The rapid development of artificial intelligence technology and the occurrence of automatic driving accidents have led to a discussion on the issue of criminal liability in automatic driving accidents, involving the subject of criminal liability, the nature of the crime of negligence, and the duty of care, which is worthy of in-depth study. Automatic driving technology can be classified as simple automation, partial automation, high automation, and full automation. In the case of simple automation and partial automation, the criminal liability for traffic accidents involving self-driving cars is not different from that of ordinary traffic accidents, and there is no need for a separate discussion. In the case of high automation and full automation, the driver of a self-driving car becomes a user of the product because he is restricted from participating in driving operations. As a weak artificial intelligence product, self-driving cars cannot become the subject of criminal liability. Users of self-driving cars are not completely exempt from road traffic safety responsibilities. The developer of self-driving cars needs to bear the criminal liability of the product, and the criminal liability of the product in this case includes the responsibility for road traffic safety. Under China’s criminal law system, negligence and intent are two parallel subjective psychological attitudes, and the new negligence theory’s understanding of negligence crime does not conform to the existing criminal law provisions. The crime of negligence is not an abstract foreseeable possibility as the old negligence theory suggests. The overconfident negligence in China’s criminal law is the actor’s failure to perform the obligation to avoid the result when he foresees the result, and the negligence is the actor’s failure to perform the obligation to foresee the result when there is a possibility of foreseeing. In an automatic driving accident, if the user violates the obligation to cooperate with and ensure the normal operation of the self-driving system, resulting in the occurrence of harmful results, the crime of negligence is established. If the user is not obligated to operate, he or she is not subject to criminal liability. The user’s duty of care is derived from the precedent law, but not all the obligations stipulated in the precedent law can become the duty of care for negligence crimes. If the developer violates the obligation to foresee the consequences of ensuring road traffic safety, resulting in the occurrence of harmful results, it needs to bear the responsibility for the accident. The self-driving system has not been out of the control of the developer after it has been put into use, so the nature of product liability borne by the developer of the self-driving car is different from that of the ordinary car developer, and the liability for the accident of the original car driver is transferred to the developer. Although the obligation to foresee the results is subjective, in the process of actually judging whether the developer has violated the obligation to foresee the results, a relatively objective standard is required as a reference, that is, the scientific and technological capabilities at the time of the development of the self-driving car. The existence of algorithmic black boxes in automatic driving systems should not be a reason to deny the developer’s obligation to foresee or avoid results.