By Sami Sedghani, Pharm.D., J.D. · Synergist Law, P.C. · San Rafael, California · Updated October 28, 2026
This page provides general information only about California law as it applies to people outside a driverless vehicle. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its own facts. Nothing on this page states or implies that Waymo is responsible for any particular crash.
A Waymo accident lawyer usually starts with a question that does not come up in an ordinary crash: were you inside the car or outside it? If you were hit by a Waymo while walking, riding a bike or scooter, or driving your own car, you never accepted Waymo’s rider terms, and the arbitration clause in those terms is written for people who use Waymo’s services. That changes where a claim can be heard, which deadlines apply, and how the evidence is gathered.
This page is written for those non-riders. Our self-driving car accident page covers the wider picture, including riders, autonomous trucks, and driver-assist systems.
Who is liable if a Waymo hits you?
The starting point is usually Waymo LLC, the company that holds the California DMV permits for its driverless vehicles. When no one is in the driver’s seat, Vehicle Code section 38750(a)(4) treats the person who causes the autonomous technology to engage as the vehicle’s “operator.” And under Civil Code section 1714, a company that puts vehicles on public roads is responsible for injuries caused by its want of ordinary care, like anyone else.
- Negligence. Was the vehicle operated the way a reasonably careful driver would have operated it, for example in yielding at a crosswalk or passing a cyclist? Under Evidence Code section 669, violating a safety statute can create a presumption of negligence. How that presumption applies when the “driver” is software has not been decided by a California appellate court.
- Product liability. California has applied strict liability to defective products since Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57. For people outside the vehicle, the key case is Elmore v. American Motors Corp. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 578. The California Supreme Court held that a bystander injured by a defective vehicle can use strict liability, reasoning that bystanders should be entitled to greater protection than the consumer or user when injury to them is reasonably foreseeable. Whether a defect existed is a fact question, usually decided with engineering testimony.
One defense is off the table. Since January 1, 2026, Civil Code section 1714.46 bars a defendant who developed or used artificial intelligence from arguing that the AI autonomously caused the harm, while keeping defenses based on causation, foreseeability, and others’ comparative fault.
Others can share responsibility: a human driver who struck the Waymo or forced it into you, a passenger who opened a door into a bike lane, the maker of a vehicle component, or a public agency responsible for a dangerous road. Under Civil Code section 1431.2, each defendant’s share of non-economic damages is generally limited to its percentage of fault, so identifying every responsible party early matters.
Is a human involved when a Waymo drives?
Sometimes, in a limited way. In its January 2026 Passenger Safety Plan filed with the California Public Utilities Commission, Waymo describes a Remote Assistance team that the vehicle can contact for information and suggestions while it continues to drive itself, and an Event Response team that works with first responders and, in very limited circumstances, can remotely reposition a vehicle at very low speed over a very short distance. Vehicle Code section 38751 also requires a remote human operator who can immobilize a vehicle or move it as emergency officials direct. Records can show whether remote staff were involved around a crash. Whether those staff are employees or contractors is a fact question developed in discovery.
Waymo lawsuit or arbitration? Why non-riders are in a different position
Waymo’s Terms of Service (last updated September 29, 2026) apply to the use of its cars, apps, and other services. A person agrees to them by accepting them or by using the services. Section 18 sends most disputes to binding individual arbitration before JAMS, after a written claim notice and a 45-day informal resolution period. Users can opt out by email within 30 days of first accepting a version of the terms, and a claim must be included in a claim notice within two years after it arises.
A pedestrian, cyclist, or driver who was never a Waymo user did not accept any of that. Arbitration rests on an agreement, so a person who never agreed is generally not bound by it, and a claim can be filed in court under ordinary California rules. A passenger riding in the Waymo is in a different position.
Waymo pedestrian and cyclist accidents: how fault is shared
- Crosswalks. A driver must yield to a pedestrian in a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, and slow down or take other action as needed to keep the pedestrian safe. A pedestrian may not suddenly step into the path of a vehicle so close that it is an immediate hazard (Vehicle Code section 21950).
- Outside a crosswalk. A pedestrian must yield to vehicles close enough to be an immediate hazard, and the driver still owes due care (section 21954). Officers may not stop a pedestrian for crossing mid-block between signals unless a reasonably careful person would see an immediate danger of collision, but the pedestrian’s duty of due care remains (section 21955).
- Cyclists. A person riding a bicycle on a highway has the rights and duties of a driver (section 21200). A motor vehicle passing a bicycle in the same direction must leave at least three feet, and change lanes first when another lane is available and it is safe (section 21760).
When both sides made mistakes, California applies pure comparative fault under Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804. A pedestrian or cyclist who was partly at fault can still recover, reduced by their own share. In a Waymo case, the vehicle’s recordings often settle questions that witnesses disagree about, such as when a pedestrian entered the crosswalk or how close the vehicle passed a bike.
What a Waymo records, and why early preservation matters
To deploy driverless vehicles in California, a manufacturer must certify that each vehicle has a separate mechanism that captures sensor data for at least 30 seconds before any collision with a vehicle, object, or person in autonomous mode, stored read-only and preserved for three years (Vehicle Code section 38750(c)(1)(G)). The statute does not give the injured person a direct right to that data. It is usually obtained through a written preservation demand and, after a lawsuit is filed, discovery.
The 30-second record is a floor. Relevant records can include camera video, the planned route, logs of contact with remote staff, crash reports to regulators, and the company’s internal review. Evidence outside the company moves faster: doorbell, business, and bus video is often recorded over within days.
Waymo crash reports: NHTSA’s Standing General Order and the public data
Companies operating automated driving systems must report certain crashes to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under its Standing General Order 2021-01. The current Third Amended order took effect June 16, 2025. A report is required when the automated system was in use within 30 seconds of a crash that meets certain thresholds. A crash that strikes a “vulnerable road user,” such as a pedestrian or cyclist, is in the most serious category, which NHTSA says must be reported within five calendar days after the company learns of it.
NHTSA publishes redacted report data monthly. It cautions that the data is not normalized for miles driven and that initial reports may be incomplete. A report is not a finding of fault, but it can confirm what the company told the government about a crash, and when. The DMV’s April 2026 regulations also expanded collision reporting to the DMV.
How police handle a crash with a Waymo
An officer cannot ticket a driver who is not there. Since July 1, 2026, under Vehicle Code section 38752 (from Assembly Bill 1777), a peace officer who observes an alleged traffic violation by an autonomous vehicle may issue a “notice of autonomous vehicle noncompliance” to the manufacturer, identifying the alleged violation, the date, time, and location, and the plate number. Under the DMV’s implementation memo, the officer may inform the remote operator and leaves the notice where the vehicle’s registration and insurance information is kept, or hands it to a company representative at the scene.
The manufacturer must send the notice to the DMV within 72 hours, or 24 hours if the officer marks it for priority review because the driving appeared to present a risk of injury to others. A notice does not create a presumption that the vehicle is unsafe, and the company can contest it. It is still a record of what an officer saw.
The collision report is a separate document. On Highway 101, Interstate 580, and in unincorporated Marin, the responding agency is generally the California Highway Patrol’s Marin Area office, which releases reports to involved parties through its crash report request page. On city streets it is usually the city’s police department.
Where Waymo operates in California, and what that means for Marin
Waymo’s San Francisco service page describes rider service throughout the San Francisco Peninsula, from San Francisco down to San Jose. Its authority is broader. The DMV approved an expanded deployment area in November 2025, and on August 14, 2026, the CPUC approved Waymo’s updated Passenger Safety Plan for it. Waymo’s filing describes its approved area as covering parts of 12 Northern California counties, Marin among them, and lists Corte Madera among the newly added municipalities. The DMV’s permit list shows Waymo authorized for driverless deployment.
Approval is not service. The Waymo service pages we reviewed on October 28, 2026, did not list Marin. For Marin residents, the more common situation today is a crash while visiting or commuting into San Francisco or the Peninsula. The same California law applies wherever in the state the crash happened.
Insurance, the defendant, and what affects a Waymo accident claim
Who the defendant is shapes a claim as much as the injury does. A company testing or deploying autonomous vehicles in California must maintain insurance, a surety bond, or proof of self-insurance of $5 million (Vehicle Code section 38750). That is a permit condition, not a cap on recovery and not a promise that a claim will be paid. Liability and damages still have to be proven.
When a human driver shares fault, the picture changes. California’s minimum auto liability limits are $30,000 per person and $60,000 per accident (Vehicle Code section 16056), and a judgment beyond an individual’s policy can be hard to collect. If that driver was uninsured or fled, your own coverage may apply, depending on its terms; see our guide to uninsured and underinsured motorist claims in California. Past medical expenses are generally measured by amounts actually paid or owed under Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541. Beyond that, value generally depends on the seriousness and permanence of the injuries, lost income, how clearly the crash caused the harm, and how fault is shared.
How we prepare a case when a Waymo is involved
We start by building the timeline from sources outside the company: the police report, any notice of noncompliance, third-party video, witnesses, and the NHTSA report once published. We send Waymo a preservation demand that names the data we expect to exist, check whether another driver, a passenger, or a public agency belongs in the case, and gather the medical records that show what the crash did to you.
Before founding Synergist Law, Sami spent nine years at large law firms representing companies in complex litigation, including product liability cases, and he trained as a pharmacist at UCSF. The first taught Sami how a well-resourced defendant builds its file and which records it asks for first. The second helps us read medical records the way a defense reviewer will. Neither background predicts how a case will turn out. It shapes how we prepare one.
Waymo accident lawyer FAQ
Can you sue Waymo if a Waymo hits you as a pedestrian or cyclist?
Generally, yes. A person outside the vehicle can bring a claim against Waymo LLC for negligence and, depending on the facts, product liability, and a non-rider who never accepted Waymo’s terms is generally not bound by its arbitration clause. You still have to prove that the vehicle’s conduct or a defect caused your injuries.
What happens if a Waymo passenger opens a door into a cyclist?
Vehicle Code section 22517 prohibits opening a door on the side of moving traffic unless it is reasonably safe and does not interfere with traffic. The passenger may be responsible. The company’s drop-off location and any door-warning features may also be at issue, depending on the facts.
Does Waymo have to report a crash with a pedestrian?
Yes, when the crash meets federal thresholds. Under NHTSA’s Standing General Order, a crash that strikes a pedestrian or cyclist while the automated system was in use within 30 seconds of the crash is in the most serious category, which NHTSA says must be reported within five calendar days after the company learns of it. NHTSA publishes redacted data monthly and cautions that a report is not a finding of fault.
How do I get the video and data from the Waymo that hit me?
California requires deployed autonomous vehicles to capture at least 30 seconds of pre-collision sensor data and preserve it for three years, but the law does not give the injured person a direct right to it. The usual path is a written preservation demand naming the records expected to exist, followed by discovery if a lawsuit is filed.
How long do I have to file a Waymo accident claim in California?
For most personal injury claims, the general rule is two years from the injury under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. If a public entity shares responsibility, for example because of a dangerous road condition, a written government claim generally must be presented within six months under Government Code section 911.2. Riders may also face the two-year claim-notice requirement in Waymo’s terms. Because the deadline depends on the facts, it is better to have a licensed California attorney determine the deadline that applies than to calculate it yourself.
Should I talk to Waymo’s claims team after a crash?
The company may contact you soon after a crash, and it already has the vehicle’s video and sensor data, while you do not. Hold off on recorded statements until you consult with a licensed attorney.
Talk to a Waymo accident lawyer in Marin County
If you were seriously injured by a Waymo or another driverless vehicle while walking, cycling, or driving in Marin County, San Francisco, or elsewhere in California, we can review the records, the insurance, and your medical care with you. Sami Sedghani, Pharm.D., J.D. handles these cases personally. Call (415) 835-4448 or request a free consultation. See also our product liability page and personal injury FAQ page. Se habla español. Office: 1299 4th Street, Suite 301, San Rafael, CA 94901.
Contingency fee: no attorney’s fee unless we obtain a recovery for you. Depending on the terms of your written fee agreement, you may be responsible for case costs we advance even if there is no recovery. Your fee agreement explains this before representation begins.
Autonomous vehicle law, permits, and company terms described here may change after the date shown above. Every case turns on its own facts, and nothing on this page predicts any outcome, timeline, or value in your matter.