When a self-driving vehicle injures you, you are not dealing with a distracted driver — you are dealing with a corporation that employs engineers, lawyers, and insurance teams whose job is to argue the technology was not at fault. We make sure that argument doesn't hold.
A Waymo runs a red light and T-bones your car. An autonomous delivery truck drifts into your lane. A self-driving test vehicle fails to detect you in a crosswalk. The crash is the same as any other. The injury is real. But who you are dealing with afterward is completely different.
When a human driver hits you, you make a claim against their insurance company. When an autonomous vehicle hits you, you are making a claim against a company like Waymo — a subsidiary of Alphabet, one of the most well-resourced corporations in the world — or against a vehicle manufacturer whose legal position is that their software performed correctly. These defendants do not settle out of fear or inconvenience. They have permanent legal teams. They retain accident reconstruction experts before you have even left the hospital. They will argue that you contributed to the crash, that the vehicle acted within its parameters, and that your injuries are not as serious as you claim.
California is the most active autonomous vehicle testing and deployment state in the country. The DMV issues AV testing permits and requires manufacturers to report every collision within 10 days. The California Public Utilities Commission regulates autonomous ride services. These reporting obligations create a paper trail — incident reports, sensor logs, software version records — that is central evidence in any claim against an autonomous vehicle operator. Getting access to that evidence quickly matters.
You generally have two years from the date of the accident to file a claim (CCP §335.1). If a government-operated autonomous vehicle or infrastructure contributed to the crash, that window can drop to six months under the Government Tort Claims Act. In product liability claims against a manufacturer, the timeline is different again. The clock starts the moment the crash happens.
01
In a conventional car accident, liability typically falls on the at-fault driver. In an autonomous vehicle accident, it can fall on the vehicle manufacturer, the software developer, the company operating the AV service, the human safety driver if one was present, or some combination of all of them. California law allows you to pursue every responsible party simultaneously. Identifying all of them — and the insurance coverage behind each — requires immediate investigation.
02
Under California Vehicle Code §38750 and the DMV’s AV testing regulations, manufacturers operating autonomous vehicles in California must report accidents to the DMV within 10 days. These reports — along with the vehicle’s internal sensor data, camera footage, and software event logs — are discoverable in litigation. Unlike a conventional accident where evidence can be lost or destroyed, AV manufacturers have a regulatory obligation to preserve records. We request them immediately.
03
If the autonomous system caused the crash through a sensor failure, software defect, or system error, the manufacturer can be held liable under California product liability law. You do not need to prove the company was negligent — only that the product was defective and that defect caused your injury. This is a fundamentally different and often stronger legal theory than ordinary negligence.
04
Waymo, the dominant autonomous vehicle operator in Southern California, maintains $5,000,000 in third-party liability coverage per incident — covering passengers, pedestrians, and drivers of other vehicles. That coverage is available. The question is whether the company acknowledges liability and what they are willing to pay without being pushed into litigation.
2
years
from date of the accident
CCP §335.1
6
months
to file a government tort claim
* These are general deadlines. Always confirm your specific circumstances with an experienced attorney.
Every autonomous vehicle accident has a different liability structure, evidence profile, and corporate defendant. We handle all of them.
Waymo operates the largest commercial autonomous vehicle fleet in California, including active service areas in the greater Los Angeles region. Waymo accidents involve Alphabet's legal and insurance infrastructure directly. Their $5M per-incident liability policy is substantial — but their legal team is equally substantial. Evidence preservation is critical from the first day: Waymo's vehicles generate continuous sensor, camera, and software logs that are central to proving what the vehicle saw, what it decided, and why the crash happened.
Tesla's Autopilot and Full Self-Driving features have been involved in hundreds of documented accidents nationally. In California, Tesla is required to report AV-related crashes to the DMV. These cases involve both product liability against Tesla and potential negligence by the human driver who activated the system. We build claims on both tracks simultaneously.
Heavy autonomous trucks operating in California represent some of the most serious collision risk in the autonomous vehicle space. Accidents involving commercial AVs introduce federal trucking regulations (FMCSA), manufacturer liability, fleet operator liability, and cargo shipper liability — multiple defendants with separate insurance coverage. We identify every potentially liable party from the start.
Sidewalk and low-speed delivery robots operate in California under DMV permits. When a delivery bot strikes a pedestrian, cyclist, or causes a trip-and-fall, the operating company and the device manufacturer are both potentially liable. The casualty-to-publicity ratio on these cases is high — companies settle aggressively to avoid press.
If you were a passenger in a Waymo or similar autonomous ride service when the vehicle crashed or made an unsafe maneuver, you have a direct claim against the operating company. Passengers are covered automatically under Waymo's liability policy. The question is the amount — not whether coverage exists.
Autonomous vehicles are specifically required to yield to pedestrians and cyclists under California law. When the AV system fails to do so, liability is clear — but obtaining the sensor data and software logs that prove it requires prompt legal action and preservation demands sent immediately.
The attorney on the other side of a Waymo or Tesla claim is not a local insurance adjuster. It is a corporate legal team that handles these cases full-time. You need representation that prepares every case as though it is going to trial — because with these defendants, the credible threat of litigation is often the only thing that moves the number.
George works directly with every client at every stage of the case. You are not handed to a case manager. You are not updated by a paralegal. When a corporation's legal team is calling, you need to be talking to your attorney, not wondering whether your message has been passed along.
Autonomous vehicle data — sensor logs, camera footage, software event records, pre-crash alerts — is preserved on the vehicle's internal systems and in the manufacturer's cloud infrastructure. We send preservation demands the same day you retain us. Waiting costs evidence.
If we don't recover for you, you owe nothing. Zero out-of-pocket cost to start. Our interests are aligned with yours at every point in the case.
Self-driving vehicle manufacturers and their insurers respond to trial preparation, not to demand letters alone. Every case we take is built from the first meeting as though it will be presented to a jury. That preparation changes what gets offered before trial.
California law allows injured victims to recover every category of loss caused by the autonomous vehicle and the company behind it. We build claims that account for all of them.
After a self-driving car accident in California, multiple insurance policies may apply to your claim. Most people focus on the AV company’s policy — but that is rarely the complete picture.
We pull every potentially applicable policy as part of every case so no available coverage is left on the table.
| Court House Lawyers | Typical PI Firm | |
|---|---|---|
|
Case Review |
Same day, often within hours |
2–3 business days |
|
Attorney Access |
You speak directly with the attorney on your case |
Routed through a case manager or paralegal |
|
Evidence Preservation |
Same-day preservation demands for sensor data, camera footage, software event logs, and DMV incident reports |
Often delayed — AV proprietary data becomes harder to access with every passing day |
|
Liability Investigation |
We identify every responsible party: AV operator, software developer, vehicle manufacturer, human safety driver, government entity |
Many firms pursue only the most obvious defendant and stop there |
|
Insurance Strategy |
We identify every applicable coverage layer — AV company policy, manufacturer exposure, your own UM/UIM, MedPay, employer coverage — from day one |
Many firms pursue only the AV company’s policy and miss additional recovery |
|
Data Strategy |
We treat the company’s own sensor and event log data as the primary evidence source — and the starting point for challenging their liability position |
Most PI firms are not built to subpoena or evaluate proprietary AV vehicle data |
|
Trial Readiness |
Every case prepared for trial; AV companies and their insurers know it |
Settlement-only firms get lower offers — especially from corporate tech defendants |
|
Fees |
No win, no fees. Period. |
Can say the same, but watch for hidden costs at settlement |
George Mkrtchyan
Managing Attorney
George Mkrtchyan is the Managing Attorney of Court House Lawyers, a Glendale-based personal injury and consumer protection firm. Over the past decade, George has recovered millions for clients in car accident, rideshare, pedestrian, and product liability cases across California — including cases involving large corporate defendants, government entities, and insurers who initially denied all liability.
Autonomous vehicle cases are personal injury cases at their core — with a more sophisticated defendant on the other side. The same principles apply: document the evidence immediately, build the medical picture thoroughly, and be prepared to litigate when the offer does not reflect the actual value of the case. George has applied that approach successfully against defendants that include government transit agencies, major rideshare corporations, and national insurers who refused to pay what cases were worth until litigation made the alternative more expensive.
“Corporations with self-driving vehicles are betting that most injured people don’t understand what evidence exists or how to get it. Our job is to make sure that bet costs them.”— George Mkrtchyan, Managing Attorney
Every case is different. These results illustrate what focused, thorough representation delivers.
Personal Injury · Car Accident
Client was initially assigned 85% fault in a left-turn collision. After George and case manager Grant Abadzhyan took over, the fault assignment was reversed to zero and the client recovered full compensation.
Personal Injury · Car Accident
Three people were injured in the same accident, each with separate representation. George Mkrtchyan and Grant Abadzhyan secured the largest individual recovery of the three — the result of thorough early documentation and a faster demand strategy.
Personal Injury · Rideshare
Client injured in an Uber accident initially received nothing from the insurer. Court House Lawyers secured a $35,000 settlement within 30 days of filing a lawsuit.
Personal Injury · UIM Arbitration
Out-of-state underinsured motorist policy. The insurer refused to pay fairly. Court House Lawyers demanded arbitration and secured the full policy limits for the client.
Personal Injury · Government Entity
A wheelchair-bound client was thrown forward when a Metro conductor slammed on the brakes. Metro denied the claim outright. Court House Lawyers filed, obtained the conductor’s own footage — including a statement caught on Metro’s camera — and settled for $35,000.
Personal Injury · Car Accident
Client was offered $500 after a school bus accident. Court House Lawyers filed suit and recovered $50,000 — 100x the original offer.
Past results are specific to the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. Every matter is evaluated on its own merits.
Tell us what happened, what vehicle was involved, what your injuries are, and what information you have about the incident. We will give you our honest assessment of the case, every potentially liable party, and what evidence needs to be preserved immediately — even if you decide not to hire us.
We send same-day requests for the autonomous vehicle's sensor data, camera footage, pre-crash logs, and any DMV incident report filed by the manufacturer. We also request any available surveillance footage from the crash location before it is overwritten.
We identify every potentially liable party: the AV manufacturer, the software developer, the fleet operator, the human safety driver if applicable, and any government entity involved. Each may have separate insurance coverage and separate legal exposure.
We build a complete picture of your injuries — current treatment costs, future care needs, impact on your ability to work, and the full non-economic toll of the crash. In cases involving serious injury, we work with medical experts to project long-term costs accurately.
George handles your case personally — not a paralegal, not a case manager. In a claim against a corporate legal team that processes these cases full time, that continuity matters.
We map every applicable policy from the first day — Waymo's liability coverage, manufacturer product liability exposure, your own UM/UIM, MedPay, and any employer coverage. Missing one layer leaves money behind.
If you don't have a doctor or can't afford specialist care, we connect you with experienced providers in Glendale and the surrounding area who treat accident victims on a lien basis — no upfront cost.
We send a comprehensive demand to every applicable insurer and corporate defendant. We push back against lowball responses with documentation, applicable case law, and a clear willingness to litigate.
If any defendant refuses to pay what the case is worth, we file. Self-driving vehicle manufacturers respond to the credible threat of a jury seeing their technology fail in real time. We are prepared to take it there.
We talk through the incident, which vehicle and company were involved, your injuries, and the insurance information you have. You walk away knowing what your claim is worth, who is potentially liable, and what evidence needs to be preserved before another day passes.
We send same-day requests for the autonomous vehicle's sensor data, camera footage, pre-crash event logs, and any DMV incident report filed by the manufacturer. We also request any available surveillance footage from the crash location before it is overwritten — in California, commercial camera coverage is extensive and footage cycles quickly.
We identify every applicable coverage layer: the AV company's liability policy, the vehicle manufacturer's product liability exposure, your own UM/UIM coverage, MedPay, any employer policy, and any third-party driver coverage. We document exactly which policies are available and in what amounts before a single demand goes out.
We identify every potentially liable party — the AV operator, the software developer, the hardware manufacturer, any human safety driver present, and any government entity whose road condition or signal failure contributed. Each may carry separate insurance coverage and separate legal exposure. All of them are named.
We document your injuries, medical costs, lost wages, pain and suffering, and future impact comprehensively. We send a complete demand to every applicable insurer and corporate defendant. We push back against lowball responses with documentation, applicable product liability case law, and a clear willingness to file.
If any defendant refuses to pay what the case is worth, we file. Self-driving vehicle manufacturers respond to the credible threat of a jury evaluating their technology's performance in real conditions. Every case is prepared from the first meeting as if it will be tried — and that preparation is exactly why most cases settle for significantly more before they ever get there.
* These are general deadlines. Always confirm your specific circumstances with an experienced attorney.
Liability depends on what caused the crash. If the autonomous system failed — through a sensor error, software defect, or failure to detect a hazard — the vehicle manufacturer and the company operating the AV service are both potentially liable under California product liability law. If a human safety driver was present and failed to intervene, they may share liability. California allows you to pursue every responsible party simultaneously, so responsibility is not an either/or question.
Yes. Companies like Waymo, Tesla, and autonomous truck operators are legal entities that can be sued in California courts. A claim against an autonomous vehicle company is typically framed as a product liability claim — the argument that the vehicle’s technology was defective and that defect caused your injury — or as a negligence claim against the operator of the vehicle. In many cases both apply.
Yes. California’s Department of Motor Vehicles issues autonomous vehicle testing and deployment permits. Companies like Waymo hold commercial deployment permits allowing them to operate fully autonomous vehicles without a human driver on public roads in approved areas. California also requires AV operators to carry significant insurance and to report every collision within 10 days.
Autonomous vehicles generate far more recoverable data than a conventional car. Sensor logs record what every camera, lidar, and radar unit detected in the seconds before the crash. Software event logs record every decision the vehicle’s system made. Pre-crash alerts, speed, braking, and steering data are all preserved internally and in the manufacturer’s cloud systems. California’s DMV reporting requirements also create an official incident record. This evidence is critical — and accessing it requires prompt legal action.
They often say this. It does not end the inquiry. Independent expert analysis of the vehicle’s raw sensor and software data frequently tells a different story than what the manufacturer’s own team reports. The DMV incident report and any third-party surveillance footage of the crash provide independent verification. We do not accept a corporate defendant’s interpretation of their own data as the final answer.
Nothing upfront and nothing unless we win. We work on a contingency fee — meaning our fee comes from the recovery at the end of the case. If we don’t recover for you, you owe us nothing.
Report the accident immediately. Make sure the responding officer's report identifies the vehicle as autonomous and notes the company name. This is the first official record of the incident.
Capture the vehicle's markings, sensors, and any visible camera or lidar equipment. Photograph the company's name and vehicle ID number. Get the vehicle license plate. Capture the crash scene, your injuries, and any property damage before anything is moved.
Some AV test vehicles still carry a human safety driver. If one was present, get their name, contact information, and employer. If the vehicle was fully driverless, confirm this with any witnesses and note it in your account of the incident.
If a Waymo or manufacturer representative arrives at the scene or contacts you afterward, do not give a statement. Tell them you have retained an attorney. Anything you say will be documented and used to minimize your claim.
Go to an emergency room or urgent care even if pain is not immediately severe. Adrenaline masks injury. A documented on-scene medical assessment is critical evidence. Follow every follow-up recommendation your doctor makes.
Names and phone numbers of anyone who saw the crash or saw the vehicle behaving erratically before impact. Bystander accounts establish what the vehicle was doing independently of the company's own sensor data — and can be critical if the company disputes liability.
If a human safety driver was present, collect their name, employer, and contact information. If the vehicle was fully driverless, photograph the vehicle's external ID number, company markings, and license plate clearly before it moves. This is the equivalent of exchanging information after any other accident.
Call (818) 293-8293 Free, same-day review. We tell you what evidence to preserve, who is liable, and what your claim is worth before you speak with anyone from the company involved.
10
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AND SUCCESS
Trusted California self-driving car accident attorney holding Waymo, Tesla, and autonomous vehicle companies accountable — recovering full compensation for medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and everything the crash took from you.
California’s roads now carry autonomous vehicles operating without a human behind the wheel. When one of them injures you, the company behind it is already preparing its defense. We make sure you are not navigating that alone.
You didn’t cause this. You shouldn’t be the one paying for it. From our Glendale office, we represent autonomous vehicle accident victims across California — including Los Angeles, Burbank, Pasadena, the San Fernando Valley, and statewide.
