The arrival of self-driving cars has accelerated the need for updated legal frameworks that can keep pace with autonomous vehicle technology. These autonomous vehicles promise safer roads and fewer accidents, but they also raise new challenges around liability for accidents. For example, this Tesla’s Robotaxi Rollout Is Coming But They Haven’t Tested It Without a Driver Yet highlights how rapid advancements in autonomous driving can outpace regulatory readiness.
When a collision involves driverless cars or self-driving vehicles, determining fault is no longer as straightforward as it was with human-operated wheeled vehicles. Traditionally, courts have applied traffic laws and product liability principles to decide responsibility. However, autonomous systems and semi-autonomous systems now operate in ways that blend machine decision-making with human oversight. This has led scholars to propose a hybrid approach that combines product liability law with a “reasonable human driver” standard. The goal is to ensure fair accountability for both vehicle manufacturers and software developers, while maintaining safety standards set by authorities like the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Why New Standards Are Needed
Automated vehicles change the landscape of auto accident liability. In the past, traffic regulations focused on human error, while products liability law targeted defective vehicles. But when automated driving systems and sensor systems control most or all functions, software malfunctions, software issues, or failures in system safety can be the primary cause.
The complexity increases when different parties are involved, such as the software provider, vehicle manufacturer, or third-party software developer. Questions also arise about vicarious liability, civil liability, and tort liability when an automated lane keeping system or self-driving system data logs reveal mixed causes. Without a unified approach, victims may face delays and disputes over liability and insurance issues.
The Proposed Hybrid Model
The new proposal merges product liability principles with the reasonable human driver benchmark.
- Product Liability Focus
This part examines whether there was a defect in the vehicle’s design, manufacturing, or warnings, consistent with products liability law and regulation of liability. Examples include:
- Faulty sensor systems or global positioning system errors.
- Software malfunctions that misinterpret traffic laws.
- Failure to install critical software updates that affect system safety.
- Faulty sensor systems or global positioning system errors.
- Reasonable Human Driver Standard
Here, the automated driving system is compared to how a prudent human would have acted under the same circumstances. This draws from Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, Geneva Convention on Road Traffic, and the 1968 Convention on Road Traffic, which set global benchmarks for road safety behavior.
By applying both elements, courts can fairly apportion liability risks among vehicle manufacturers, software providers, and human operators, even in the context of self-driving commercial vehicles or semi-autonomous vehicles.
Benefits of the Combined Approach
This blended standard offers several advantages:
- Fair allocation of liability between vehicle manufacturers and software developers.
- Stronger compliance with emerging technology standards such as SAE International Standard J3016 and Vehicle Automation Levels.
- Improved guidance for insurers when designing liability insurance and insurance policies tailored to automated vehicles.
- A framework adaptable to new SAE Level 5 fully autonomous technologies.
Implementation Challenges
Applying this model will require careful handling of several issues:
- Data Access – Manufacturers may restrict self-driving system data logs, complicating fault analysis.
- Jurisdictional Variation – Different states and countries apply varying vehicle licensing rules and Autonomous Vehicle Authorisation and Operation Directive guidelines.
- Evidence Complexity – Understanding AI decision-making in semi-autonomous systems will require expertise in both law and engineering.
- Integration with Existing Treaties – Aligning with the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic and other treaties will ensure global compatibility.
Example Scenarios
Scenario 1 – Faulty Sensor
A semi-autonomous vehicle fails to detect a pedestrian due to a defective sensor system. Under product liability law, the vehicle manufacturer could be responsible, while under the reasonable human driver standard, the system’s failure to react mirrors negligence.
Scenario 2 – Software Glitch
A driverless vehicle experiences software malfunctions that cause it to run a red light, violating traffic regulations. Liability could extend to the software provider, vehicle manufacturer, and possibly the operator if software updates were ignored.
Scenario 3 – Mixed Fault
A self-driving commercial vehicle crashes because of outdated automated lane keeping systems and poor human supervision. Here, tort liability, vicarious liability, and liability implications all come into play.
The Role of Insurance
The rise of autonomous vehicles will change how insurance policies and liability insurance are written. Insurers must consider:
- Data from vehicle telemetry.
- Compliance with system safety protocols.
- Risks linked to self-driving cars and driverless vehicles.
These changes could encourage safer autonomous vehicle technology and support adoption of emerging technology standards.
International Perspectives
Countries are adapting differently:
- UK – Places fault initially on insurers.
- Germany – Uses data recorders to determine control mode.
- California Department of Motor Vehicles – Oversees testing and licensing of automated vehicles and self-driving commercial vehicles.
Globally, frameworks are guided by Geneva Convention on Road Traffic, Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, and SAE International Standard J3016.
Technology and Evidence
Modern automated vehicles rely on the vehicle’s operating system, sensor systems, and vehicle telemetry. These systems produce crucial evidence for:
- Comparing AI actions to human norms.
- Identifying software issues or software malfunctions.
- Ensuring adherence to safety standards and system safety.
Preparing for the Future
The integration of automated driving systems will demand ongoing updates to products liability law and traffic laws. As SAE Level 5 technology becomes mainstream, global alignment on emerging technology standards and regulation of liability will be essential.
Conclusion
The hybrid approach, merging product liability and the reasonable human driver test, could provide the clarity needed for courts, manufacturers, insurers, and the public. It balances innovation with accountability, ensuring that autonomous systems meet both technological and human expectations.
About Ted Law Firm
Ted Law Firm, offers informed and diligent legal representation across a wide range of personal injury and accident matters. We serve families across Aiken, Anderson, Charleston, Columbia, Greenville, Myrtle Beach, North Augusta and Orangeburg. With a commitment to clear communication and thorough case preparation, we ensure our clients are empowered with the knowledge and resources they need to navigate complex claims. Contact us today for a free consultation.
