Skip to content
Sponsored Content

When an autonomous vehicle is in an accident who or what is at fault?

Navigating the path of personal injury negligence around self-driving cars
AdobeStock_228815038

Self-driving technology is revolutionizing the automobile industry. Tesla, Ford, GM. and Toyota are using driver assist technology in vehicles on Ontario roads today and the province is moving toward driverless vehicles.

How safe are autonomous vehicles?

The most important issue for the public is safety. Industry experts say autonomous vehicles have a better safety record than human drivers, because robotic cars have rapid reaction times, they’re not distracted, and they don’t drive while intoxicated. They point to studies that indicate 80% of collisions could be avoided with driverless cars, saving millions in health care costs annually.

Levels of autonomy

The Society of Automotive Engineers has established five levels of autonomy. Levels 1 and 2 vehicles will keep the car within the lane, apply the brakes, control the speed and they’re travelling on Ontario roadways. James Ross, a personal injury lawyer at Orendorff and Associates in Sudbury has been watching the driverless car developments. He said, “Up to level 2, as the driver you are responsible for paying attention and doing everything that a driver is expected to do. The system can help avoid a collision, but it’s not in control of the vehicle.

Level 3 vehicles, which are sold in Ontario can drive on their own under certain conditions, but a driver must be paying attention and be prepared to take control when the vehicle tells them conditions are not safe.

In Arizona, a level 3 Uber self-driving car was operating in autopilot mode, when it struck and killed a pedestrian pushing a bicycle across the street. The car’s driver didn’t react in time to avoid the collision.

Level 3 is the most contentious, for manufacturers and for personal injury lawyers. Ross said, “Some automobile manufacturers have said, that they don’t want to deal with level 3, because it’s too problematic to hand off between the driver and the vehicle while the vehicle is still driving. They would rather jump to level 4.”

Level 4 is fully driverless and is only permitted on certain roadways, at certain speeds. If those conditions are exceeded, the vehicle will safely pull over to the side of the road and tell the human driver to take over.

Level 5 is a fully autonomous vehicle. Some vehicles may not be equipped with a steering wheel or pedals. Ross said, “Ontario does not allow levels 4 and 5 vehicles on the roadway yet, except under test pilot projects, which must be approved by the Ministry of Transportation. The problem is Ontario’s weather conditions, because the cameras don’t perform well in snow, sleet and on roads where the lines are obscured.”

Liability implications of a level 3 vehicle

Level 3 vehicles are subject to the same Highway Traffic Act regulations as other vehicles. Ross said, “The driver has a duty to drive with reasonable care and if they don’t, that driver and the vehicle owner is responsible to any person who is injured.” Ford and GM are putting cameras in the vehicle to ensure the driver is paying attention.

Who or what is to blame for the collision?

If you’re not driving the vehicle, are you still responsible for the collision? Will the claim be against the technology or the vehicle manufacturer?

Most claims involve human error, but as we hand control over to driverless vehicles, more collisions will be caused by product malfunction. The insurance landscape is changing to reflect this different reality.

Liability laws must evolve in Ontario. James Ross said one option is to make the manufacturer strictly liable. “That’s subject to the manufacturer proving that the technology did everything it should have done, and the collision could not be prevented.

The problem with strict liability or product liability where the injured party proves that the technology did not work and as a result they were injured, is that the cases take years to litigate.

Product and strict liability are complex, costly, and time-consuming. Manufacturers have highly skilled legal teams and deep pockets. Injured persons can’t wait years to be compensated.

Currently, we have a partial no-fault system in Ontario that offers a package of benefits and the ability to sue the at-fault driver only when certain thresholds are met.

But if there is no driver, and product liability takes years to resolve, Ross suggests another option would be to put a full no-fault system in place. He said, “Vehicle owners would pay for coverage and regardless of why a collision happened, the injured person would be covered up to the limits of the policy.”

But the devil is in the details in a no-fault system. Ross said, “A fair no-fault system needs to ensure that the contractual benefits are available immediately to aid the recovery of an injured person. The benefits should fairly compensate a person for their pain and suffering, lost wages and enable them to make a full recovery. If their injuries are more serious, the benefits should be sufficient to provide for the injured person’s care for the rest of their lives.”

Because these are very complex machines, there would still be owner liability and the owner would be forced by the manufacturer to upgrade the system or the vehicle wouldn’t run.

The responsibility of the manufacturer would be to ensure that the vehicle avoids a collision and reacts better than a human driver in a dangerous situation. The assumption is that there will be fewer collisions and driving will be safer. However, as we all know, at times technology does fail.

Contact James Ross at (705) 673-1200 or visit:  www.sudburypersonalinjurylawyers.ca