Waymo robotaxi kills dog in San Francisco
Waymo robotaxi kills dog in San Francisco
Occurred: May 2023
Page published: November 2025
Report incident๐ฅ| Improve page ๐| Access database ๐ข
An autonomous Waymo vehicle struck and killed a small dog in San Francisco, raising questions about the safety limits of AI-powered driving systems, corporate transparency, and the legal accountability for incidents involving driverless technology.ย
A Waymo self-driving Jaguar I-Pace vehicle, operating in autonomous mode with a human safety driver present, struck and killed a small dog on Toland Street in San Francisco.
According to the incident report filed with the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), the dog ran out into the road from behind a parked car. Waymo's initial review confirmed that the autonomous system correctly identified the dog but was "not able to avoid contact," deeming the collision "unavoidable."ย
The vehicle sustained minor damage.
The direct cause, according to Waymo, was the sudden and high-speed movement of the off-leash dog from a blind spot (behind a parked vehicle), making the collision unavoidable despite detection.ย
However, the incident highlights inherent challenges with the AI system:
Technology: The AI system, while correctly identifying the dog, could not execute a successful evasive manoeuvre or stop in time given the dog's path and speed, suggesting an edge-case failure in prediction or actuation.
Transparency and accountability: While Waymo filed a mandatory DMV report and issued a statement, the incident occurred amidst broader complaints from San Francisco officials about insufficient data transparency from AV companies regarding erratic driving, traffic blockages, and interference with emergency services.
Waymo claimed the event was unavoidable, but without a full, publicly verifiable log of the car's sensory data, decision-making process, and the safety driver's exact input (or lack thereof), it is difficult for external parties to fully verify the company's claim.
This information asymmetry places the burden of proof and ultimate safety assessment largely within the company's proprietary systems, making external accountability challenging.
For the dog owner: The direct impact is the tragic loss of a pet, compounded by the fact that the loss was caused by a highly advanced, corporate-owned machine. It highlights the difficulty of seeking full redress when the accountable party is an AI system whose failure is legally categorised as "unavoidable."
For industry and regulators: This event, though a tragedy for an animal, serves as a high-profile example of the inevitable safety-critical "edge cases" that autonomous systems will face.
It fuels the public and regulatory debate on establishing a sufficiently high safety bar for AVs. Waymo's co-CEO has publicly stated that a fatal human crash is a matter of "when, not whether," and society must accept this trade-off if AVs can overall reduce human fatalities.ย
The incident provides a smaller-scale illustration of the utilitarian calculus of AI safety and the complex liability questions that need to be codified into law before a human fatality occurs.
For society: The incident contributes to an ongoing tension between the perceived benefits of AV technology (potential reduction in traffic fatalities) and public trust, particularly in cities experiencing robotaxi expansions.
It reinforces the need for robust, independent oversight and standardised, granular transparency in incident reporting to ensure public acceptance and regulatory confidence in AI-driven mobility.
Developer: Waymo
Country: USA
Sector: Automotive
Purpose: Automate steering, acceleration, braking
Technology: Self-driving system
Issue: Accountability; Liability; Safety; Transparency
AIAAIC Repository ID: AIAAIC2145