China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology recently took an unprecedented step to issue permits allowing two models of Level-3 vehicles—vehicles equipped with “conditional autonomous driving” functions, according to China’s ranking system—produced by Chinese automakers to operate on select roads in Beijing and Chongqing.

Such operation of autonomous vehicles in real-life situations creates a pressing need for unambiguous legal rules to regulate the liability issues that will arise from road safety violations.  A new Guiding Case, a new piece of local legislation, and a set of draft national standards currently available for public comments all shed light on this important topic.

Guiding Case No. 271

“[…] the liability, if any, of a driver whose autonomous vehicle caused a situation undermining road safety depends on the level of automation that the vehicle has.”

As illustrated by Guiding Case No. 271, a de facto binding case released by the Supreme People’s Court on February 13, 2026, the liability, if any, of a driver whose autonomous vehicle caused a situation undermining road safety depends on the level of automation that the vehicle has.

Guiding Case No. 271 concerned a drunk driver, Mr. Wang, who activated the driving system of his Level-2 vehicle (i.e., a vehicle equipped with “combined driving assistance” functions), attempting to let the vehicle drive him home.  The Level-2 driving system installed in Mr. Wang’s vehicle would normally prompt a driver to hold the steering wheel after detecting that the driver had taken both of his hands off the steering wheel for more than two minutes.  Should the driver fail to retake his grip on the steering wheel within a set period of time after being prompted to do so, the vehicle would automatically slow down and deactivate the driving system.  However, Mr. Wang had installed an illegal device to defeat this safety feature.  With this device, his vehicle continued to operate while Mr. Wang was sleeping in the passenger seat.  The vehicle finally stopped in the middle of a road, drawing attention from nearby pedestrians.  They then discovered that Mr. Wang was sleeping in the vehicle and called the police.

To determine Mr. Wang’s liability, the court first referred to China’s national standards numbered GB/T 40429-2021, in which six levels of driving automation are explained: Level-0 (“emergency assistance”), Level-1 (“partial driving assistance”), Level-2 (“combined driving assistance”), Level-3 (“conditional automated driving”), Level-4 (“highly automated driving”), and Level-5 (“fully automated driving”).  As Level-0 to Level-2 systems are all “driving assistance” systems, the court pointed out that the Level-2 system installed in Mr. Wang’s vehicle was to merely assist the driver.  Even after the system was activated, Mr. Wang continued to be deemed the driver, with the responsibility to ensure the safe operation of his vehicle.  In the end, because Mr. Wang had been subject to an administrative penalty for driving under the influence of alcohol within the past two years, he was found to have committed the crime of dangerous driving.

The Supreme People’s Court has summarized the key principle established in this Guiding Case: after a driver activates the driving assistance system of his vehicle, he is still considered the party “performing the driving task” and “having the responsibility to ensure safe driving operations”.

Local Legislation and Draft National Standards

The above principle established in Guiding Case No. 271 will prove helpful to courts handling future cases involving vehicles equipped with Level-0, Level-1, or Level-2 systems, all of which are “driving assistance” systems.

“[…] Changsha […] took the lead to adopt a local regulation that addresses, among others things, liability issues related to these vehicles.”

With respect to cases involving vehicles equipped with Level-3 (“conditional automated driving”), Level-4 (“highly automated driving”), or Level-5 (“fully automated driving”) systems, Changsha—the capital of central China’s Hunan Province and one of the country’s 29 cities with a GDP exceeding RMB 1 trillion—took the lead to adopt a local regulation that addresses, among others things, liability issues related to these vehicles.

Published in December 2025, the Regulation of Changsha City on the Development of Autonomous Vehicles will come into effect on April 1, 2026.  According to Article 2 of the regulation, the term “autonomous vehicle”, as used in the regulation, refers to “a vehicle that, in accordance with national standards and under design operating conditions, can be operated by an autonomous driving system”.  This means that the regulation applies to vehicles equipped with Level-3, Level-4, or Level-5 systems—as confirmed in the press’s interview with Changsha’s officials in charge of explaining the significance of the regulation.

Article 26 of the regulation covers liability issues.  The article states that in a situation where an autonomous vehicle is involved in a road safety violation, if the violation can be attributed to the responsibility of the driver or the safety officer of the vehicle, the authority overseeing traffic administration shall “handle [the liability] of the driver or the safety officer in accordance with law”.  The term “safety officer” is defined as “the professional” who conducts “the on-site monitoring of the operating state of the vehicle and the surrounding environment” and who can “assume control of the vehicle at any time”.

Article 26 further provides that if the road safety violation is caused by the “autonomous driving system” of the vehicle, the authority overseeing traffic administration shall “handle [the liability] of the relevant entities of the autonomous vehicle in accordance with law”.  Considering how autonomous vehicles are manufactured, these entities can include parties such as companies manufacturing the vehicles and providers of algorithms used in the autonomous driving systems.  Failure of any of these parties to meet safety requirements for the “autonomous driving systems” installed in these vehicles will result in the party’s liability arising from the road safety violation.

Against this backdrop, the significance of the draft set of national standards titled Intelligent and Connected Vehicles—Safety Requirements for Automated Driving Systems, which is open for public comments until April 13, 2026, should be noted.  At nearly 60 pages in length, the draft document includes two appendices covering “additional technical requirements” for Level-3 ADS (i.e., “Automated Driving System”) functions applied to expressways and highways and “additional technical requirements” for Level-4 ADS functions.

In a document explaining the formulation of the draft set of national standards, the authorities highlight various legal bases for these mandatory standards, including Article 49 of the Product Quality Law of the People’s Republic of China.  According to the article, anyone who “produces or sells products that do not meet national or industry standards for protecting human health and personal and property safety” shall be ordered to cease production and sales of such products.  Depending on the circumstances, the consequences facing the party can include a fine, confiscation of illegal gains, revocation of the party’s business license, and even criminal liability.

All of these developments suggest that Chinese automakers and those seeking to invest in or collaborate with these automakers should seize the opportunity to provide their comments (via, for example, vehicle@miit.gov.cn) on the draft national standards, as any failure to comply with these standards, once adopted, will have significant legal implications.

---

• The citation of this article is: Dr. Mei Gechlik, Autonomous Vehicles, Road Safety, and Liability in China, SINOTALKS.COM^®, SINOTALKS^® In Brief, Feb. 25, 2026, https://sinotalks.com/inbrief/autonomous-vehicle-liability.
  The original, English version of this article was edited by Nathan Harpainter. The information and views set out in this article are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the work or views of SINOTALKS^®. ↩︎

Related Articles