Navigating Legal Responsibility in the Age of Autonomy: Civil and Criminal Liability for Self-Driving Car Accidents in Saudi Arabia
Batool Alkhalifah
PMU College of Law
Introduction
As Saudi Arabia moves toward technological transformation under Vision 2030, the anticipated introduction of self-driving vehicles represents more than just an innovation in transport, it signals the beginning of a complex legal era. Traditionally, in traffic accidents involving human drivers concepts of liability. While the use of autonomous vehicles are not yet commonplace in the Kingdom, their arrival is both imminent and inevitable. With this technological advancement comes the need for a preemptive legal framework capable of addressing a fundamental question: who bears responsibility when an autonomous vehicle causes harm?
Although self-driving cars have not yet been widely-spread through out the Kingdom, it is foreseeable given the rapid pace of global innovation and the objectives outlined in Vision 2030. Vision 2030 demonstrates that these vehicles will eventually operate on Saudi roads. By observing the legal challenges emerging in jurisdictions, such as the United States, particularly those arising from real-life accidents involving autonomous vehicles, Saudi legal scholars and policymakers are uniquely positioned to anticipate similar concerns. This forward-looking approach allows the Kingdom to address potential legal gaps in advance, rather than in reaction, thereby ensuring that a comprehensive legal framework is implemented before such vehicles integrated into the Saudi life.
Globally, the issue of liability in self-driving car accidents remains a matter of intense legal debate. However, the Saudi legal system faces a particularly unique challenge. Rooted in a hybrid of codified law and Islamic jurisprudence, the Kingdom must carefully evaluate how civil and criminal responsibility is allocated in cases where the human element is no longer the central agent of harm. This creates a legal vacuum that demands urgent attention from regulators, and legislators alike.
Legal Context and Conceptual Framework
In the context of civil liability, Saudi law currently operates on principles that presuppose a human defendant. The Law of Civil Transactions, influenced by Islamic legal doctrine, tends to view the owner or user of a vehicle as the one responsible for any resulting harm. This approach aligns with the concept of a “guardian’’, who is entrusted with the care of a potentially harmful object[i]. Yet, when the vehicle itself makes decisions independent of its owner, this traditional framework begins to fracture. The user may have exercised no physical control, made no decisions, and perhaps was not even present when the vehicle initiated an action that led to damage or injury[ii]. In such cases, it is not only impractical but potentially unjust to hold the user responsible under conventional fault-based or vicarious liability doctrines.
At the same time, the possibility of transferring liability to manufacturers or software developers introduces another layer of complexity. The emerging concept of product liability may provide a partial solution, assigning responsibility to the entity that designed or programmed the vehicle’s decision-making systems. However, this doctrine, as currently understood in the Kingdom, lacks the nuance required to differentiate between mechanical defects and failures in autonomous judgment. This raises the question that if a vehicle operates precisely according to its programming but causes harm due to ethical constraints coded into its system, can it still be deemed a defective product? This raises an additional question regarding determining the legal standard applies when no malfunction exists, but the vehicle’s behavior fails to account for unpredictable human actions or environmental conditions.[iii]
Civil and Criminal Liability: The Saudi Legal Dilemma
Beyond civil consequences, the issue of criminal liability presents even greater doctrinal difficulty. Criminal law, by its nature, expects a degree of intention, awareness, or recklessness. In Saudi Arabia, criminal responsibility mostly depends on criminal intent (mens rea)[iv]. However, when an autonomous system causes death or serious injury, the attribution of such mental element becomes speculative. This raises the question of whether the programmer be said to have intended the harm? Is the owner criminally negligent for failing to update or supervise the software? Or does the incident fall into a legal void, unaddressed by existing statutes?.
Further challenges arise in the area of causation. In conventional traffic accidents, courts analyze whether the driver’s actions or breach directly caused or significantly contributed to the outcome. [v]With autonomous vehicles, the chain of causation is likely affected by multiple factors, such as software instructions, sensor input, machine learning algorithms, and external conditions. Assigning criminal liability under such circumstances requires not only a reconceptualization of intent, but also a clearer understanding of foreseeability and extent of control. Current Saudi criminal law does not yet contemplate such scenarios, leaving judges without guidance when confronting technologically mediated harm.
Toward Legislative and Regulatory Preparedness
Cybersecurity adds an additional dimension to the issue. In the event a self-driving car is hijacked or remotely manipulated, responsibility may shift entirely to unknown or untraceable third parties[vi]. Yet, it is unclear whether it absolves the vehicle's owner, manufacturer, or programmer from their respective liability, which is essential to ensure robust protection against foreseeable breaches. As the legal community begins to address the intersection of criminal law and digital security, these considerations must be embedded into a future legislative framework.
The insurance sector must also adapt to accommodate these changes. Presently, insurance companies in Saudi Arabia are based on insured value and liability scheme (which includes third-party liability insurance and comprehensive insurance) and accident are primarily based on the driver’s fault. Premiums are calculated based on human driving history, behavior, and risk assessment[vii]. Therefore, a new framework needs be reconsidered where liability may lie with a manufacturer or software entity, or even be divided among several contributors, including data providers, mapping services, and firmware developers. Without such a framework, victims may find themselves disproportionately unprotected, and companies entangled in endless litigation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Saudi policymakers, when contemplating the establishment of a comprehensive legal and regulatory framework for self-driving vehicles, must implement proactive and provisional measures that address the multidimensional nature of liability in the age of autonomous technology. This includes reconsidering traditional doctrines of civil liability, particularly the principles of fault and vicarious responsibility, in light of the diminished human role in vehicular operation. It further requires the development of nuanced product liability standards that account for the unique challenges posed by artificial intelligence and machine learning. On the criminal side, legislators must re-evaluate the boundaries of intent and causation in order to accommodate scenarios where human agency is indirectly or entirely absent. Moreover, critical attention must be paid to issues of cybersecurity and digital manipulation, ensuring that legal responsibility extends to new forms of risk and harm. The insurance industry must similarly be restructured to reflect a broader distribution of liability, potentially involving manufacturers, software developers, and data service providers. By anticipating these legal developments in advance of the full deployment of autonomous vehicles, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia can ensure a future-proof legal infrastructure one that both facilitates technological progress and safeguards public trust, safety, and justice in accordance with the objectives of Vision 2030.
[i] Hamid Ahmed Al-Soudi Al-Darei, Civil Liability for Self-Driving Car Accidents: A Comparative Study (United Arab Emirates University)
[ii] Merfat Ali Abdel-Meguid, ‘Self-Driving Cars – Concept and Legal Challenges’ (May 2024)
[iii] Al-Darei, Civil Liability (n 1)
[iv] Zaki Mohammed Shanag, The Saudi Criminal System: General Section – Theory of Crime and Punishment (Prince Sultan University 2021).
[v] Mohammad Taqi al-Usmani, Research in Contemporary Jurisprudential Issues (2nd edn, Dar al-Qalam 2003).
[vi] Abdel-Meguid, ‘Self-Driving Cars’ (n 2)
[vii] Al-Wasata Insurance Company, ‘Understanding Car Insurance in Saudi Arabia’
11-Sep-2025
