Advancement in automated driving technology has great potential benefits. Autonomous vehicles (AVs) technology is quickly becoming a new focus for many firms, particularly those operating in the automotive manufacturing industry. This includes Silicon Valley, Detroit, Ford, Tesla, and other firms that are working on this technology (Henderson & Spencer, 2016). However, this technology has and will continue to have far-reaching implications. One of the implications raised by the this technology is the issue of liability and insurance (Faisal et al., 2019). The autonomous driving system of AVs serve generally a robotic function. This raises a number of issues, particularly in criminal law. This is due to the fact that a robot can malfunction. A malfunction of the autonomous system of AVs can result in serious harm to people and property. This raises the question of who should be subject to criminal punishment: the driver, owner, operator, or manufacture. This is because robot systems are inappropriate for criminal punishment. This paper will delve into discussing the issue of liability and insurance with regard to self-driving cars.
Sensors of automated driving systems can provide enough details pertaining to the occurrence of an accident. According to (Dhar 2016), these details can help law enforcement agencies accurately determine the number of liability decisions. Through this, it would be possible to determine the “at-fault” driver or vehicle (Dhar, 2016). This will, in turn, help ensure that insurance payment is quickly processed for the victim. This accurate identification of accident-related factors is beneficial in a number of ways. First, it helps quash delays. Secondly it help quash litigation costs linked with tort laws. More to this is that the accurate identification of accident-related factors can help exclude the necessity for “no-fault insurance” (Faisal et al., 2019).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The emergence of self-driving cars makes make fault identification accurate. However, it raises the question of who should be held accountable for the accident: driver, owner, operator, or manufacturer (Faisal et al., 2019). The autonomous driving system of self-driving cars serves generally a robotic function. With this in mind, a robotic system cannot be held responsible for an accident in cases an accident occurs and causes serious harm to people and property. This is because robotic systems are inappropriate for criminal punishment. Gless et al. (2016) argue that the manufacturers of self-driving cars should be subject to criminal punishment in case the individual who produces AVs use robots to intentionally to cause harm to people or to destroy property. However, Gless et al. (2016) advocate in favor of limiting the liability of operators, if they undermine to initiate actions that are deemed reasonable for controlling the harms that originate from the autonomous driving system.
In the United States, states are responsible for liability regimes and insurance (Velliga, 2017). Some states, such as California, hold that the manufacturers of self-driving cars should be held accountable if the self-driving cars they have manufactured are involved in accidents that have to be covered by proper insurance. Other nations, such as the Netherlands, intended to hold the possessors of self-driving cars liable for development risk. This is because, according to Dutch law, the possessors of self-driving cars cannot invoke the defense that can be called on by the manufacturer (Vellinga, 2017). The United Kingdom intends to provide the first part insurance option for the victim. This means that the victims, regardless of liability, have the ability to claim from his insurer. The insurer can then recover the amount from the manufacturer in case the manufacturer is found liable. According to Schellekens (2015), other countries, such as Sweden, have been practicing first-party insurance for decades.
As stated earlier, self-driving cars technology has and will continue to have far-reaching implications. For example, if the manufacture is held responsible for accidents, this might slow down the progress of developing self-driving cars (Velliga, 2017). More to this is that insurance agencies may become less likely to insure the high risk of self-driving cars. Thus, there is a need to address this issue. One way to address this issue is to limit the amount of damages an individual can claim due to the fault of the self-driving car. Vellinga (2017) suggests the government be reinsurers in order to encourage insurance agencies to insure autonomous vehicles.
To sum up, AV technology is a new one and is undergoing developments. This technology has a number of potential benefits. As such, AV technology has become the focus of man companies. However, this technology has and is continuing to have far-reaching implications, given that it is still undergoing developments. This paper delved into discussing the insurance and liability implication brought about by the technology of self-driving cars. Just like non-autonomous cars, an autonomous car can be involved in accidents and result in harm to people and property. This raises the question of who to be held accountable, given that the robot system is inappropriate for criminal punishment. This big question has raised a lot of concerns given that the driver, owner, operator, or manufacturer of the self-driving car can be held responsible depending on the scenario. While some nations are intending to hold the owners responsible, other nations are intending to hold the manufacturers responsible. Whichever the case, both decisions result in a number of issues, and there is a need to address these issues promptly.
References
Dhar, V. (2016). Equity, safety, and privacy in the autonomous vehicle era. Computer , 49 (11), 80-83.
Faisal, A., Kamruzzaman, M., Yigitcanlar, T., & Currie, G. (2019). Understanding autonomous vehicles. Journal of transport and land use , 12 (1), 45-72.
Gless, S., Silverman, E., & Weigend, T. (2016). If Robots cause harm, Who is to blame? Self-driving Cars and Criminal Liability. New Criminal Law Review: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal , 19 (3), 412-436.
Henderson, J., & Spencer, J. (2016). Autonomous vehicles and commercial real estate. Cornell Real Estate Review , 14 (1), 14.
Schellekens, M. (2015). Self-driving cars and the chilling effect of liability law. Computer Law & Security Review , 31 (4), 506-517.
Vellinga, N. E. (2017). From the testing to the deployment of self-driving cars: Legal challenges to policymakers on the road ahead. Computer Law & Security Review , 33 (6), 847-863.
