3 ms·
Wouldn't they, as a company, be incentivized to fight desperately to avoid potentially setting a costly precendent?
by staticassertion 6y ago
Wouldn't they, as a company, be incentivized to fight desperately to avoid potentially setting a costly precendent?
- kfarr 6y agoAbsolutely. See Uber's actual response to their deadly incident -- absolving themselves of liability and blaming the backup driver.
- bluGill 6y agoDepends. They have incentives to not allow costly precedents. However they also have incentive to ensure that when this goes mainstream there are precedents in their favor. If they believe the "accident" is either a one-off (meaning they will fix the bug and a whole class never happens again) they will probably pay off quick just because their image is better for that. If they decide the accident was their fault, not avoidable with better software, AND despite that they are still significantly safer than humans they probably pay out, adjust their price models to insurance against their faults. In this case they may fight, but it will be for "reasonable" settlements (whatever they decide that is, but probably based on similar human caused accidents) My guess is they think one of the two are the case for everything by now, so the other possibilities don't need to be listed. Of course the above is my guess. You can be sure those who know are not talking.