How Does Nebraska Law Address Accidents Involving Autonomous Vehicle Features?

Nebraska addresses accidents involving autonomous vehicle features through a combination of a 2018 state law governing automated driving systems and its existing negligence and product liability rules. Rather than creating an entirely separate legal category for every crash involving adaptive cruise control, lane-keeping assistance, or automatic emergency braking, Nebraska courts generally apply the same fault-based framework used in any other car accident, while also drawing on the state’s specific statutes for automated driving systems when a vehicle’s technology is directly implicated. Depending on how a crash happened, a driver, a vehicle manufacturer, a software developer, or more than one of these parties may share legal responsibility for the resulting injuries.

For families across Nebraska, these cases raise unfamiliar questions that a routine rear-end collision does not. Knowles Law Firm has represented injured Nebraskans for more than five decades, and our self-driving and autonomous vehicle accident attorneys stay current on how state law, manufacturer disclosures, and vehicle data intersect in these claims. As automated features move beyond cruise control and lane-keeping assistance toward driverless-capable vehicles and rideshare pilot programs in other states, Nebraska drivers are asking these questions more often each year. Below, we walk through how Nebraska law currently treats these accidents, where liability questions tend to arise, and what steps can help protect your claim.

Nebraska’s Law on Automated Driving Systems and What It Means for Your Claim

In 2018, Nebraska enacted Legislative Bill 989, the state law that first authorized automated driving systems and driverless-capable vehicles to operate on Nebraska roads. That law, now codified in the Nebraska Revised Statutes, requires that any automated driving system feature operate within its intended operational design domain and comply with the Nebraska Rules of the Road while it is engaged. A licensed human driver must also be present in most circumstances and must regain manual control of the vehicle whenever the system requests it. For vehicles designed to operate without a conventional driver at all, the law requires the vehicle to reach a “minimal risk condition,” such as safely stopping, if the automated system malfunctions, and it requires the vehicle to remain capable of following ordinary traffic laws, including safely negotiating railroad crossings. Before an automated-driving-system-equipped vehicle can operate on public roads, its owner must also show proof of financial responsibility that satisfies Nebraska’s Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act. You can review the full statutory language through the Nebraska Legislature’s official statutes database.

This framework matters because it shows that Nebraska does regulate automated driving technology, even though those statutes were written mainly to authorize testing and operation rather than to address every scenario involving semi-autonomous features like adaptive cruise control or lane-keeping assistance. When a case does not fall neatly under the automated driving systems statutes, Nebraska’s ordinary negligence and comparative fault rules apply. Under Nebraska’s modified comparative negligence rule, an injured person’s recovery is barred only if their own fault equals or exceeds the combined fault of everyone else involved, meaning a driver who was partially at fault for relying on a malfunctioning safety feature can often still recover a share of their damages.

Levels of Vehicle Automation and Why They Matter for Liability

Not every vehicle marketed with “self-driving” or “autonomous” features actually removes the driver from the equation, and the distinction matters for figuring out who may be responsible after a crash. The automotive industry and federal regulators generally describe vehicle automation on a six-point scale, from basic driver assistance, such as adaptive cruise control or automatic emergency braking that still requires full driver attention, up through more advanced systems that can handle steering, braking, and acceleration in limited conditions while still expecting a driver to take back control when asked. At the far end of that scale are vehicles designed to operate with no human driver involved at all, which is the category Nebraska’s driverless-capable vehicle statute specifically addresses.

Most vehicles on Nebraska roads today fall somewhere in the middle of that spectrum. Manufacturers often market these modern vehicle safety features as driver assistance rather than full autonomy, which means the human driver typically retains legal responsibility for supervising the vehicle even while a feature like lane-keeping assistance or adaptive cruise control is active. That distinction often becomes a central issue in a claim: was the technology doing what it was designed to do, was the driver paying attention and ready to intervene, or did both factors combine to cause the crash? Sorting through vehicle data, owner’s manuals, and manufacturer marketing materials is often necessary to answer that question.

Marketing Claims Versus Actual Vehicle Capabilities

Manufacturers do not always make this distinction clear in their marketing materials, and terms like “autopilot” or “full self-driving” can suggest a greater level of independence than the technology actually provides. That gap between marketing language and a feature’s real capabilities can itself become a point of dispute in a failure-to-warn claim, particularly when a driver reasonably believed the vehicle could handle a situation the system was never designed to manage.

Federal Vehicle Safety Oversight and the Growing Use of Rideshare and Driverless Taxi Services

Nebraska’s automated driving systems statute operates alongside federal oversight from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the agency responsible for vehicle safety standards nationwide. Every vehicle currently sold in the United States still requires a driver’s full attention at all times, even when advanced driver assistance features are engaged, and federal regulators require manufacturers and operators of vehicles equipped with certain driver assistance and automated driving systems to report qualifying crashes so the agency can track how these technologies perform on public roads. You can review the agency’s current position through NHTSA’s automated vehicle safety guidance. That federal reporting framework can become a useful source of evidence in a Nebraska claim, since it may show whether a manufacturer or software developer already knew about a pattern of similar failures before your crash occurred.

Rideshare and Driverless Taxi Liability

As the technology continues to expand, more companies are testing or deploying rideshare fleets and driverless taxis that rely on these same automated driving systems, and Nebraska drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians may increasingly share the road with these vehicles even before a dedicated driverless taxi service operates locally. The liability principles described throughout this page, negligence, comparative fault, and product liability, apply whether the vehicle involved is privately owned, part of a rideshare fleet, or operating without a driver at all. If you were hurt in a crash involving a rideshare vehicle using automated driving features, your claim may also raise questions about the rideshare company’s own responsibility for maintenance, deployment, and driver oversight, an issue we discuss further in our overview of rideshare accident claims in Omaha.

Product Liability Claims for Defective Autonomous Features

When an autonomous or semi-autonomous feature malfunctions or fails to perform as advertised, injured parties may have grounds for product liability claims against the vehicle’s manufacturer, in addition to or instead of a claim against the human driver. These claims generally fall into three categories: design defects, manufacturing defects, and failure-to-warn claims.

A design defect claim argues that the autonomous feature’s underlying design created an unreasonable danger, even when the system worked exactly as the manufacturer intended. A manufacturing defect claim instead argues that a particular vehicle’s technology differed from the manufacturer’s intended design, perhaps because of a faulty sensor or a software installation error. A failure-to-warn claim focuses on whether the manufacturer adequately informed drivers about what the feature could and could not do, including its known limitations in poor weather, construction zones, or low-light conditions.

Common Autonomous Feature Failures Leading to Accidents

Several types of autonomous feature failures commonly contribute to serious accidents:

• Automatic emergency braking systems that fail to detect pedestrians, cyclists, or stopped vehicles
• Lane-keeping assistance systems that overcorrect or fail to recognize lane markings
• Adaptive cruise control that does not maintain a safe following distance
• Parking assistance systems that miscalculate distances to nearby objects
• Blind spot monitoring systems that fail to alert drivers to approaching vehicles

Each of these failures calls for a careful investigation into whether the malfunction resulted from a design flaw, a software error, a sensor problem, or inadequate driver education about the system’s limitations. In some cases, a failure traces back to a component already covered by a manufacturer recall, which is one reason reviewing a vehicle’s recall history is often an early step in building a product liability claim.

How an Autonomous Vehicle Accident Investigation Differs From a Typical Crash

Investigating an accident involving autonomous or semi-autonomous features generally takes longer and requires more technical resources than investigating a standard two-vehicle collision. Beyond the police report and eyewitness accounts used in most car accident claims, these cases often depend on data pulled directly from the vehicle itself, including event data recorder logs, sensor readings, and records of any over-the-air software updates the vehicle received before the crash.

Because that data can be modified, overwritten, or deleted during routine vehicle use, attorneys handling these claims often send a preservation letter to the manufacturer and any other involved company as soon as possible after the accident. This step puts those companies on notice that the evidence must be retained, and it can become important later if a dispute arises about what the data actually shows. Reconstructing the sequence of events may also require coordinating between a traditional accident reconstructionist and a witness with a technical background in the specific autonomous system involved, since the two disciplines often need to work together to explain how a vehicle’s software and hardware interacted with the roadway conditions present at the time of the crash. Delays in this process can work against an injured person, since some vehicles overwrite onboard data logs after a set number of drive cycles, which makes prompt legal representation especially important in these cases.

Multi-Party Liability and Technical Witness Testimony

Autonomous vehicle accident cases present distinct challenges when it comes to establishing liability. Vehicle data must be preserved and analyzed to understand exactly how the autonomous features were functioning at the moment of the crash, and that often requires prompt cooperation from a manufacturer that may be reluctant to share detailed technical information about its systems. Testimony from qualified witnesses, such as engineers, software developers, and automotive safety researchers, often becomes necessary to explain complex technology to a judge or jury, including industry standards and whether the manufacturer met reasonable safety expectations given what was known at the time the vehicle was designed and sold. Insurance companies, meanwhile, often dispute these claims by arguing that a driver should have maintained control of the vehicle despite relying on an automated feature, regardless of whether that feature malfunctioned. Determining which parties may share fault often requires the same kind of multi-party analysis used in other complex crashes, such as accidents involving a commercial truck’s driver, company, and equipment manufacturer.

Our team at Knowles Law Firm works to identify every party who may share responsibility for an accident involving autonomous vehicle features, and to gather the technical records and testimony needed to support a claim before that evidence can be lost or overwritten.

How Insurance Coverage Applies to Autonomous Vehicle Accidents

Nebraska requires every motor vehicle on public roads, including vehicles equipped with automated driving systems, to carry insurance or otherwise demonstrate financial responsibility. For vehicles specifically equipped with an automated driving system, state law requires proof of that coverage before the vehicle can operate at all, which can make an insurance policy an important early source of information in an accident investigation.

Insurance companies have also had to adjust how they evaluate risk as these features have become more common. Rather than focusing solely on a driver’s history, insurers increasingly look at the reliability of a vehicle’s sensors, the quality of its software, and how the system performed in the conditions present at the time of a crash. That shift can work in an injured person’s favor, since it often means more technical data exists about how the vehicle behaved leading up to the collision, but it can also mean insurers are more prepared to dispute a claim by arguing the human driver should have intervened.

Insurance Adjuster Tactics After an Automated Feature Crash

If you were injured in a crash involving an autonomous or semi-autonomous feature, an insurance adjuster may try to resolve your claim quickly and for less than it may be worth, particularly before all the relevant vehicle data has been reviewed. Speaking with an attorney before providing a recorded statement can help protect your position. These questions about whether new vehicle technology helps or hurts overall road safety extend well beyond any one crash, and we explore that broader trend in our discussion of whether technology is increasing or decreasing traffic accidents across Nebraska.

Compensation That May Be Available After an Autonomous Vehicle Accident

The types of compensation available after an accident involving autonomous vehicle features are generally similar to what may be available in any Nebraska car accident claim, though the presence of a product liability claim against a manufacturer can sometimes expand the sources of recovery. Depending on the facts of your case, compensation may include reimbursement for medical treatment and future care related to your injuries, lost income if your injuries kept you from working, property damage to your vehicle, and compensation for pain, suffering, and the overall impact the accident had on your daily life.

When a product liability claim against a manufacturer is part of the case, additional categories of damages may become relevant depending on the specific defect alleged and how the claim is pursued. Because these cases often involve more than one potentially responsible party, the total value of a claim can depend heavily on how liability is ultimately divided among the driver, the manufacturer, and any other company involved in designing or maintaining the vehicle’s autonomous systems. An attorney familiar with both personal injury and product liability law can help evaluate which sources of recovery may apply to your specific situation.

Protecting Your Rights After an Autonomous Vehicle Accident

If you have been injured in an accident involving a vehicle’s autonomous or semi-autonomous features, taking a few immediate steps can help protect your legal rights. Document the accident scene thoroughly, including photographs of vehicle damage, road conditions, and any visible sensors or cameras on the vehicles involved. Ask responding officers to note in their report which automated features, if any, were active at the time of the crash.

Preserving Vehicle and Dashcam Data

Notify the vehicle’s manufacturer and your attorney as soon as possible so that vehicle data can be preserved. Many modern vehicles automatically log information from their driver-assistance and automated systems, but that data may be overwritten or lost if it is not requested promptly. These same evidence-preservation steps matter in accidents involving electric vehicles and other newer automotive technology, where manufacturer data can be just as important to a claim.

If your vehicle or a nearby vehicle was equipped with a dashcam, preserve that footage as soon as possible, since it may show the moments leading up to the crash from an angle that vehicle sensor data alone cannot capture. We discuss how dash cam footage can strengthen an accident claim in more detail, and the same principles apply just as directly to crashes involving autonomous vehicle features.

It is also worth being cautious about what you say to an insurance representative before you have consulted with an attorney who understands how autonomous vehicle technology intersects with Nebraska’s accident laws. A recorded statement made early in a claim, before the facts about a malfunctioning system are fully known, can sometimes be used against you later.

Frequently Asked Questions About Nebraska Autonomous Vehicle Accidents

Contact Knowles Law Firm for Help With Your Autonomous Vehicle Accident Case

Accidents involving autonomous vehicle features sit at the intersection of personal injury law and evolving automotive technology, and they often call for a different kind of investigation than a typical two-car collision. Knowles Law Firm is a family-owned firm that has represented Nebraskans in car accident and product liability claims for more than five decades, and our attorneys understand how to work through the technical and legal questions these cases raise, including vehicle data, manufacturer records, and testimony from qualified witnesses.

If you have been injured in a crash involving a vehicle’s autonomous or semi-autonomous features, do not let an insurance company minimize your claim by suggesting you were responsible for trusting technology that was marketed as a safety feature. We can review the details of your accident, help identify every party who may share responsibility, and walk you through the options available under Nebraska law. Complete our contact form for a free consultation about your autonomous vehicle accident case.