the road. If a driver’s negligence (for example, running a red light or texting while driving) causes an accident that injures someone, that driver can be held liable (legally responsible) for the damages. To prove negligence, an injured party (plaintiff) must show the driver had a duty to drive carefully, breached that duty, and caused the accident and injuries as a result.
South Carolina follows a modified comparative fault rule. This means an injured person can recover damages as long as they were not more than 50% at fault for the accident. If the injured party is 51% or more to blame, they are barred from recovering anything. In other words, you can still get compensation if you were partly at fault, but only if your share of fault was 50% or less – and your compensation will be reduced by your percentage of fault. For example, if a jury finds you 20% at fault, you’d receive 80% of your damages; if you’re 51% at fault, you get nothing. This rule encourages all drivers to be careful, because being mostly to blame wipes out your claim.
When multiple parties are at fault (say two drivers each partly to blame), South Carolina law allocates damages in proportion to each party’s percentage of fault. A driver who is less than 50% at fault will only be liable for their share of the damages. However, a driver who is 51% or more at fault can be made to pay the full judgment (jointly and severally liable) if other responsible parties cannot pay – a consequence of being the primary wrongdoer. This system affects how lawsuits are handled when new technology is involved, since responsibility might be split between a human and a machine or manufacturer.
Insurance plays a big role in traditional liability. South Carolina is an “at-fault” state, meaning the at-fault driver’s insurance is expected to cover the injuries or damages they cause. State law requires all drivers to carry minimum liability insurance of $25,000 per person/$50,000 per accident for bodily injury, and $25,000 for property damage. You must also carry uninsured motorist (UM) coverage in equal amounts (25/50/25) in case you’re hit by an uninsured or hit-and-run driver. (Insurers must offer underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage as well, though you don’t have to buy it.) If you cause a crash, your liability insurance pays the victim’s claim up to your policy limits. If the other driver caused it, their insurance pays. And if a vehicle defect or other product issue caused the accident, things become more complex – that’s where product liability comes in, which we’ll discuss below.
Electric vehicles by themselves do not fundamentally change accident liability rules – but they introduce new factors that could play into accidents and insurance. An EV (like a Tesla, Nissan Leaf, or other battery-powered car) must follow the same traffic laws as any other car, and the driver has the same duty to drive carefully. If you drive negligently and crash your EV, you’re just as liable as if you were driving a gasoline car. There’s no special immunity for driving “green.” However, EVs often come with advanced safety and driver-assistance features, and sometimes semi-autonomous driving modes, which blur the line between human and machine control.
One consideration is that EVs tend to include cutting-edge technology – sensors, cameras, and software – that can sometimes malfunction. For example, some EV owners have reported issues like automatic emergency braking engaging at the wrong time or battery fires after a collision. If an accident is caused not by driver error, but by a defect in the car, South Carolina law allows the injured party to pursue a product liability claim against the manufacturer or seller. South Carolina has adopted strict product liability for defective products: “One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer… is subject to liability for physical harm” caused by that product. In plain terms, if your EV has a defect (say, a software bug or brake failure) that leads to a crash, the manufacturer could be held strictly liable – meaning the victim doesn’t have to prove the company was careless, only that the car was defective and caused the injury. This shifts the focus from the driver’s behavior to the vehicle’s safety.
Example: Suppose you’re driving an electric car and, despite your careful driving, the car’s battery management system malfunctions and the vehicle suddenly loses power on the highway, causing a collision. If someone is hurt, you as the driver might not be negligent at all – instead, the blame may lie with the car’s defect. In that case, the injured person (which could even be you, the owner, or a third party) might sue the manufacturer under strict liability. South Carolina’s statute (S.C. Code Ann. §15-73-10) specifically permits such claims for defective, unreasonably dangerous products.
It’s worth noting that EV-specific issues like battery fires or the quietness of electric motors (which can pose risks to pedestrians who may not hear an approaching EV) are being addressed through regulations and design. For instance, federal safety standards now require EVs and hybrids to emit artificial sound at low speeds to alert pedestrians. If an automaker fails to include required safety features and that contributes to an accident, that could support a negligence per se or product liability claim. By and large, though, owning an EV doesn’t change your legal responsibilities as a driver – you still must obey the rules of the road and drive safely. What EVs do change is the prevalence of advanced driver-assistance systems, which leads us to the bigger liability questions around autonomous or semi-autonomous driving.
Autonomous vehicles – cars that drive themselves using software, sensors, and AI – are expected to reduce human error, but they also raise a critical question: If you’re not driving, can you still be liable for an accident? In South Carolina, this is largely uncharted territory. Fully self-driving cars (Level 4 or 5 automation, with no human intervention needed) are not yet in regular use on our roads. However, many drivers already use partially autonomous features like Tesla’s Autopilot, GM’s Super Cruise, or Ford’s BlueCruise. These systems can steer, brake, and accelerate on their own under certain conditions, but they still require a human driver to monitor and intervene. Understanding how liability works in these scenarios is crucial.
Notably, South Carolina has not yet enacted any specific statute addressing autonomous vehicle liability or operation. According to a 2024 state-by-state survey, South Carolina is one of the states with no autonomous vehicle statute on the books. This means there is currently a gray area – we would rely on existing general principles (negligence, products liability, etc.) to handle AV accidents. By contrast, some other states have begun passing laws to clarify these issues. For example, Tennessee’s “Automated Vehicles Act” explicitly provides that when a car is driving itself with an autonomous system engaged, the automated driving system is considered the driver for liability purposes. That kind of law basically says: if a fully self-driving car causes a crash, the law will treat the vehicle’s system (and thus its creator/owner) as the responsible party instead of any occupant. South Carolina has no such provision as of yet, but if AVs become common, the legislature may consider similar rules.
Even without specific statutes, courts are starting to wrestle with autonomous vehicle accidents elsewhere, and those cases provide hints for South Carolina. One high-profile incident occurred in San Francisco in 2023, when a Cruise robotaxi (with no human driver onboard) ran over a pedestrian who had already been struck by another car. Experts noted this case “doesn’t fit neatly in a mold,” because traditional driver negligence and novel product liability issues blur together. The human driver who initially hit the pedestrian would bear much of the blame, but the robotaxi’s actions arguably exacerbated the injury, raising the question of the vehicle’s liability. A human driver might have reacted differently (e.g. not dragging the victim); if the robotaxi’s response was subpar, that opens the company (GM’s Cruise) to liability. One plaintiff’s lawyer commented that such a case “falls squarely within the product liability realm”, since no human was driving the AV – it was essentially a product that failed to behave safely. Indeed, a law professor noted that in a case like that, a victim wouldn’t need to prove a specific negligent act by a person; they could prevail by showing the AV “functioned in an unreasonable fashion” due to a design defect in the software.
These examples highlight a likely trend: as automation increases, driver liability is set to decrease, while manufacturer and software-provider liability increases. The core policy question is how to balance encouraging innovation with protecting the public. On one hand, we want safer cars and shouldn’t over-penalize companies for every accident if overall AVs reduce crashes. On the other hand, if a company’s autonomous driving system makes a poor decision that a reasonable human driver wouldn’t (like misidentifying a pedestrian), fairness suggests the company should pay for the harm. Some scholars have even proposed bold solutions – for instance, one proposal is to hold AV manufacturers liable for all crashes involving their self-driving vehicles, regardless of fault, to force them to design vehicles that are “superhuman defensive drivers”. (This is a radical idea not adopted in law, but it shows how experts are rethinking liability in the AV era.)
South Carolina’s likely approach, absent new legislation, is to apply existing law flexibly. If you are using a car’s autonomous features, you should know: You are not automatically off the hook for liability. If the feature is “driver-assist” (not full self-driving), you are expected to remain alert. Failing to intervene or misuse of the technology can make you negligent. However, if the technology clearly malfunctions independently of you, you and any victims may have a claim against the manufacturer. If you are riding in a completely driverless vehicle (for example, someday hailing a robotaxi in Charleston), you generally would not be liable for anything it does wrong – you’re essentially a passenger. If an accident occurs, your claims would be against the operator or manufacturer of the AV, not against fellow passengers. And if you are an owner sending your autonomous car to run errands on its own, liability could attach to you vicariously (as the vehicle’s owner or as the party who put it in autonomous mode) depending on how courts view ownership responsibility. We don’t have a South Carolina case on that yet, but courts might treat it similarly to letting someone else drive your car – except “someone else” is now a computer you entrusted with driving.
It’s also worth mentioning that South Carolina’s traffic laws currently presume a human driver. For instance, state law requires drivers to follow the rules of the road (stop at signals, etc.), and offenses like reckless driving apply to a “driver.” If an AV runs a red light or speeds, technically a law was broken – but by whom? Without an update, theoretically the owner could receive the ticket. States like Florida have addressed this by defining the “operator” of an autonomous vehicle as the person who engages the automated driving system, even if they’re not in the driver’s seat. South Carolina has not updated definitions yet, which is another grey area. In practice, companies testing AVs typically work closely with regulators and carry insurance to cover any mishaps. If AVs become more common here, expect legal updates to define responsibilities clearly.
The rise of EVs and AVs also affects auto insurance – both for drivers and manufacturers. For now, South Carolina’s insurance requirements remain the same regardless of what vehicle you drive: every vehicle (whether a conventional car, electric car, or one with self-driving features) must be insured at least to the minimum required levels. If you cause an accident, your liability insurance will pay the damages, even if you happened to be using a driver-assistance feature at the time. From the insurance company’s perspective, an accident is an accident, and the question is who is at fault – they then handle the claim like any other. An insurance industry representative put it plainly when discussing autonomous cars: “Our position is that these vehicles should be insured the same. The things that can happen as the result of driving are pretty much the same.”. In other words, the risk (crashes) is still there, just the causes may differ. So today, if you own a Tesla with Autopilot in South Carolina, you won’t find a special “autonomous car insurance” policy – you’ll buy standard auto insurance, and your policy will cover you if you’re liable for a wreck just as it would in any other car.
That said, insurance companies are closely watching how AV technology changes risk patterns. One expectation is that as true self-driving cars arrive, liability might shift from individual drivers to vehicle manufacturers. When that happens, the cost of insurance could shift as well. Instead of drivers buying large liability policies, we might see manufacturers or operators carrying more of the insurance burden (for example, a company operating a fleet of driverless taxis will need hefty liability coverage for their vehicles, since any crash would likely be their responsibility). Some states have already required higher insurance for autonomous vehicles: for instance, Kentucky now requires a minimum of $1 million in liability coverage for a fully driverless vehicle, recognizing the need for greater protection if a vehicle has no human driver. Alabama’s new AV law requires at least $100,000 in liability coverage for AVs (comparable to normal car minimums), while California mandated $5 million in insurance for companies testing AVs without drivers. South Carolina has not set any special insurance requirements for autonomous vehicles yet (and again, currently doesn’t formally allow fully driverless operation on public roads), but it’s a policy question that will arise if AV companies seek to operate here. For now, if you ride in a Waymo-style robotaxi in South Carolina in the future, the company would likely provide coverage for passengers and third parties by contract or under general tort principles, even without a specific state law.
If you’re a passenger in a self-driving taxi or rideshare, you should know that you are covered one way or another. Commercial operators are expected to have insurance for their operations. In the event of a crash, you (as the injured passenger) could file a claim against the operator’s insurance or sue the operator/manufacturer. Additionally, because South Carolina requires uninsured motorist coverage, if for some reason an autonomous vehicle had no insurance and caused you injury, your own UM coverage could step in to compensate you (treating the AV like an “uninsured vehicle”). Similarly, if the at-fault party is unclear – say two AVs crash into each other – and it turns into a drawn-out battle of who’s responsible (perhaps one manufacturer blaming the other’s system), your personal UIM coverage might cover your injuries in the interim if the at-fault side is underinsured. In short, the insurance system has safety nets that don’t disappear just because a computer was driving.
What about rates? For individual drivers, if you drive an EV or a car with advanced driving features, your insurance premiums today are determined by traditional factors (your driving record, the car’s value, repair costs, etc.). Some insurers give discounts for having safety features like collision avoidance. However, if certain technologies are shown to reduce accidents, that could lead to lower rates across the board. Conversely, if a feature like Autopilot leads some drivers to have more accidents (due to inattention), insurers may start surcharging those models or requiring higher premiums. We’ve already seen that claim frequency is a key factor in pricing – if automated driving reduces claim frequency, insurance costs should eventually fall. But during the transition, there may be volatility: repairs on high-tech vehicles can be more expensive (e.g., replacing sensors and cameras after even a minor fender-bender), which can increase claim costs and thus premiums for those vehicles. Insurers and regulators will be feeling out these developments carefully.
From a broader perspective, if liability increasingly falls on manufacturers through product liability claims, those costs will effectively be covered by the manufacturers’ insurance (product liability insurance) and eventually reflected in the price of the vehicles or services. Some automakers have even preemptively stated they will take responsibility. Notably, Volvo announced that it “will accept full liability whenever one of its cars is in autonomous mode”. Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk similarly suggested that if Tesla’s full self-driving technology caused a crash, “it would be Tesla’s responsibility”. These statements are encouraging for consumers, but it remains to be seen how they play out in court. An automaker might accept blame publicly yet still litigate specific claims by arguing a user misused the technology or an accident was unavoidable. So while you might not need to worry about whether you’re covered – because either the driver’s insurance or the company’s insurance should cover any given accident – the source of compensation might differ from traditional crashes, and legal fights could be complex.
The rise of EVs and AVs also affects auto insurance – both for drivers and manufacturers. For now, South Carolina’s insurance requirements remain the same regardless of what vehicle you drive: every vehicle (whether a conventional car, electric car, or one with self-driving features) must be insured at least to the minimum required levels. If you cause an accident, your liability insurance will pay the damages, even if you happened to be using a driver-assistance feature at the time. From the insurance company’s perspective, an accident is an accident, and the question is who is at fault – they then handle the claim like any other. An insurance industry representative put it plainly when discussing autonomous cars: “Our position is that these vehicles should be insured the same. The things that can happen as the result of driving are pretty much the same.”. In other words, the risk (crashes) is still there, just the causes may differ. So today, if you own a Tesla with Autopilot in South Carolina, you won’t find a special “autonomous car insurance” policy – you’ll buy standard auto insurance, and your policy will cover you if you’re liable for a wreck just as it would in any other car.
That said, insurance companies are closely watching how AV technology changes risk patterns. One expectation is that as true self-driving cars arrive, liability might shift from individual drivers to vehicle manufacturers. When that happens, the cost of insurance could shift as well. Instead of drivers buying large liability policies, we might see manufacturers or operators carrying more of the insurance burden (for example, a company operating a fleet of driverless taxis will need hefty liability coverage for their vehicles, since any crash would likely be their responsibility). Some states have already required higher insurance for autonomous vehicles: for instance, Kentucky now requires a minimum of $1 million in liability coverage for a fully driverless vehicle, recognizing the need for greater protection if a vehicle has no human driver. Alabama’s new AV law requires at least $100,000 in liability coverage for AVs (comparable to normal car minimums), while California mandated $5 million in insurance for companies testing AVs without drivers. South Carolina has not set any special insurance requirements for autonomous vehicles yet (and again, currently doesn’t formally allow fully driverless operation on public roads), but it’s a policy question that will arise if AV companies seek to operate here. For now, if you ride in a Waymo-style robotaxi in South Carolina in the future, the company would likely provide coverage for passengers and third parties by contract or under general tort principles, even without a specific state law.
If you’re a passenger in a self-driving taxi or rideshare, you should know that you are covered one way or another. Commercial operators are expected to have insurance for their operations. In the event of a crash, you (as the injured passenger) could file a claim against the operator’s insurance or sue the operator/manufacturer. Additionally, because South Carolina requires uninsured motorist coverage, if for some reason an autonomous vehicle had no insurance and caused you injury, your own UM coverage could step in to compensate you (treating the AV like an “uninsured vehicle”). Similarly, if the at-fault party is unclear – say two AVs crash into each other – and it turns into a drawn-out battle of who’s responsible (perhaps one manufacturer blaming the other’s system), your personal UIM coverage might cover your injuries in the interim if the at-fault side is underinsured. In short, the insurance system has safety nets that don’t disappear just because a computer was driving.
What about rates? For individual drivers, if you drive an EV or a car with advanced driving features, your insurance premiums today are determined by traditional factors (your driving record, the car’s value, repair costs, etc.). Some insurers give discounts for having safety features like collision avoidance. However, if certain technologies are shown to reduce accidents, that could lead to lower rates across the board. Conversely, if a feature like Autopilot leads some drivers to have more accidents (due to inattention), insurers may start surcharging those models or requiring higher premiums. We’ve already seen that claim frequency is a key factor in pricing – if automated driving reduces claim frequency, insurance costs should eventually fall. But during the transition, there may be volatility: repairs on high-tech vehicles can be more expensive (e.g., replacing sensors and cameras after even a minor fender-bender), which can increase claim costs and thus premiums for those vehicles. Insurers and regulators will be feeling out these developments carefully.
From a broader perspective, if liability increasingly falls on manufacturers through product liability claims, those costs will effectively be covered by the manufacturers’ insurance (product liability insurance) and eventually reflected in the price of the vehicles or services. Some automakers have even preemptively stated they will take responsibility. Notably, Volvo announced that it “will accept full liability whenever one of its cars is in autonomous mode”. Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk similarly suggested that if Tesla’s full self-driving technology caused a crash, “it would be Tesla’s responsibility”. These statements are encouraging for consumers, but it remains to be seen how they play out in court. An automaker might accept blame publicly yet still litigate specific claims by arguing a user misused the technology or an accident was unavoidable. So while you might not need to worry about whether you’re covered – because either the driver’s insurance or the company’s insurance should cover any given accident – the source of compensation might differ from traditional crashes, and legal fights could be complex.
The rise of electric and autonomous vehicles promises safer roads and more convenient travel, but it also challenges our legal assumptions about who is responsible for accidents. In South Carolina, the fundamental rules of tort liability still apply: those at fault in causing an accident must compensate the victims. EVs don’t change that – if anything, they reinforce the need for vigilance (even quiet, eco-friendly cars can cause harm if mishandled). Autonomous driving features offer huge benefits, especially by reducing human error, yet they don’t eliminate the concept of fault; instead, they shift it. We are moving toward a world where fault may lie more with technology providers than with individual drivers. During this transition, a person using self-driving tech must understand that, under today’s laws, they share in the responsibility for safety. If you take your eyes off the road because your car says it can drive itself, you do so at your peril – legally and physically. As one commentator aptly asked, “Should driver liability decrease to zero if fully autonomous vehicles become the norm?”. We’re not there yet, and perhaps some hybrid of driver and manufacturer responsibility will persist.
For consumers in South Carolina, the best advice is: stay informed and stay insured. Make sure you carry sufficient insurance (consider more than the minimum limits, since new tech cars can be expensive to repair and medical bills can be high). If you buy a vehicle with autopilot capabilities, learn its limits and heed the manuals – your legal duty is to use it as a reasonable person would, which usually means not treating it as infallible. If you’re harmed by an autonomous vehicle, know that you have avenues for recovery, but the case might involve sophisticated questions of product design and software flaws. Consulting with a lawyer who understands both tort law and the new technology will be wise.
South Carolina’s courts and legislators will undoubtedly be watching how these vehicles perform and how other states handle the tricky issues of liability. For now, the practical impact of EVs and AVs on accident liability is that lawsuits may start to include new defendants (vehicle manufacturers, software companies) alongside drivers, and theories of liability may expand (strict product liability claims alongside negligence claims). But the goal remains the same: to ensure that those injured on the road are fairly compensated by whoever was in the best position to prevent the harm. Whether it’s a distracted human or a misbehaving computer “driver,” the principle is that accountability should follow control. As technology continues to advance, South Carolinians can look forward to safer travels – and our legal system will evolve to sort out accountability when things go wrong, ensuring that innovation does not come at the expense of justice.
At Proffitt & Cox, we are committed to helping South Carolinians injured by all types of vehicle accidents – including those involving cutting-edge technology. If you have questions about your legal rights after an accident with an electric car or a vehicle using self-driving features, we’re here to help. Contact our team for a free consultation – we can evaluate your case, explain your options, and help ensure you are protected.
When a lawyer, medical provider, or insurer “values” an injury case, humans usually weigh complexities: how an injury disrupted your life, its long-term effects, your
When a serious trucking crash happens on South Carolina roads—from I95 and I26 to rural two lanes—the most powerful evidence may be inside the tractor
DEADLINE FOR FORMER TENANTS OF ALLEN BENEDICT COURT TO SUBMIT A CLAIM IN CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IS SEPTEMBER 1, 2025 The deadline for former tenants
Contingency fees are calculated based upon the gross amount recovered. Case costs paid by the firm are also reimbursed to the firm from the amount recovered. In most cases, the client will not be responsible for case costs if there is no recovery. Our agreement regarding fees and expenses applicable to your specific case will be provided in writing.
Any result our lawyers may have achieved on behalf of clients in other matters does not necessarily indicate similar results can be obtained for other clients. Each case must stand on its own merit based upon the facts and the law. Some cases referenced were handled by our attorneys while working at other firms, and in some cases, other lawyers participated in the representation of a client.
Over 50 Years of Combined Experience Serving The Midlands and The People of South Carolina. Get In Touch Today For a Free Consultation.
