8 ms·

Short answer is “yes”. It’s the same way a homeowner can be responsible if they negligently leave some issues on their property and a person falls to their deat

Short answer is “yes”. It’s the same way a homeowner can be responsible if they negligently leave some issues on their property and a person falls to their death. The ultimate responsibility is the person behind the wheel. That said, I’d argue Tesla is also liable. To what extent I don’t know, but it was clearly a contributing factor.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>Short answer is “yes” same way a homeowner can be responsible if they negligently leave some issues on their property and a person falls to their death. There's a lot of gray area in those kinds of cases. The idea that one is negligent because one could have done something differently tends to permeate internet circle jerks about legal responsibility but these sorts of things tend to be very specific to the facts in question and the burdens of proof differ greatly between civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions. In this case the driver will probably be probably be financially responsible for the outcome but being found guilty of manslaughter is a much higher bar. However, many states have various vehicular <type of crime> statutes with lower requirements or "but if driving a vehicle then X" type qualifiers on the definitions of normal crimes so that may complicate things.
CPLX 5y ago
That's an opinion not a statement of current policy or reality. In the real world we have pretty extensive precedents about consumer product safety, and manufacturers are very often liable for design decisions that lead to harm, even if nominally speaking the user was supposed to be ultimately responsible.
ct0 5y ago
Do we hold pilots accountable when the plane in on autopilot? Genuinely curious.
- nradov 5y ago
  Yes
- chopin 5y ago
  I would think generally yes. It's the Pilot's job to supervise the autopilot.
- NikolaeVarius 5y ago
  Yes, Pilots are responsible for the plane. Even if the autopilot messes up, there is a reason there are multiple pilots in the cockpit, they are supposed to take control.
- hwers 5y ago
  It's probably evaluated on a case-by-case basis depending on how much the investigation determines it was caused by technical issues and pilot negligence.
- daniel-thompson 5y ago
  Yes. The pilot in command is ultimately responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft. See https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap6_section_1.html https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html... for more information. Having said that, aircraft pilots are very highly trained relative to automobile drivers and must pass periodic medical and proficiency exams to maintain their flight status. Whereas anyone (loosely speaking) can buy a Tesla and just start driving it.
- WA 5y ago
  Do autopilots in planes "fly themselves no human input at all"? Because that's what Teslas are doing since 2016, according to Elon Musk: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/789019145853513729 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/789019145853513729
  - neurobashing 5y ago
    The very short story is, one member of the crew maintains control of the aircraft (hands on yoke and throttles, maintains general situational awareness) while the other enters the data into the autopilot (set altitude to X, bearing Y, at speed Z). The aircraft then executes the maneuver(s) entered, while under supervision of a human.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- smoyer 5y ago
  In the U.S., the FAA provides quite a few regulations that specifically forbid the use of autopilot in certain circumstances (e.g. "Autopilot - Minimum Altitudes for Use [0]). More over, the FAA recognizes that extensive use of autopilot functions can degrade a pilot's skills and has issued a SAFO [1] with guidance for aircraft operations and pilot training. [0]https://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part135-93-FAR.shtml https://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part135-93-FAR.shtml [1] https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/media/2013/SAFO13002.pdf https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_op...
- ta988 5y ago
  Yes, but autopilot in plane is much much different. It is not about detecting and avoiding other planes, it is about following a route and recovering from various flight situations. You don't have an autopilot for when they are on the ground.
- imglorp 5y ago
  U.S. CFR Title 14, Part 1, Section 1.1 defines the duties of Pilot in Command, legal term: [...] Has the final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight. [...] That means PIC can delegate flying to their mom if they like but they are responsible. If they delegate to hardware and it misbehaves, they are still responsible.
- stefan_ 5y ago
  Well the pilots are dead in a lot of incidents so it's kinda moot? Airlines are sued all the time over crashes and right now Boeing is being sued over crashes from MCAS, even though there is a magic combination the pilots could have pressed to override it. Generally, in any kind of crash investigation the pilots are one of the least important things to look at - telling people to do X or Y to mitigate some risk has a terrible track record.
  - daniel-thompson 5y ago
    > Well the pilots are dead in a lot of incidents so it's kinda moot? It's not moot because most occurrences don't result in death. Occurrences are investigated both to establish fault (which can and does sometimes result in pilots losing their flight status and/or jobs), and from a safety perspective to try to prevent or minimize future occurrences. > Generally, in any kind of crash investigation the pilots are one of the least important things to look at This is not true. Most accidents and incidents are caused at least in part by pilot error. - https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/aviation-accident/why-planes-crash/human-factors-in-aviation/ https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/aviation-accident/why-planes-... - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12136068_Factors_associated_with_pilot_error_in_aviation_crashes https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12136068_Factors_as... - https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_2_07/article_03_2.html https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_... > telling people to do X or Y to mitigate some risk has a terrible track record. This is not true at all, at least when it comes to aircraft pilots. As anyone who's been to flight school knows, about 90% of the curriculum could reasonably be described as "telling the pilot to do X or Y to mitigate risk". And it works! There are millions of flights every year, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of them are safe (because pilots actively & successfully mitigate risk).
nradov 5y ago
There is a huge difference between criminal guilt (as in the article) versus civil liability (as in your example). Those are not at all equivalent. After the criminal case is resolved, the victims or their next-of-kin will probably try to sue the driver and Tesla in civil court for wrongful death.
- simplicio 5y ago
  According to the article, they already have. The articles kinda vague on why exactly the driver is being charged, though. Reading between the lines, I suspect its not just because he had the autopilot engaged, but was engaged in some form of gross negligence at the same time (sleeping, playing videogames on his phone, etc).
  - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
    Failing to actively supervising the driving of the vehicle while autopilot is engaged is probably enough to sustain the mens rea for criminally negligent homicide.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Isn't blowing through a red light directly resulting in the deaths of two people typically going to result in vehicular manslaughter charges? In other words, blowing through a red light is a sufficient amount of negligence in my mind for vehicular manslaughter.
    - simplicio 5y ago
      I don't think so, though I'm not positive. The cases I see in the news usually involve some extra piece of wrong doing (being under the influence, almost exclusively).
- justhisonce99 5y ago
  The example the parent gives is potentially a criminal liability as well. If you know the railing on your balcony is wobbly and a guest leaning on it falls to their death, you're definitely open to criminal negligence charges coming your way.
toomuchtodo 5y ago
Can you explain how Tesla is liable? It is made clear to the driver (both in the manual and at activation of Autopilot) that they remain the final authority in control of the vehicle, and at the time of the accident, the Tesla software build did not support detection and actioning of stop lights nor stop signs. Are folks going to sue GM and Ford when people don't pay attention when their versions of driver assist don't stop the car for an obstacle or traffic signal? Probably, but that's because America is highly litigious and has lost the concept of personal responsibility. The odds of winning are low. (disclosure: tesla owner with >50k miles of Autopilot [EAP] use)
- catillac 5y ago
  Have you ever seen those signs on the back of dump trucks on the highway that state something like, “Stay Back: Truck Driver Not Responsible for Cracked Windshields”?
  - tyingq 5y ago
    That's complete bullshit though. It does not dissolve liability for things like improperly covered loads.
    - catillac 5y ago
      Precisely. It has no legal effect.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- bumby 5y ago
  It may come down to deeper analysis that looks at both root and proximate causes. If Tesla's design was considered faulty from a safety standpoint and substantially contributed to the accident, I would imagine they will have some portion of responsibility. I also think the generalized caveat that it's always the drivers fault is a dangerous one that can incentivize manufacturer's to take unnecessary risks (e.g., less testing/quality in favor of delivering on schedule because they can always push the risk - sometimes unknown - to the end user).
tantalor 5y ago
> some issues on their property Nah, it's more like how you are responsible for a loose animal that leaves your property and causes harm. /ianal
pjc50 5y ago
I think we need a new distinction: not "self-driving" but "self-liable". A lot of the FSD hype implies applications in which there isn't an active driver; cars going off and parking themselves, Uber replacing human drivers, working while commuting, etc. Whether those applications can be realized is not so much a question of technology as liability. Conversely, if the human remains liable, this needs to be kept clear in the marketing material.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

>Short answer is “yes” same way a homeowner can be responsible if they negligently leave some issues on their property and a person falls to their death. There's a lot of gray area in those kinds of cases. The idea that one is negligent because one could have done something differently tends to permeate internet circle jerks about legal responsibility but these sorts of things tend to be very specific to the facts in question and the burdens of proof differ greatly between civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions. In this case the driver will probably be probably be financially responsible for the outcome but being found guilty of manslaughter is a much higher bar. However, many states have various vehicular <type of crime> statutes with lower requirements or "but if driving a vehicle then X" type qualifiers on the definitions of normal crimes so that may complicate things.

CPLX 5y ago

That's an opinion not a statement of current policy or reality. In the real world we have pretty extensive precedents about consumer product safety, and manufacturers are very often liable for design decisions that lead to harm, even if nominally speaking the user was supposed to be ultimately responsible.

ct0 5y ago

Do we hold pilots accountable when the plane in on autopilot? Genuinely curious.

nradov 5y ago
Yes
chopin 5y ago
I would think generally yes. It's the Pilot's job to supervise the autopilot.
NikolaeVarius 5y ago
Yes, Pilots are responsible for the plane. Even if the autopilot messes up, there is a reason there are multiple pilots in the cockpit, they are supposed to take control.
hwers 5y ago
It's probably evaluated on a case-by-case basis depending on how much the investigation determines it was caused by technical issues and pilot negligence.
daniel-thompson 5y ago
Yes. The pilot in command is ultimately responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft. See https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap6_section_1.html https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html... for more information. Having said that, aircraft pilots are very highly trained relative to automobile drivers and must pass periodic medical and proficiency exams to maintain their flight status. Whereas anyone (loosely speaking) can buy a Tesla and just start driving it.
WA 5y ago
Do autopilots in planes "fly themselves no human input at all"? Because that's what Teslas are doing since 2016, according to Elon Musk: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/789019145853513729 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/789019145853513729
- neurobashing 5y ago
  The very short story is, one member of the crew maintains control of the aircraft (hands on yoke and throttles, maintains general situational awareness) while the other enters the data into the autopilot (set altitude to X, bearing Y, at speed Z). The aircraft then executes the maneuver(s) entered, while under supervision of a human.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
smoyer 5y ago
In the U.S., the FAA provides quite a few regulations that specifically forbid the use of autopilot in certain circumstances (e.g. "Autopilot - Minimum Altitudes for Use [0]). More over, the FAA recognizes that extensive use of autopilot functions can degrade a pilot's skills and has issued a SAFO [1] with guidance for aircraft operations and pilot training. [0]https://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part135-93-FAR.shtml https://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part135-93-FAR.shtml [1] https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/media/2013/SAFO13002.pdf https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_op...
ta988 5y ago
Yes, but autopilot in plane is much much different. It is not about detecting and avoiding other planes, it is about following a route and recovering from various flight situations. You don't have an autopilot for when they are on the ground.
imglorp 5y ago
U.S. CFR Title 14, Part 1, Section 1.1 defines the duties of Pilot in Command, legal term: [...] Has the final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight. [...] That means PIC can delegate flying to their mom if they like but they are responsible. If they delegate to hardware and it misbehaves, they are still responsible.
stefan_ 5y ago
Well the pilots are dead in a lot of incidents so it's kinda moot? Airlines are sued all the time over crashes and right now Boeing is being sued over crashes from MCAS, even though there is a magic combination the pilots could have pressed to override it. Generally, in any kind of crash investigation the pilots are one of the least important things to look at - telling people to do X or Y to mitigate some risk has a terrible track record.
- daniel-thompson 5y ago
  > Well the pilots are dead in a lot of incidents so it's kinda moot? It's not moot because most occurrences don't result in death. Occurrences are investigated both to establish fault (which can and does sometimes result in pilots losing their flight status and/or jobs), and from a safety perspective to try to prevent or minimize future occurrences. > Generally, in any kind of crash investigation the pilots are one of the least important things to look at This is not true. Most accidents and incidents are caused at least in part by pilot error. - https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/aviation-accident/why-planes-crash/human-factors-in-aviation/ https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/aviation-accident/why-planes-... - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12136068_Factors_associated_with_pilot_error_in_aviation_crashes https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12136068_Factors_as... - https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_2_07/article_03_2.html https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_... > telling people to do X or Y to mitigate some risk has a terrible track record. This is not true at all, at least when it comes to aircraft pilots. As anyone who's been to flight school knows, about 90% of the curriculum could reasonably be described as "telling the pilot to do X or Y to mitigate risk". And it works! There are millions of flights every year, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of them are safe (because pilots actively & successfully mitigate risk).

nradov 5y ago

There is a huge difference between criminal guilt (as in the article) versus civil liability (as in your example). Those are not at all equivalent. After the criminal case is resolved, the victims or their next-of-kin will probably try to sue the driver and Tesla in civil court for wrongful death.

simplicio 5y ago
According to the article, they already have. The articles kinda vague on why exactly the driver is being charged, though. Reading between the lines, I suspect its not just because he had the autopilot engaged, but was engaged in some form of gross negligence at the same time (sleeping, playing videogames on his phone, etc).
- NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
  Failing to actively supervising the driving of the vehicle while autopilot is engaged is probably enough to sustain the mens rea for criminally negligent homicide.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Isn't blowing through a red light directly resulting in the deaths of two people typically going to result in vehicular manslaughter charges? In other words, blowing through a red light is a sufficient amount of negligence in my mind for vehicular manslaughter.
  - simplicio 5y ago
    I don't think so, though I'm not positive. The cases I see in the news usually involve some extra piece of wrong doing (being under the influence, almost exclusively).
justhisonce99 5y ago
The example the parent gives is potentially a criminal liability as well. If you know the railing on your balcony is wobbly and a guest leaning on it falls to their death, you're definitely open to criminal negligence charges coming your way.

toomuchtodo 5y ago

Can you explain how Tesla is liable? It is made clear to the driver (both in the manual and at activation of Autopilot) that they remain the final authority in control of the vehicle, and at the time of the accident, the Tesla software build did not support detection and actioning of stop lights nor stop signs. Are folks going to sue GM and Ford when people don't pay attention when their versions of driver assist don't stop the car for an obstacle or traffic signal? Probably, but that's because America is highly litigious and has lost the concept of personal responsibility. The odds of winning are low. (disclosure: tesla owner with >50k miles of Autopilot [EAP] use)

catillac 5y ago
Have you ever seen those signs on the back of dump trucks on the highway that state something like, “Stay Back: Truck Driver Not Responsible for Cracked Windshields”?
- tyingq 5y ago
  That's complete bullshit though. It does not dissolve liability for things like improperly covered loads.
  - catillac 5y ago
    Precisely. It has no legal effect.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
bumby 5y ago
It may come down to deeper analysis that looks at both root and proximate causes. If Tesla's design was considered faulty from a safety standpoint and substantially contributed to the accident, I would imagine they will have some portion of responsibility. I also think the generalized caveat that it's always the drivers fault is a dangerous one that can incentivize manufacturer's to take unnecessary risks (e.g., less testing/quality in favor of delivering on schedule because they can always push the risk - sometimes unknown - to the end user).

tantalor 5y ago

> some issues on their property Nah, it's more like how you are responsible for a loose animal that leaves your property and causes harm. /ianal

pjc50 5y ago

I think we need a new distinction: not "self-driving" but "self-liable". A lot of the FSD hype implies applications in which there isn't an active driver; cars going off and parking themselves, Uber replacing human drivers, working while commuting, etc. Whether those applications can be realized is not so much a question of technology as liability. Conversely, if the human remains liable, this needs to be kept clear in the marketing material.