Bryant Walker Smith, a professor at the University of South Carolina, is an internationally recognized expert on the law of self-driving vehicles and taught the first-ever course on the topic. He's part of a new community of lawyers working on how to determine who's responsible for accidents involving self-driving vehicles.
"Managing this transition will be very complicated and will, I think, be a source of litigation," Smith said.
In a telephone interview with Automotive News correspondent Julie Halpert, he shared his perspective on a few scenarios that could unfold as autonomous vehicles become more mainstream:
Scenario 1: An autonomous car brakes quickly to avoid a collision with a bicyclist. The passenger isn't wearing his seat belt. He's thrown from the seat into the windshield and is injured. He sues the automaker for damages.
There is not a nationwide set of rules for when you can successfully sue someone for an injury they've caused you, and states vary considerably in the rules they apply.
Many states take the position that manufacturers cannot introduce evidence of an injured person's failure to wear their seat belt as a reason for the injuries. Some [automotive] developers are trying to limit liability and also make systems safer by not allowing the car to start if people are not belted. The unbelted user who is thrown from the vehicle will, in most states, need to argue what the manufacturer should have done differently to protect them. And then it is an argument in court over whether that would have been a reasonable design alternative.
The manufacturer could argue that they're interested in protecting user autonomy and that they're under no obligation to impose ignition interlock. They could also argue that there are situations where a user may need to operate a car with the seat belt disengaged.
The plaintiff could also argue that the vehicle should have known that the occupant wasn't belted and therefore should have decelerated more slowly, to mitigate the extent of injury. If the vehicle slowed to avoid the bicyclist, then the driver would be in the difficult position of arguing that the vehicle should have [prioritized] the driver's safety over the vulnerable road user's. The manufacturer could argue that seriously injuring or killing a bicyclist to avoid having the occupant go through the windshield is not an appropriate trade-off.
Read the full interview at Automotive News.