5 ms·

> the man died because of that issue Tesla would argue that the proximate cause was that the driver was not paying attention. > And now Tesla is saying that t

> the man died because of that issue Tesla would argue that the proximate cause was that the driver was not paying attention. > And now Tesla is saying that there is an issue, and that it's his fault for using the system. Tesla is not saying that it's his fault for using the system. They are saying it is not Tesla's fault if the driver wasn't paying attention, despite being presented with repeated warnings closely preceding the impact.

gamblor956 9y ago
Proximate cause is irrelevant. This is a product liability issue because the product failed, which means strict liability applies.
- fmihaila 9y ago
  > Proximate cause is irrelevant. This is a product liability issue because the product failed, which means strict liability applies. I am not a lawyer, but it is not clear to me just yet that the product failed. We don't know what the investigation will show.
  - gamblor956 9y ago
    Car steered itself into a concrete wall. That is, by definition, failure. It doesn't matter whether it was properly following its coding to follow lane lines.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > I am not a lawyer, but it is not clear to me just yet that the product failed. It's not clear to me whether it was a design defect or a manufacturing defect, but it's pretty clear that the lane keeping system drove the vehicle into a barrier which was not, in fact, located in a traffic lane, killing the occupant, which is pretty obviously a failure.
    - fmihaila 9y ago
      > It's not clear to me whether it was a design defect or a manufacturing defect, but it's pretty clear that the lane keeping system drove the vehicle into a barrier which was not, in fact, located in a traffic lane, killing the occupant, which is pretty obviously a failure. Reflecting on your reply and gamblor956's post below, and after reviewing the published photos, I concede this looks like the most likely scenario, and if that is what actually occurred, it would unequivocally be a failure. (That said, there's still a chance, however small, that whatever seems obvious now ends up being invalidated by the investigation. I just don't like feeling certain about things like this, especially from a distance.)
- theclaw 9y ago
  Failed under what conditions, though? The manufacturer gets to specify the conditions under which they consider their product to be safe and suitable for a particular purpose. The car was not used under those conditions and the result was injury through misuse of the product. If my toaster causes me serious injury because I used it in the bath, that is my problem.
  - gamblor956 9y ago
    Product liability (in the US) attaches to the normal usage of a product, whether that is an intended usage of the product or not. A toaster is not normally used in the bath, so that does not create product liability issues. A car is normally used for driving...in fact, that's a car's primary use...so product liability would attach to its driving-related functional failure.
    - taneq 9y ago
      To be fair, a car isn't normally used for driving on the freeway without looking where you're going for 5+ seconds at a time.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > The manufacturer gets to specify the conditions under which they consider their product to be safe and suitable for a particular purpose. No, they don't, otherwise they could disclaim everything.

gamblor956 9y ago

Proximate cause is irrelevant. This is a product liability issue because the product failed, which means strict liability applies.

fmihaila 9y ago
> Proximate cause is irrelevant. This is a product liability issue because the product failed, which means strict liability applies. I am not a lawyer, but it is not clear to me just yet that the product failed. We don't know what the investigation will show.
- gamblor956 9y ago
  Car steered itself into a concrete wall. That is, by definition, failure. It doesn't matter whether it was properly following its coding to follow lane lines.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > I am not a lawyer, but it is not clear to me just yet that the product failed. It's not clear to me whether it was a design defect or a manufacturing defect, but it's pretty clear that the lane keeping system drove the vehicle into a barrier which was not, in fact, located in a traffic lane, killing the occupant, which is pretty obviously a failure.
  - fmihaila 9y ago
    > It's not clear to me whether it was a design defect or a manufacturing defect, but it's pretty clear that the lane keeping system drove the vehicle into a barrier which was not, in fact, located in a traffic lane, killing the occupant, which is pretty obviously a failure. Reflecting on your reply and gamblor956's post below, and after reviewing the published photos, I concede this looks like the most likely scenario, and if that is what actually occurred, it would unequivocally be a failure. (That said, there's still a chance, however small, that whatever seems obvious now ends up being invalidated by the investigation. I just don't like feeling certain about things like this, especially from a distance.)
theclaw 9y ago
Failed under what conditions, though? The manufacturer gets to specify the conditions under which they consider their product to be safe and suitable for a particular purpose. The car was not used under those conditions and the result was injury through misuse of the product. If my toaster causes me serious injury because I used it in the bath, that is my problem.
- gamblor956 9y ago
  Product liability (in the US) attaches to the normal usage of a product, whether that is an intended usage of the product or not. A toaster is not normally used in the bath, so that does not create product liability issues. A car is normally used for driving...in fact, that's a car's primary use...so product liability would attach to its driving-related functional failure.
  - taneq 9y ago
    To be fair, a car isn't normally used for driving on the freeway without looking where you're going for 5+ seconds at a time.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > The manufacturer gets to specify the conditions under which they consider their product to be safe and suitable for a particular purpose. No, they don't, otherwise they could disclaim everything.