The constant development of technology has effectively changed the world we live in. It is safe to say that in 2018, most of the world and its inhabitants explicitly depend on technology in some shape or form. However, as I navigate the waters of the legal sphere as a law student, I have come to appreciate the effects that new technologies have in shaping areas of the law.
No, we’re not talking about RoboCop or Isaac Asimov’s three laws of robotics, but something far simpler. Specifically, it is the focus on the age of autonomous vehicles that could challenge the laws that are currently in place. Would these introductions require new laws to regulate legal issues that may arise? Or would it rest on an alternate interpretation of the existing laws?
Though it might seem pedestrian compared to the futuristic realties often portrayed on the silver screen, this advancement poses several complex legal issues that are yet to be resolved. The novelty of this technology also means that there is no direct legal precedent for courts to rely on, making it all the more crucial to deal with questions of liability cautiously.
The majority of traffic accidents are caused because of human error and rashness be it by a pedestrian or an individual operating a vehicle. Driverless vehicles aim to eliminate human error and put in its place a software which displays road awareness and reaction speeds superior to any human driver. As a result, the driverless vehicle is hypothesised to be the safest vehicle on the road.
However, this does not guarantee a zero-accident rate as there will always be uncontrollable variables. And this raises the question as to who is liable when a driverless vehicle is involved in a traffic accident? The general direction points to product liability or liability of the manufacturer.
According to a paper written by Mark A. Geistfeld for the California Law Review, a manufacturer would fullfil its tort obligation by designing a “fleet of fully functioning autonomous vehicles [that] performs at least twice as safely as conventional vehicles.” Though this might appear to be a rather onerous burden on the manufacturer, it coincides with the very purpose of autonomous vehicles i.e. maximizing safety. Therefore, it should be expected that these vehicles are held to a higher standard compared to that of an ordinary, reasonable driver. Another responsibility of the manufacturer, pointed out by Geistfeld, is the disclosure of inherent risks of the vehicle’s operating system. By sufficiently disclosing these risks, manufacturers would allow auto insurers to calculate the premium rates to be offered, thereby providing a clear and quantitative indicator of risk to potential consumers. More importantly, countries need to put into place a regulatory framework for autonomous vehicles which clearly outline the duty of the manufacturer, the standard of care that they should be held to, and the ensuing liability should a fully functional driverless vehicle be involved in a traffic incident.
While several countries and innovators have advocated driverless technologies and its benefits, there are still those who are sceptical about the effect it may have on society. The chief concern is the potential security threat of the driverless vehicle’s system being hacked into or becoming infected by malware. It could also be a potential instrument for terrorist operations. Manufacturers have yet to specify the precautions that they will take to account for this threat. However, if a sufficient firewall is put into place and the programme is designed to have fail safes should it detect any third-party tampering, perhaps this will not be a plausible concern. Personal data protection and privacy laws that are currently in place should be able to account for such threats in the same vein as other software devices such as computers and smartphones. Once again, these statutes should be revised to ease the process of interpretation by the courts when handling this novel issue.
However, another issue of liability pertains to the role of the driver/passenger. What is to be expected of a person in a fully autonomous vehicle? The general trend seems to be that a driver, while alleviated of the physical act of driving, is still under a duty to keep a proper lookout and remain vigilant. It should be noted that there is a spectrum of automation with each level requiring the driver/passenger to have differing responsibilities.
Geistfeld’s paper further highlights that the National Highway Traffic Security Administration (NHTSA) in the United States of America for example, has provided a classification scheme which focuses on the level of human control from “no vehicle autonomy (level 0) to full vehicle autonomy under all conditions in which a human could otherwise perform the driving task (level 5).” This could be a template that other countries, regardless of their legal system, could look to, should they wish to explore the avenue of commercial distribution of autonomous vehicles.
Whether people remain sceptical or jump on the bandwagon of the fully autonomous vehicle, it appears as if the adoption of this technology is inevitable. Therefore, it is imperative that a country establishes a legal system that will be able to incorporate this advancement and account for the possible issues that are likely to arise. The world around us is constantly changing and the law should adapt to ensure proper regulation and accountability.
The post Balancing the issue of legal liability in the Age of Autonomous Vehicles appeared first on India Outbound.
source https://www.indiaoutbound.org/balancing-the-issue-of-legal-liability-in-the-age-of-autonomous-vehicles/
