NPR
If a driverless car crashes, who’s liable?
But getting the technology right won’t be enough. Governments and courts will have to figure out lots of new legal and regulatory issues. One key question: If a driverless car crashes, who’s liable?
“It’s absolutely the case that after the first accident involving an automated vehicle, there will be an automated ambulance chaser following,” says Robert Hartwig, President of the Insurance Information Institute.
The auto industry is aware of the legal risk. “We have great exposure as an industry in terms of product liability,” says Dan Gage, of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. “And I think as an industry … most of us suspect that there will always be someone in that driver’s seat.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Well, it sure won’t be Google.
They are, after all, big 0bama donors.
LegendHasIt on March 8, 2013 at 10:44 PM
Whoever owns the car and/or carries the insurance ya dink. Not that hard. Kind of like red light cameras. It doesn’t know who’s driving. The camera company just goes by who it’s registered to and they get the bill… Which you will pay or creditors will soon find you…
Logus on March 8, 2013 at 10:45 PM
The owner. Strict liability.
Resist We Much on March 8, 2013 at 11:13 PM
It’s Bush’s fault!
Stoic Patriot on March 8, 2013 at 11:20 PM
The deepest pockets. What a silly question.
/s
viking01 on March 8, 2013 at 11:28 PM
They’ll claim it was hacked.
Free Constitution on March 8, 2013 at 11:36 PM
If a plane crashes on auto pilot who’s liable? Same kinda question in a way, no? As in both instances there is someone behind the wheel.
aebloo on March 8, 2013 at 11:44 PM
After the crash I’ll pretend to get out to inspect the damage, my driverless car will fold into a briefcase ala George Jetson, at which time I’ll grab it and take off running like Usain Bolt. Problem solved.
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 8, 2013 at 11:45 PM
That’s the Weiner Defense™ if I’m not mistaken.
WisCon on March 9, 2013 at 12:02 AM
Thank you for taking Johnny Cab.
aunursa on March 9, 2013 at 12:02 AM
If you don’t want to drive, get a chauffeur or call a cab. I like driving.
Othniel on March 9, 2013 at 12:17 AM
The Jews
Mark1971 on March 9, 2013 at 12:19 AM
It will be whoever a lawyer figures has the deepest pockets. Same as it is now.
Mark1971 on March 9, 2013 at 12:25 AM
A collective insurance fund for all driverless cars. It should be cheap as long as they have a low accident rate. Prorate the insurance according to how much the user drives vs how much the driverless car drives.
MetaThought on March 9, 2013 at 12:40 AM
Thanks for 2 minutes of awesome!!
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 9, 2013 at 12:41 AM
Not sure who will have to pay, but once the car can drive better than the human, insurance companies will insist you let it drive or else pay a higher rate. Only the rich will be able to afford to drive thier own cars.
Boogeyman on March 9, 2013 at 12:52 AM
It doesn’t matter. Any time there’s a car accident, legislation should be introduced to limit the manufacture of automobiles. In addition, victims or their families should sue the maker. What’s good for guns is good for cars.
Dongemaharu on March 9, 2013 at 1:15 AM
Can’t believe that this hasn’t been posted as the cause. “Bush”. “Jews” was already taken
Clink on March 9, 2013 at 1:39 AM
A driver “behind the wheel” as it were is not the only liability. You have a new, untested (in that situation, anyway) technology for which anyone could sue over at the slightest mishap. In the tort-ecstatic society we live in today, combined with the government attitude of “yah, we required it- so what? we aren’t liable” and a common attitude of the infallibility of technology (once again- what happened to the Titanic?), you get a really toxic mix that easily brings an idea like this to it’s knees faster than Rudy Uhlenhaut on a good day.
BillH on March 9, 2013 at 3:40 AM
Not to mention, in the case of a driverless car, the government would certainly be able to track you wherever you go, and turn the car off and and on at will if they so desire. Do we really want that? If you think there are privacy concerns with smartphones, wait until driverless cars become widespread.
Doomberg on March 9, 2013 at 4:34 AM
The American taxpayer silly… after all this is an “investment” in the future…
/
Hog Wild on March 9, 2013 at 5:41 AM
The Mooooslims.
MoreLiberty on March 9, 2013 at 6:47 AM
Don’t forget:
1) it has to be stick shift, not fully automatic or even semiautomatic.
2) only one person at a time can go in or get out of it at a time.
3) the gas tank is limited to 7 gallons.
4) it must be “rainbow-colored.” No black cars allowed.
5) no radios, MP3 connection, charging ports or other things that make it more fun to ride.
6) “car free zones”
Really…why don’t they just put up “accident free zone” signs (“this road is an ‘accident free zone’ for the next 500 miles’) and nothing bad will happen.
ProfShadow on March 9, 2013 at 7:59 AM
For some reason the old saying “if a bear craps in the woods and no one’s around to see it” comes to mind.
bgibbs1000 on March 9, 2013 at 8:21 AM
Also if a userless gun fires a bullet who’s liable? Just saying!
bgibbs1000 on March 9, 2013 at 8:23 AM
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
albill on March 9, 2013 at 9:02 AM
See that this is from NPR. How can that be? Surely their and PBS’ Fed money was cut?
Dingbat63 on March 9, 2013 at 9:12 AM
Thank you for the Most Obscure Reference of the Day! I had to go google Rudy.
You’re confusing liability for a civil offense and liability to pay for injuries/damage. They aren’t the same. It depends partly on whether your state has contributory negligence laws or not (if you’re even 1% responsible in some places, you might end up paying for everything, in others there is a threshold).
The real question (cutting through all the well-deserved snark above) is whether it will be considered negligent to not have a driver paying attention. Of course, that sort of defeats the point of a driverless car. The only way for a driverless car to work and avoid all sorts of negligence issues is to have all the vehicles centrally controlled. In which case, you just have a lot of really small trolleys running about.
Though I love technology, I will agree with Othniel: if you have more important things to do than drive, then call a cab or take the bus (or train) or hire a chauffeur. But, please don’t sit in the driver’s seat.
One point about autopilots: in an airplane, the pilot is always considered to be in control, even if the autopilot is on. But, a pilot is also considered to be much more highly trained than your typical automobile driver. (Where I live, a mouse that can hit the right button to get his crack pellet is more highly trained than a lot of my fellow commuters.)
GWB on March 9, 2013 at 10:50 AM
Mr. Asimov had all the answers!
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 9, 2013 at 12:34 PM