So if you make a car better than what an average driver thinks of themselves, you win? That is achievable by either making a really good self driving car or by

So if you make a car better than what an average driver thinks of themselves, you win? That is achievable by either making a really good self driving car or by fixing those bad perceptions of car drivers. Not every country even has a jury based judicial system. And the good lawyer would ask the jurors to imagine how they would react in a given failure scenario while ignoring the fact that it is a self driving car, much like they're supposed to ignore the fact that a driver is of specific group (not even protected class) as not pertinent. The prosecution would have to show that the failure is caused specifically because it is a self driving car. Burden of proof. They objection is aimed at the justice not the jury. Negligence suit against a company is a separate matter than a car crash. And much harder for jurors. To calibrate juror expectations you might try to show footage from some related human crashes as part of initial presentation. It depends on the judge whether that would be allowed of course. Definitely should be allowed against an expert to establish their expertise in judging car accidents. First such case against a level 5 car would be very high profile. This of course means that driverless cars are allowed on the road, ultimately meaning there would be some sort of car certification.