The short answer is yes. The more accurate answer is: yes—but that is not the hard part.
This blog is directed to property owners, operators, and businesses considering business operations before placing the driverless vehicle into service— not to individual claimants. It does not address (and we do not work with) personal injury claims arising from vehicle accidents.
Florida is among the more permissive jurisdictions for autonomous vehicles (without a human driver). State law allows fully driverless operation and is intended to create uniform statewide regulation. Local governments are largely preempted from imposing additional requirements—such as taxes, fees, or for-hire regulations—on autonomous vehicles or their operators, including those providing passenger transportation. Limited exceptions allow airports and seaports to charge reasonable, non-discriminatory fees and regulate staging or pickup locations. See Florida Statutes § 316.85.
On paper, that puts Florida ahead of many other states.
That is where the statutory analysis ends.
Early autonomous vehicle incidents—though not yet the subject of developed case law—have been framed not as driver-error cases, but as failures in system design, warnings, and operational decision-making.
What matters in practice is not whether a driverless vehicle can be operated, but how that operation is implemented within your business. The legal exposure does not disappear or increase, it simply shifts when there is no human driver in the seat.
The Real Issue Is Risk Allocation
When there is no human driver, the usual assumptions break down. In a conventional accident, liability analysis starts with the driver. With an autonomous vehicle, the analysis shifts immediately to:
- the entity that owns or leases the driverless vehicle
- the entity placing the vehicle into service
- the software or hardware provider
- the environment in which the vehicle is operating
Those questions are not settled and, as a practical matter, tend to be resolved in or after litigation.
Who Is the “Operator”?
The statute permits operation. If or when there is an incident, there will be a search for a legally responsible “operator,” whether that is defined by statute, contract, or circumstance. If the role of the “operator” is not clearly defined in advance, it will be defined for you later— often by a plaintiff.
Currently (May, 2026), Section 627.748 of the Florida Statute does not define the operator of an autonomous vehicle. Instead, Florida law separates the concept: the automated driving system is deemed the operator for purposes of vehicle operation under § 316.85, while § 627.749 addresses insurance responsibility without redefining operator status.
This means Florida’s statutory framework separates operational control from financial responsibility, rather than consolidates them in a single “driver” as in traditional vehicle law.
Insurance Is Not Settled
Insurance coverage is one of the more immediate and underappreciated issues.
Most policies are written around assumptions that include a human driver. Removing that element raises predictable questions:
- Which policy is the primary insurer?
- Does a commercial auto policy apply in the absence of a driver?
- Where does product liability begin and operational liability end?
These are coverage questions that determine whether a loss is insured or uninsured. And if the incident is caused by a human driver of another vehicle, then at least the insurance coverage should be simple enough. Yes, nothing is "simple" in the legal world.
Private Property Versus Public Roads
This is the first threshold decision, and it has practical consequences.
Placing the vehicle into service limited to private roads—within a residential development, campus, or controlled property—is materially different from operating on public roadways. On private property, the analysis tends to center on premises liability and operational decisions. On public roads, the exposure broadens significantly, both in terms of regulatory oversight and third-party risk.
For most operators, beginning in a controlled environment—such as a large master-planned community—is not only operationally simpler, but legally cleaner. The distinction is not that accidents will not occur; it is that the relevant variables are more limited and more controllable. Road conditions, traffic patterns, signage, and user access are defined in advance, and risk can be partially allocated through governing documents and user terms. That level of control is not available in an open-road environment.
What This Means for Property Owners and Operators
The takeaway is straightforward. Florida law allows autonomous vehicle operation, including driverless operation. But the statute does not answer the questions that matter most in a real life operation of such a business unit.
Anyone considering using driverless vehicles—whether in private use, campus setting, or commercial operation—should be focused on:
- how the operation is structured
- who is contractually responsible for what
- how risk is allocated and insured
- where the vehicles are actually being used
Those decisions carry significantly more weight than the initial question of legality.
The legal framework is developing in real time. For a legal practitioner, it is an exciting time. For businesses considering introduction of autonomous vehicles into service, these issues are best addressed at the implementation stage in order to control the legally responsible party narrative during itigation.
