In July 2026, Julian Chamberlayne and Chris Deacon, partners in the Aviation and International Injury department at Stewarts, attended the American Association for Justice (“AAJ”) Annual Convention in Chicago. The convention is a major annual gathering of almost 2,500 plaintiff (claimant) trial lawyers and other experts and suppliers involved in the litigation process. Held across five days, the convention provided an opportunity to exchange ideas and experiences, and learn from and engage with plaintiff lawyers from across the United States and internationally. The insights gained are valuable to practitioners handling complex injury claims, informing everyday practice and inspiring innovation.
UK and US approaches to AV regulation and liability
Emerging trends and technologies kicked off the specialist International section’s programme of talks, where Julian presented on autonomous vehicle (AV) regulation from a UK perspective, alongside Don Slavik, attorney at Slavik Law Firm in Colorado, who provided the US perspective. Their presentations revealed how the UK and USA are taking markedly different approaches to AV regulation and liability.
The UK has adopted a comprehensive statutory framework, firstly through the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 which extended compulsory motor vehicle insurance to cover the use of automated vehicles in automated mode. Then the passing of the Automated Vehicles Act 2024, shifted the focus away from proving driver fault and instead introduced a three-part causation test: was the vehicle driving itself, did it cause or contribute to the incident, and did the incident result in death or injury? Liability generally rests with the authorised self-driving entity while the vehicle is operating in self-driving mode, with the user-in-control benefiting from a degree of immunity unless they fail to respond to a prompt to retake control. Further detail is expected through secondary legislation in 2027, with remaining uncertainty as to the MIB’s role where an AV is uninsured.
By contrast, the US approach has focused on deregulation and user responsibility, with an attempt to frame the liability position on a universal basis by the Uniform Law Commission through its 2019 Act on the Uniform Automated Operation of Vehicles. In the meantime some individual States have gone ahead and allowed automated vehicles, including truck onto their roads. Common issues remain unresolved in both jurisdictions, particularly around data access following collisions, cybersecurity risks, and the potential implications of large-scale software failures or cyber incidents.
Threats to access to justice
Access to justice and lobbying against tort reform are an existential focus for the AAJ. During this year’s convention, delegates spoke about the challenge of major corporations funding initiatives driving legislative reform, including comparative fault (or contributory negligence) rules aimed at significantly limiting compensation payable to victims of road traffic collisions. For example, from 26 May 2026, motor vehicle accident claims in New York have followed a modified comparative fault rule, which means if a victim is found to be more than 50% at fault, they cannot recover any damages. Other areas of focus included vicarious liability of rideshare platforms for the acts of their drivers in a system where limited insurance coverage on the vehicle often means looking for alternative routes to recovering damages, and premises liability claims for accidents occurring at short-term rentals, such as Airbnb.
Expert evidence in the UK and US
One of the most striking themes arising from a cross-section of talks at the convention was the conduct of experts. This is an area where the approach taken in US litigation differs significantly to the practice of experts in England and Wales, where the strict requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules encourage objectivity and impartiality, and where the courts regularly remind experts of the importance of not becoming an advocate for the party instructing them. By contrast, attorneys in the US need to be alert to strategies adopted by experts on the other side aimed at undermining the victim’s evidence. One neuropsychology expert, who is also qualified as an attorney, spoke about the use of AI to compare report findings with what the expert has testified to in previous cases, producing a summary of inconsistencies that can be used when deposing and cross-examining the expert on their evidence.
The nature of the liability issues we see in both domestic and cross-border claims for life-changing injuries are increasingly shaped by the approach taken in the US. Whether the subject is autonomous vehicles, premises liability, motor vehicle collisions, aviation, maritime or complex cross-border claims, lawyers acting for injured people benefit from understanding how other jurisdictions are approaching the same challenges. While our civil litigation system in England and Wales may differ considerably to the US, most notably with trials before a judge and not a jury, the adversarial approach is comparable and can inform how practitioners in the UK go about securing the very best results for their clients.
Ultimately, the convention provided an unrivalled opportunity for reinforcing relationships with existing contacts from across the US and beyond, while developing new connections in the global network the Stewarts Aviation and International Injury department taps into when representing individuals who sustain life-changing injuries in an international context.
You can find further information regarding our expertise, experience and team on our Personal Injury page. If you require assistance from our team, please contact us.
