Posted by Neil Jones, head of the claims investigation unit at Legal Futures Associate Verisk
Jones: Inherently complex claims
Twentieth-century viewers of Back to the Future would no doubt be disappointed by the absence of flying cars in 2015, let alone 2026. Yet the lack of hovering DeLoreans on the road does not mean that automotive innovation has come to a halt.
While electric vehicles (EVs) first emerged in the 19th century, recent advancements in battery technology, progressive governmental regulation and the rapid expansion of charging infrastructure have driven widespread adoption.
With the zero-emission vehicle mandate requiring all new cars sold by 2035 to be zero-emission, the prevalence of electrified vehicles is set to accelerate further.
The recent enactment of the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 paves the way for the introduction of self-driving cars in the UK. Popularised by advancements in AI, sensors and software data, driverless vehicles are already operating in cities such as Shanghai, Los Angeles and Abu Dhabi.
In the UK, the government anticipates that automated vehicles will be deployed on public roads by 2027.
Inevitably, the introduction of new technology comes with new risks – legal, cyber and human.
With new tech comes new injuries
Although EV is an umbrella term encompassing a variety of electrified vehicles, the majority are powered by rechargeable lithium-ion battery systems.
While technological advancements have contributed to a reduction in the frequency of lower-severity accidents and injuries, failures when they do occur can result in more serious injuries. As the number of EVs on UK roads continues to grow year-on-year, it is important to address the risks that come with their increased adoption.
Road traffic accidents involving EVs can give rise to injury patterns that differ from those traditionally associated with petrol or diesel vehicles.
Due to the mass of lithium-ion battery packs, EVs are typically heavier than those with internal combustion engines. Greater vehicle mass, combined with rapid acceleration, can increase impact severity during collisions, causing severe injuries and increasing vehicle damage.
Similarly, EVs generally reduce the likelihood of post-collision fires as they lack flammable liquid fuel and are equipped with battery protection systems.
However, where battery damage does occur, lithium-ion batteries may ignite or reignite, and fires are often more difficult to extinguish. Damage to battery systems may also cause toxic fumes to be released, causing respiratory injuries, chemical burns, and delayed smoke inhalation.
While most injuries occur at the point of collision, delayed ignition can also endanger responders and bystanders.
This increases the likelihood of complex mixed-injury claims, combining traditional impact injuries with respiratory or chemical harm. Such cases are not only more difficult for lawyers to evidence and predict, particularly where symptoms emerge after the initial collision, but also carry heightened costs and increased liability complexity.
These challenges are aggravated when injuries arise from faulty or defective batteries. In such cases, claimants may seek compensation from manufacturers or suppliers alongside motor insurers.
However, these claims are inherently complex due to the technical difficulty of proving fault, particularly where initial battery damage falls on insurers due to standard vehicle policies.
With replacement EV batteries costing up to £20,000, legal teams face increasing pressure to pursue recovery actions against third parties amid heightened evidential and financial complexity.
The anticipated risks of driverless vehicles
Self-driving vehicles rely on AI and sensor systems to navigate roads, bringing with them new and complex categories of accident risks.
Faulty sensors, software malfunctions and flawed decision-making processes create a significant potential for physical harm. One such issue reported by passengers is phantom braking, in which vehicles abruptly slow down without apparent cause, increasing the risks of collisions and passenger injury.
These safety risks are compounded by the threat of cyberattacks. GPS spoofing, data manipulation and vehicle hacking can interfere with systems, and may be carried out with the deliberate attempt to cause physical harm.
Current legislation does not expressly establish a clear duty of care or liability framework for cyber-related harm, leaving accountability in road traffic accident claims uncertain. An effective cybersecurity regulatory framework is essential in maintaining safety, accountability and addressing liability.
For lawyers, establishing liability in cases involving self-driving vehicles will rely heavily on vehicle-generated data. Technical evidence such as system logs, sensor data and transition demand records is likely to be given significant weight.
As the 2024 Act reallocates responsibility once vehicle control is returned to the human, disputes are expected to focus increasingly on system performance rather than traditional assessments of driver conduct.
Where we’re going, we will still need roads, alongside preparation for the risks and legal complexity these vehicles bring with them.
Leave a Comment