Driverless Car's Liability
Keywords:
Autonomous Vehicle, Smart Car, LiabilityAbstract
Full implementation of unmanned vehicle technology can lead to changes in the way you think about liability. In other words, will drivers always have the legal obligation or not? What if they are still responsible by law or not? Today, most car accidents caused more or less by a human driver error. Unmanned vehicle technology will change the driver's status to be just a passenger, so the assumption that drivers are careless or responsible because they don't use enough care should be changed.
During the period of unmanned vehicle technology, we expect car accidents are unlikely to happen. However, in the case of unmanned vehicles, once it happens, it can be a serious accident which can cause serious injury or death to the injured person. Driving behavior on the road can be changed. In addition, it could also have an effect on the behavior of other people on the roads. Therefore, legal issues related to unmanned vehicles which should therefore be changed, such as accident liability, insurance, as well as general public regulations regarding the use of unmanned vehicles, etc. It is an issue that needs to be learned and familiarized with said technology that will occur in the near future.
The theory of liability that could be applied to unmanned vehicles has 3 theories. The result of the study found that all of the above theories can be applied in the case of unmanned vehicle technology. However, in choosing the appropriate theory of liability for the unmanned vehicle, other factors must be taken into account such as the burden of proof for the person making the claim. If we allow the manufacturer to be responsible by enforcing strict liability through product liability law, this may have the effect of reducing the motivation of manufacturers to develop unmanned vehicle technology.
For Thailand, in the case of liability, we studied “traditional negligence liability” under section 420 of the Civil and Commercial Code, “strict liability” under section 437 of the Civil and Commercial Code and the law on product liability which specifies that the entrepreneur must be liable under the Civil Liability for damage caused by Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act 2551 (B.E.) and “no fault liability” under the Road Accident Victims Protection Act 2535 (B.E.), which require that all vehicles have insurance, at least being third party insurance to protect and provide assistance to those who have been injured or killed by a car accident. Injury and death cases could receive financial assistance under this law. In addition, under the Road Accident Victims Protection Act 2535 (B.E.) also aims to ensure that victims of the car accident receive prompt medical care without any hesitation from the hospital to determine whether they can collect medical expenses from the victims. Since the government considers it is welfare for people who have suffered from car accident, it is considered that the Road Accident Victims Protection Act 2535 (B.E.) can be applied in the case of unmanned vehicles as well.
References
James M. Anderson et al. Autonomous Vehicle Technology: A Guide for Policymakers. RAND Corporation : California, 2016.
Tatjana Eva. A common EU approach to liability rules and insurance for connected and autonomous vehicles. European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) : European Union, 2018.
บทความวารสาร
Giorgio Risso. “Product liability and protection of EU consumers: is it time for a serious reassessment?” Journal of Private International Law. (6 June 2019) : 210-211.
Keri Grieman. “Hard Drive Crash: An Examination of Liability for Self-Driving Vehicles.” JIPITEC (Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law). 3. vol 9. (2018), available at https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-9-3-2018/4806
LIIS VIHUL. “the liability of software manufacturers for defective products.” Tallinn Paper. (2014).
Victor Schwartz. “Driverless Cars: The Legal Landscape.” Liability & Insurance, The George Washington University School of Law. (14 June 2017), available at https://www.law.gwu.edu/sites /g/files/zaxdzs2351/f/downloads/Panel-3-Liability-and-Insurance.pdf
สื่ออิเล็กทรอนิกส์
Andrew J. Hawkins, “Waymo tells riders that ‘completely driverless’ vehicles are on the way.” (2019), available at https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/10/20907901/waymo-driverless-cars-email-customers-arizona
Denis W. Stearns. “An introduction to product liability law.” (2001), available at https://marlerclark.com/pdfs/intro-product-liability-law.pdf
ELLIOTT & SMITH LAW FIRM. “What Is The Difference Between “No-Fault” And “Fault” Liability In A Car Accident?.” (2019), available at https://www.elliottsmithlaw.com/what-is-the-difference-between-no-fault-and-fault-liability-in-a-car-accident/
FindLaw's team. “Elements of a Negligence Case.” (2019), available at https://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/elements-of-a-negligence-case.html
Gareth Corfield. “Tesla death smash probe: Neither driver nor autopilot saw the truck.” (2017), available at https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/20/tesla_death_crash_accident _report_ntsb/
Louise Hennon. “Driverless cars – The need for regulation.” (2017), available at https://www.rocketlawyer.com/gb/en/blog/driverless-cars-the-need-for-regulation/
The guardian. “Google self-driving car collides with bus in California, accident report says.” available at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/29/google-self-driving-car-accident-california
กฎหมาย
สหภาพยุโรป
Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (European Union)
ประเทศไทย
พระราชบัญญัติความรับผิดต่อความเสียหายที่เกิดขึ้นจากสินค้าที่ไม่ปลอดภัย พ.ศ. 2551 (ประเทศไทย)
พระราชบัญญัติคุ้มครองผู้ประสบภัยจากรถ พ.ศ.2535 (ประเทศไทย)
คำพิพากษา
ศาลยุติธรรมแห่งสหภาพยุโรป
The Court of Justice of the European Union, Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH v. AOK Sachsen-Anhalt, March 5, 2015 in joined cases C-503/13 and C-504/13, para. 37.
Queen's Bench Division of the High Court (U.K.), case [2001] 3 All ER 289, A and others v National Blood Authority and another.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The manuscripts published in the Law Journal is the copyright of the Law Journal, Thammasat University
Any article or opinion appeared in the Law Journal will solely be under the responsibility of the author The Faculty of Law, Thammasat University and the editors do not need to reach in agreement or hold any responsibility.
