When a Human Driver Is Still Responsible
Throughout Chicago's current Waymo mapping and testing phase, a human safety driver is behind the wheel of every Waymo vehicle. Under traditional Illinois auto negligence rules, that driver's negligence (speeding, distracted operation, failure to brake, failure to yield) creates direct liability against the driver and vicarious or respondeat superior liability against Waymo as the principal. The safety driver's personal auto policy is typically the first layer, with Waymo's commercial coverage available where the driver was acting in the course and scope of their employment or contract relationship.
In Waymo-involved crashes nationally, the most common scenario is a human driver in another vehicle causing the crash. NHTSA Standing General Order data through November 2025 documents 1,429 incidents, with the substantial majority involving fault by another motorist. Both of the two documented fatalities through that period involved fault by parties other than Waymo on the face of the reports. In those cases, the at-fault driver's personal auto insurance is the primary recovery source. See our companion analysis on Waymo fatality data for the breakdown of the NHTSA totals.
When Waymo (the Company) Pays
When the autonomous system itself contributes to or causes the crash, claims extend directly to Waymo LLC and its parent Alphabet Inc. The recurring scenarios that trigger Waymo's own liability include:
Software Error or Faulty Decision-Making
The Waymo Driver software stack handles perception, prediction, planning, and control. Errors at any layer (misclassification of an object, incorrect prediction of another vehicle's behavior, unsafe planning decision, miscommanded control output) can produce a crash. The May 2024 recall of 672 Waymo vehicles for utility pole detection failures and the May 2025 recall of 1,212 vehicles for collisions with roadside barriers are documented examples of software-level defects that produced crashes in operational markets.
Sensor or Hardware Failure
Waymo's sensor stack includes LiDAR (Waymo has historically used its own Laser Bear Honeycomb), cameras, and radar. A sensor failure that prevents the autonomous system from perceiving an object or vehicle accurately can be the proximate cause of a crash. Hardware failures may also implicate the component supplier in a separate product liability count.
Defective Mapping or Inadequate Training Data
Waymo operates from high-definition pre-built maps of its operational design domain. Inaccurate maps, outdated infrastructure information, or inadequate training data for Chicago-specific conditions (winter weather, salt-encrusted lane markings, bike-lane geometry, school-bus stop arm detection given the unresolved Austin school-bus pattern) can produce crashes attributable to mapping or training defects.
Other Potentially Liable Parties
Other Motorists
A human driver who hit the Waymo, ran a red light into the Waymo's path, or otherwise caused the crash through their own negligence. Their personal auto policy responds first.
Vehicle Integrator
Magna integrated the Chrysler Pacifica platform; Jaguar Land Rover produced the I-PACE; Zeekr produced the sixth-generation platform. The integrator may be a defendant under product liability theories if the integration itself contributed to the defect.
Component Manufacturers
LiDAR units, camera systems, compute hardware (typically Nvidia or Intel), and brake, steering, and electrical components may each be the subject of a separate product liability count.
Public Entities
If a dangerous roadway condition (missing signage, defective signal timing, road design defect) contributed to the crash, the responsible governmental entity (City of Chicago, Chicago Department of Transportation, Cook County, IDOT) may be a defendant. Claims against governmental entities are subject to a one-year statute and pre-suit notice requirements under the Tort Immunity Act at 745 ILCS 10/.
How Insurance Coverage Works in Practice
Autonomous vehicle companies typically carry substantial commercial liability insurance and umbrella coverage for their testing and operational fleets. The exact Waymo policy limits are not publicly disclosed, but the coverage stack is significantly larger than the standard Illinois auto minimums. In a multi-defendant Waymo case, the coverage available may include:
| Safety driver's personal auto policy | Layer 1 |
| Waymo commercial auto / fleet coverage | Layer 2 |
| Waymo / Alphabet product liability coverage | Layer 3 |
| Vehicle integrator product liability (Magna, JLR, Zeekr) | Layer 4 |
| Component manufacturer coverage | Layer 5 |
| Other motorist's auto policy (if applicable) | Layer 6 |
| Plaintiff's UM/UIM under 215 ILCS 5/143a | Layer 7 |
The Illinois Minimums Gap
Illinois Auto Insurance Minimums
$25,000 per person, $50,000 per accident bodily injury; $20,000 property damage. The standard Illinois minimum auto liability requirement, applicable to private auto policies including those of safety drivers.
The $25,000 per-person Illinois minimum is dramatically inadequate for any serious autonomous vehicle injury. California by comparison requires $5 million per autonomous vehicle operator for AV testers. The pending Illinois HB4663 does not raise the minimums for AV operators above the standard auto minimums, leaving a substantial coverage gap that pending legislation has not addressed. This is one of the most contested issues in the Illinois AV legislative debate.
UM/UIM Stacking
Illinois UM/UIM Coverage Requirement
All Illinois auto insurance policies must include uninsured motorist and underinsured motorist coverage at limits at least equal to the policyholder's bodily injury liability limits. UM/UIM coverage responds when the at-fault driver is uninsured, underinsured, or unidentified (hit-and-run).
If the recovery against Waymo and the other defendants does not fully compensate the injuries, your own UIM coverage may stack above the available defendant policy limits. UM/UIM coverage is one of the most important protections in any Illinois auto policy and is particularly relevant in AV cases where the defendant coverage analysis is complex.
Illinois Modified Comparative Fault Allocation
Illinois Modified Comparative Negligence
A plaintiff's recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault. A plaintiff who is more than 50 percent at fault is barred from any recovery. Fault may be allocated among multiple defendants, each paying their share of the resulting recovery.
Illinois comparative fault rules apply to autonomous vehicle cases in the same way they apply to conventional cases. Fault may be allocated across Waymo, the safety driver, a component manufacturer, another motorist, and the plaintiff. The scene-level evidence preserved in the first hours frequently determines how those percentages are ultimately allocated.
Why Evidence Preservation Matters Within Days
Waymo vehicles continuously record sensor data, on-board video, LiDAR point clouds, planning and prediction outputs, and control commands. This data is subject to automatic retention policies that may overwrite recordings within days or weeks. Spoliation letters to Waymo, Alphabet, and the vehicle integrator must issue quickly to preserve this evidence. Without the sensor data, fault allocation becomes substantially more difficult and the coverage stack analysis depends on incomplete information.
For consultation on a specific Chicago Waymo crash, see our service page on Waymo accident representation in Chicago. For the broader liability framework, see the Chicago Waymo accident pillar guide.