Car Accident Caused by GPS: Who’s Liable When In‑Car Tech Leads to a Crash

Estimated reading time: 17 minutes

Key Takeaways

• Technology can be a material cause of crashes when a driver looks away, taps a screen, or follows erroneous prompts at the wrong moment.
• Liability turns on reasonableness: active programming while moving is often negligent; being misled by defective instructions may raise product liability issues.
• Causation is proven with synchronized logs, EDR data, dashcam video, phone/app history, eyewitness accounts, and expert analysis.
• Preserving electronic evidence immediately is critical; send preservation letters to OEMs, app providers, and insurers to prevent data loss.
• Comparative negligence can apportion fault among drivers, manufacturers, and others—reducing or reallocating damages.
• Safer habits—pre-setting routes, using voice commands, and enabling Do Not Disturb driving modes—significantly reduce risk.

Introduction: When in‑car tech contributes to a crash

A car accident caused by GPS is an increasingly common scenario as drivers rely on built‑in navigation and infotainment displays. This article explains how GPS prompts, touchscreens, and other in‑car displays can contribute to crashes and how liability is determined.

Modern vehicles pull focus in three ways—visually (eyes off the road), manually (hands off the wheel), and cognitively (mind off driving). Reading a map, entering a destination, swiping through menus, or reacting to a bright alert can create a split-second gap in attention that results in an accident from car display screen use.

We will clarify the kinds of distractions in today’s cabins, and how courts and insurers assess responsibility—ranging from driver negligence to potential product defects. You will learn what evidence matters most, immediate steps to protect your claim, and practical prevention tips. For background on the public safety stakes and definitions, see the NHTSA distracted driving overview, and a helpful primer on navigation-related fault from KCR Law on GPS liability. Throughout, we’ll use the phrase driver distracted by tech liability to discuss how negligence applies to tech-enabled crashes.

What GPS‑caused crashes look like in real life

By “car accident caused by GPS,” we mean an accident where the driver’s use of navigation instructions or interaction with a GPS/in‑car display was a material contributing factor to the crash. That factor may be an ill-timed glance, a manual tap sequence, or following incorrect or unsafe directions.

Common real-world patterns include:

• Misleading or mistimed prompts: A driver turns “as instructed” into oncoming traffic or enters a closed roadway because they followed the device instead of signage. These scenarios appear in discussions of GPS-related fault, including KCR Law’s GPS liability overview, and in broader safety commentary about in-car navigation trends from ChicagoLawyer’s analysis of navigation units and crashes.
• Active input at a bad moment: At an intersection, a driver hurriedly programs a new destination, looks down for several seconds, and runs a red light.
• Secondary app distraction: While browsing a music or streaming app on the infotainment screen, the driver misses sudden braking ahead and rear-ends another vehicle—an accident from car display screen interaction layered on top of traffic dynamics.

These examples preview the legal issues covered below: driver negligence, comparative fault, product liability, and the crucial role of evidence preservation in proving driver distracted by tech liability. For context on whether in-vehicle navigation has increased accident risk, see ChicagoLawyer’s navigation safety article and the GPS liability summary at KCR Law.

Types of in‑car tech distractions

GPS / navigation prompts and map interaction

Navigation systems pull attention across all three distraction channels: visual (reading on-screen turns), cognitive (thinking about route changes), and manual (tapping, zooming, or panning). Common behaviors include responding to recalculation prompts, zooming in to confirm a complex interchange, and following an incorrect turn instruction without cross-checking signs.

These behaviors can set the stage for a car accident caused by GPS if they occur at the wrong moment—such as near a crosswalk or during a lane change. Legal discussions of these scenarios appear in KCR Law’s GPS liability primer and in analysis of how navigation units affect crash risk from ChicagoLawyer.

Touchscreen interactions and menu navigation

A distracted by touchscreen accident occurs when a driver takes eyes/hands off the controls to operate a touchscreen — entering addresses, tapping menus, adjusting settings — creating visual-manual and cognitive distractions. Complex menu structures and small touch targets can extend eyes-off-road time, raising crash risk.

Human factors research has long shown that visual-manual tasks are especially hazardous; see national-level guidance and data summarized by NHTSA distracted driving. Trend analyses about in-car system complexity and attention demand also appear in ChicagoLawyer’s navigation units article. In negligence disputes, extended interaction windows often support a driver distracted by tech liability finding.

Infotainment systems (audio, video, app controls)

Infotainment systems bundle audio sources, streaming apps, on-screen video, and integrated third-party apps. Multi-step menus and immersive content can increase distraction. When logs show active app browsing or video playback during a critical window, that evidence can anchor an infotainment crash distraction claim. For more on how liability is analyzed in GPS/infotainment contexts, see ForYourRights’ discussion of GPS-related liability.

Car display screens (clusters, HUDs, and center stacks)

Placement and brightness can steal attention away from the roadway. An accident from car display screen occurs when built-in displays are the proximate distraction—such as a driver repeatedly adjusting a central display while merging, causing a sideswipe. Liability analyses of these scenarios appear in ForYourRights’ liability primer and ChicagoLawyer’s review of in-car navigation safety, and can intersect with a broader car accident caused by GPS claim if map prompts contributed to the timing of the distraction.

How distraction affects liability

Drivers owe a “duty of care,” which means operating a vehicle with reasonable caution under the circumstances. Using technology does not excuse unsafe driving. Courts ask whether a reasonable driver should have anticipated that the tech use would create an unreasonable risk—this is the foreseeability and reasonableness test often applied in negligence cases.

Rule of thumb: actively programming a route, entering text, or engaging in a multi-tap sequence while moving is more likely negligent than a quick glance at a map prompt. That distinction appears throughout liability commentary, including KCR Law’s GPS liability overview and high-level summaries such as Horwitz Law on GPS liability.

Comparative negligence—used in many states—divides fault among all contributors and reduces a claimant’s damages by their percentage of fault. We elaborate on comparative fault and insurance below.

When is driver distracted by tech liability likely?

• Extended eyes-off/hands-off time: Longer interaction windows (documented via logs or video) suggest unreasonable risk and support liability.
• Driver-initiated vs. device-led behavior: Being “led astray” by incorrect instructions is treated differently from actively misusing a device. Some courts place primary responsibility on drivers unless a defect or misleading design is proven; see overviews in Brian Brandt Law’s GPS map responsibility discussion and Horwitz Law.

Concrete examples:

• Glance case: A driver briefly checks the next turn and rear-ends a stopped car. Liability often sits with the driver under ordinary negligence principles.
• Active input case: A driver types a new destination while rolling through an intersection and runs a red light—stronger grounds for negligence.
• Device-led error case: A unit directs a route into a restricted area that creates a sudden hazard—potential product liability if warnings/design were inadequate, as discussed in Brian Brandt Law’s overview. When a bright HUD or poorly placed screen contributes to inattention, an accident from car display screen can also be argued.

For deeper context on these lines, see Horwitz Law’s analysis of GPS liability, Brian Brandt Law’s discussion of faulty maps, and KCR Law’s primer.

Proving causation in distraction crashes

To win a distraction case, you must prove two things: the crash happened (liability and damages) and the distraction materially caused it. The second point—causation—often turns on tight timelines and unified data.

Key evidence sources and what they show:

• Dashcam / in‑vehicle video: Look for timestamps, a view of the driver’s hands/face, and the roadway ahead. Download immediately, back up to a secure cloud, and retain the original files. Capture the full minute(s) before and after the impact for context.
• Phone / navigation app logs: Obtain timestamped app usage history, destination entry time, recent search queries, and voice-command logs. Depending on the platform, lawful access may require subpoenas or preservation letters to app providers and carriers.
• Vehicle Event Data Recorder (EDR) & infotainment logs: EDR typically logs speed, throttle, braking, and steering inputs around the crash. Infotainment logs can record menu interactions, touchscreen taps, and voice-command timestamps. These logs frequently feature in litigation, as noted in KCR Law’s GPS liability article.
• Eyewitness statements, traffic camera footage, police reports, and medical records: Witnesses corroborate visible distraction (head down, reaching toward screen). Traffic cameras can document the sequence of movements. Police narratives often describe driver behavior and device presence. Medical notes link injuries to crash mechanics (e.g., whiplash from rear-end impact).
• Expert witnesses: An accident reconstructionist aligns vehicle dynamics with event timing. A human factors specialist evaluates distraction windows and UI complexity. A software/forensics expert interprets infotainment logs and phone/app exports. Provide a unified packet: timeline, raw logs, device exports, and video.

Tying the proof together for an infotainment crash distraction claim requires an integrated chronology. Here is a step-by-step example of causation proof:

1. From the infotainment system, extract a log showing a touch input at 10:12:33.
2. Sync with dashcam footage showing the driver’s gaze shifts away at 10:12:34.
3. Overlay EDR data indicating a sudden hard brake at 10:12:37 followed by impact—argue that the interaction created the critical distraction window.

Courts and insurers find synchronized logs particularly persuasive; see discussions of logs and EDRs in KCR Law and claims guidance from ForYourRights on GPS liability. For touchscreen interactions, those same logs help prove a distracted by touchscreen accident by pinpointing the exact sequence and duration of visual-manual tasks.

Legal tools to get the data:

Act quickly with preservation notices, then follow with subpoenas where needed. When writing to vehicle manufacturers (OEMs), telematics providers, or app companies, include this sentence verbatim:

“Please preserve all logs, telemetry, EDR data, infotainment system data, and any other electronic records related to vehicle VIN [VIN#] and user interactions from [date/time window].”

If you are concurrently working with your insurer, tell them preservation letters have been sent to prevent spoliation. For broader strategy on documenting and organizing core liability evidence, see our in-depth guide to key evidence required for proving negligence in auto accident cases and our tutorial on using dashcam footage in an accident claim.

Driver vs. manufacturer liability

Driver distracted by tech liability usually focuses on negligence: the driver breached the duty of care by unsafe use of tech while driving. But there are cases where product liability claims may be viable—alleging design defects, manufacturing defects, or failure to warn.

To succeed in a product claim, you must prove a defect, causation (the defect caused the crash or increased its severity), and damages. Courts frequently place responsibility on drivers unless a clear defect or misleading guidance is shown. But product claims do succeed in certain circumstances, including high-dollar outcomes, as cataloged in a notable $15M products liability lawsuit summary.

Manufacturer-related scenarios include:

• Confusing UI/interaction design: A system that forces multi-step interactions to dismiss alerts while moving and lacks a “Do Not Disturb” driving mode.
• Incorrect or dangerous routing: A navigation application foreseeably directs vehicles into hazardous paths. Articles on traffic-tech failures and mixed liabilities appear at Ankin Law’s discussion of tech failures, alongside product liability case coverage like the $15M suit.
• Warnings and feature gating: Failure to provide adequate warnings or to disable certain features when the vehicle is in motion, particularly for video or text entry.
• Screen placement and brightness: If a poorly placed or overly bright display pulls focus in predictable driving scenarios, an accident from car display screen may implicate design choices.

Evidence supporting manufacturer liability includes histories of consumer complaints, internal defect reports, recall notices, design and UX testing documents, and software update logs. For background on legal standards and faulty maps, see Brian Brandt Law’s GPS map responsibility overview.

Practically, claimants sometimes pursue the driver and OEM/app provider in parallel. Preservation and subpoena processes differ, so early counsel is advisable. If your case also involves driver-assistance or semi-autonomous features, review how liability can shift in our primer on self-driving car accident liability.

Insurance claims and legal remedies

After a tech-distracted crash, treat the claim like any other—then layer in device and vehicle data from the start.

• Notify your insurer promptly and give a factual timeline without admitting fault.
• Preserve electronic data from the vehicle, phone, and apps. Tell insurers you’ve sent preservation notices to prevent spoliation (this is especially important for an infotainment crash distraction claim).
• Submit documentation—police report, medical records, photos, dashcam footage, and device/app logs that show the driver’s interactions. For a robust infotainment crash distraction claim, include a short chronology matching logs to dashcam and EDR timestamps.
• If you’re pursuing manufacturer claims, send preservation letters to OEMs and app providers, then consider counsel for subpoenas and expert retention.

Comparative negligence, in plain language, allocates fault among everyone who contributed to a crash. Your recoverable damages are reduced by your percentage of fault. For example, if a distracted driver is found 30% at fault on a $100,000 award, the recoverable amount is reduced to $70,000. Summaries of how states apply these rules appear in ForYourRights’ overview of GPS liability and state differences. For deeper context on multi-party fault, see our explainer on comparative negligence in auto accident claims.

Carriers may seek device data quickly in a car accident caused by GPS scenario. Work with counsel to provide accurate logs while safeguarding privacy rights. Be mindful of statutes of limitations; delays can risk data loss and claims deadlines. For end-to-end filing and negotiation tips, see our step-by-step guide to mastering the auto accident claim process.

What to do immediately after a suspected tech‑distracted crash

Your first priorities are safety and health. Check for injuries, call emergency services if needed, and move to a safe location if medically appropriate and permitted by law. Even minor symptoms warrant a medical evaluation to document onset, rule out hidden injuries, and protect your health record.

Evidence preservation checklist (copy-and-keep):

• Scene photos (wide and close-ups): vehicle positions, skid marks, traffic signs, signals, road conditions, and timestamped shots of dashboards/displays if they show an active screen.
• Screenshot or export of the navigation app or infotainment screen (if still available) showing the active route, prompts, or recent searches. This is especially valuable in a distracted by touchscreen accident.
• Photos of the driver’s phone lock/home screen and any visible app screens with time displayed.
• Dashcam footage and timestamps; copy raw video files to external storage immediately and keep the originals intact.
• Witness names, contact information, and short written statements; write your own time-stamped account while memory is fresh.
• Police report number and officer contact; insurer claim number once issued.
• Medical records, discharge summaries, and photos of injuries as they evolve (e.g., bruising).
• VIN, make/model, and any aftermarket infotainment device info. Send a data preservation request to the OEM/app providers including this sentence: “Please preserve all logs, telemetry, EDR data, infotainment system data, and any other electronic records related to vehicle VIN [VIN#] and user interactions from [date/time window].”

Preservation letters & timing: OEM and app data can be overwritten or purged. Send preservation letters immediately to vehicle manufacturers, infotainment providers, and navigation platforms. Use clear subject lines (e.g., “Notice—Evidence Preservation Request: [VIN/Case #]”). This quick step can make or break an infotainment crash distraction claim.

For police reporting and how those reports support liability, review our guide on the importance of a car accident police report in California. For broader evidence strategy and negligence theory, read our deep dive on navigating winning strategies in distracted driving cases.

Prevention and safer use of in‑car tech

Reduce your risk by changing how and when you interact with in‑car tech. This is especially important if you want to avoid a car accident caused by GPS.

• Set destinations before driving. Preprogram waypoints for complex trips so you’re not entering addresses at red lights.
• Use voice navigation and commands. They keep your hands on the wheel and eyes closer to the forward path.
• Enable Do Not Disturb/driving modes. Configure both your phone and vehicle system to block alerts and restrict manual inputs while moving; state guidance varies (see Nevada’s summary of rules and best practices in the Nevada GPS law primer).
• Favor single-tap or steering-wheel controls. Avoid multi-step menus on the move; pull over if interaction will take longer than a second or two.
• Adopt the passenger-assist rule. Ask passengers to manage music, messages, or rerouting.
• Update software and review warnings. Install OEM/app updates; read manufacturer warnings about driver interaction and lock-outs during motion, as advised in KCR Law’s recommendations and NHTSA distracted driving guidance.
• Adjust placement/brightness at start-up. Minimize glare and keep screens dim enough not to draw your gaze—the goal is to prevent an accident from car display screen glare. This also reduces the chance of a distracted by touchscreen accident.

Case law, regulations, and statistics

Litigation trends: Courts often hold drivers responsible for attention lapses; product liability claims succeed only with evidence of a defect, misleading instructions, or inadequate warnings. Recurring themes include poor UI design and routing errors, but the burden is high.

Notable examples and cases:

• Rosenberg v. Harwood (representative of GPS-misleading-direction disputes): While facts vary, this line of cases illustrates how courts balance driver responsibility against alleged mapping errors. For discussion and outcomes context, see Brian Brandt Law’s overview of GPS map responsibility.
• Product-liability class actions/large claims: Dangerous prompting and routing defects have triggered complex litigation; see the $15M products liability lawsuit writeup for how plaintiffs framed manufacturer responsibility.

Statistics and studies: National data continue to attribute thousands of fatalities to distraction annually, including device-related behavior. See NHTSA distracted driving for current numbers and definitions. Trend analyses considering navigation and display complexity appear in ChicagoLawyer’s navigation units article. For ongoing human factors research on visual-manual task risk and mitigation, consult the IIHS research hub.

Bottom line: While a car accident caused by GPS can be framed as a tech failure or mapping error, liability usually turns on the driver’s choices unless the evidence proves a defect, inadequate warnings, or a design that predictably causes unreasonable risk—especially where an accident from car display screen placement or brightness is implicated. These trends also inform driver distracted by tech liability determinations and settlement negotiations across jurisdictions.

Conclusion

In most cases, liability for tech-distracted crashes rests with the driver’s choices, but manufacturer responsibility can arise when warnings, design, or routing are defective. Your strongest position comes from preserving digital evidence early and building a clear timeline that ties interactions to the crash—especially when pursuing an infotainment crash distraction claim or disputing driver distracted by tech liability.

This post is informational only and not legal advice. Laws and case outcomes vary by state; consult an attorney for your situation.

Need help now? Get a free and instant case evaluation by Visionary Law Group. See if your case qualifies within 30-seconds at https://eval.visionarylawgroup.com/auto-accident.

FAQ

Can a car accident caused by GPS be the manufacturer’s fault?

Generally no, unless you can prove a defect, misleading instructions, or missing warnings—and that those issues caused the crash. Preserve logs quickly and consult counsel about subpoenas and expert analysis. See overviews from Horwitz Law on GPS-related liability and claims perspectives from ForYourRights’ GPS liability guide.

What evidence proves a distracted by touchscreen accident?

Dashcam video, touchscreen/infotainment logs, phone/app usage timestamps, eyewitness accounts, and EDR data form a strong record. Copy logs, photograph active screens, and note precise times to sync the timeline. For how infotainment and EDR data factor into litigation, see KCR Law’s GPS liability article.

How do I make an infotainment crash distraction claim?

Preserve evidence immediately (vehicle/app logs, dashcam, EDR), notify insurers, send preservation letters to OEMs/app providers, and work with an attorney experienced in digital forensics and subpoenas. High-level steps and comparative fault notes appear in ForYourRights’ GPS liability overview.

Does the police report help if it mentions device use?

Yes. Officer observations about screen use or the presence of an active device can corroborate your timeline. Pair the report with logs and video. For using reports in claims, see our guide on the value of a car accident police report.

What if fault is shared because I glanced at the screen?

Comparative negligence can reduce your recovery by your share of fault while still allowing compensation. A clear chronology can refine percentages. Learn how comparative systems work in our explainer on comparative negligence and practical filing tips in our guide to mastering the auto accident claim process.