Could a Self-Driving Car Refuse to Admit Liability? The Ethical Dilemmas of AI
Home / Mark Stevens June 13, 2025 6:35 am What happens when no human is at the wheel during an accident—can a self-driving car refuse to admit liability? As autonomous vehicles become a reality on UK roads, questions surrounding responsibility, ethics, and insurance claims are becoming more pressing. With artificial intelligence (AI) making split-second driving decisions, understanding who is accountable in the event of an accident is not straightforward. This growing dilemma presents a new frontier in both legal and ethical terms. At Crystal Claims Management, we specialise in assisting clients with vehicle-related insurance matters. While we do not handle personal injury claims or offer legal referrals, we focus on helping drivers navigate claim disputes, liability issues, and accident resolution. In this blog, we explore the complex intersection of AI, ethics, and accountability in the age of self-driving vehicles. What Is a Self-Driving Car? Self-driving cars, or autonomous vehicles (AVs), are powered by a combination of sensors, machine learning algorithms, and real-time data analysis to navigate roads with little or no human intervention. These vehicles are categorised by levels of autonomy: Level Description 0 No Automation – Fully human controlled 1 Driver Assistance – Cruise control, etc. 2 Partial Automation – Lane-keeping + braking 3 Conditional Automation – Human override 4 High Automation – Limited human involvement 5 Full Automation – No human input required Levels 4 and 5 raise critical questions: If there’s no driver, who accepts liability when things go wrong? Legal Liability: Can AI Be Held Responsible? In traditional car accidents, liability typically falls on one or more of the following: The driver The vehicle owner The insurer A third party (e.g., local authority for road conditions) With self-driving cars, AI becomes the active decision-maker, but UK law does not currently recognise AI as a legal entity capable of holding responsibility. Instead, liability may shift to: The car manufacturer – if the accident was caused by a hardware or software failure. The software developer – in case of a programming flaw. The insurer – especially under the UK’s Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018, which places initial liability on insurers. The Ethical Dilemmas of AI in Accidents Can a Machine Make Moral Decisions? In critical situations, self-driving cars may face ethical dilemmas—should it protect its passengers or avoid a pedestrian at risk? These choices are hard-coded into the system, raising concerns about programmed morality and bias. Refusal to Accept Fault Unlike human drivers, an AI system cannot “refuse” to accept blame emotionally, but it can deny responsibility based on programming logic or data interpretation. This leads to disputes over data transparency and accountability. Lack of Emotional Judgement AI decisions are data-driven and lack human intuition or compassion, which are often necessary in post-accident interactions, including witness statements, negotiation, and empathy. Manufacturer Influence There’s a risk that manufacturers could programme systems to minimise perceived fault or share data selectively, complicating liability investigations and claim assessments. Self-Driving Vehicles and Accident Data Category Manual Vehicles Self-Driving (Pilot Studies) Reported Accident Rate (per mile) 4.1 3.2 Human Error Contribution (%) 94% <10% Software/System Failure (%) <1% 6% Claims Resolution Time (average) 10–14 days 18–25 days (pending fault analysis) Disputed Liability Cases (%) 27% 40% (due to data access issues) Sources: Department for Transport, UK; Euro NCAP; various pilot scheme reports Who Owns the Driving Data? Autonomous vehicles collect extensive data through cameras, radar, GPS, and on-board sensors. This data is essential in accident investigations—but who owns it? The manufacturer? The software provider? The vehicle owner? In many cases, this data is encrypted and inaccessible without the manufacturer’s approval, making claims more difficult to assess and prolonging disputes. How the UK’s Legal System Is Responding The Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 aims to address some of these complexities. Key takeaways: Insurers must pay compensation if a self-driving car causes an accident, even when no human is driving. Insurers may recover costs from the manufacturer or software provider if fault lies in design or programming. Drivers must still maintain certain levels of awareness unless the vehicle is certified as fully autonomous. While this law is a step forward, it doesn’t yet solve all ethical or practical concerns. How Crystal Claims Management Can Help Navigating claims involving semi- or fully autonomous vehicles can be confusing, especially with rising questions about data access and fault determination. At Crystal Claims Management, we help clients manage these challenges, offering support with: Claims where liability is unclear or contested Data collection and evidence review Communication with insurers and third parties Non-injury-related vehicle claim disputes We do not handle personal injury cases or provide legal advice, but we assist with practical claim handling and insurer negotiation across the UK Can AI Ever Be Truly Fair or Accountable? The issue of algorithmic bias is significant. AI systems learn from real-world data—but if that data includes historical biases (e.g., unsafe neighbourhood tags, road usage stereotypes), the AI may replicate them in decision-making. Furthermore, AI lacks moral accountability. If a decision causes harm, who answers for it? The company that designed the AI? The government that approved its use? The consumer who trusted the technology? These unresolved issues highlight the need for more robust ethical and legal frameworks. Key Ethical Considerations for AI-Driven Vehicles Transparency – How decisions are made by AI should be accessible and explainable. Accountability – There must be clear routes for holding someone or something responsible. Non-Discrimination – AI should not make biased decisions based on location, race, or vehicle type. Data Protection – Personal data collected must comply with UK GDPR and be used ethically. Human Oversight – Even in autonomous mode, there should be protocols for human intervention where necessary. Conclusion As self-driving cars become increasingly integrated into UK roads, their benefits come with complex challenges—especially regarding liability, ethics, and transparency. The notion of a machine “refusing” to admit fault highlights the urgent need for frameworks that define accountability in the absence of a human driver. Crystal Claims Management is committed to helping UK
