5 ms·

In the 1980s, the rising threat of liability prompted vaccine manufacturers to pull out of the business. So Congress stepped in and created a new system for peo

In the 1980s, the rising threat of liability prompted vaccine manufacturers to pull out of the business. So Congress stepped in and created a new system for people who are injured by vaccines. Cases are handled in special hearings, and victims are paid out of a fund created by a special tax on vaccines. That is interesting. I can't imagine the car manufacturers will be able to handle the costs of the liability by themselves (using our current model of car insurance), and you have to wonder if they should have to (how much is the "driver" responsible for? Is a "driver" in Manhattan riskier than one in Wyoming?) It's also interesting that we might not even care if it weren't for the fact that we all have to pay for car insurance now. I mean, nobody wonders who's going to cover the liability of a subway system. Perhaps this will wind up a government service, out of reach of the personal injury lawyers. Or like guns, which enjoy some specific protections from lawsuits.

steven777400 14y ago
I know that small airplane manufacturers stopped production in the 80s for the same reason (liability costs) and didn't resume until a special liability limitation was passed in Congress (General Aviation Revitalization Act, 1994). I think it shows a significant failure in our tort system that so many industries are crippled by liability unless they receive special treatment, and even then, sometimes it's not enough.
rayiner 14y ago
Why would the manufacturer be liable? An automated car crashing isn't necessarily a design defect. driving inherently creates risk, whether automated or not, and that risk should be carried by the owner of the car and his insurer.
- damoncali 14y ago
  You're riding along in your self driving car, and it suddenly veers off to the side, killing a pedestrian (or a pedestrian jumps in front, killing himself in the process). Who is at fault there? It's not black and white, but I'm going to say it's more on the manufacturer than the owner - either way, someone is getting sued and we need a legal/financial system that can handle the new paradigm.
eksith 14y ago
Vaccines don't compare to cars as much since the mere exposure to cars don't really cause injury or death. Unless they're in motion or were in the car while running (carbon monoxide poisoning). Although so many people drive, and there are so many accidents, it isn't an imminent threat to all people. The mere exposure to a disease is often all that's needed to for it to spread to an individual's family and their families/friends and so on until we have an exponential infection rate. This puts vaccines on the critically needed list so the government stepped in to mitigate the greater harm of lacking them altogether. I still think it will be a case of shared blame for driverless cars, although my hope is that blame would be largely unnecessary. If driverless cars can reach the same reliability of autopilots in aircraft, this will save lives.
- Kliment 14y ago
  The mere exposure to cars can cause injury or death. How about getting run over on the street? How about getting poisoned by exhaust fumes? It is an imminent threat to all people. Driverless cars are likely to be safer, and hopefully eventually cleaner, but ask the people who had to breathe that crap back when there was lead in gas whether exposure to cars is dangerous or not.
  - eksith 14y ago
    Hence the... "Unless they're in motion or were in the car while running (carbon monoxide poisoning)."
    - Kliment 14y ago
      Ah, I see what you mean now. That was an extremely confusing sentence.
moe 14y ago
I can't imagine the car manufacturers will be able to handle the costs of the liability by themselves Why not? Self-driving cars should cause much fewer crashes than human drivers, no?
- mikeryan 14y ago
  But the liability for human driven cars isn't on the manufacturer it's dispersed across millions of drivers.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - moe 14y ago
    I'm pretty sure my car manufacturer is already liable today when my airbag doesn't fire or if the brakes stop working on the freeway. What's the difference?
    - damoncali 14y ago
      The risks to manufacturers today are well understood by both the manufacturers and their insurance companies. We have decades of history to look at. With driverless cars, on the other hand, who knows? What will the rate of accident be? Will they be minor or major? How many can be properly blamed on the operator? How many cars will they be responsible for? Will these accidents be spread out over time, or lumped together one way or another? Is the manufacturer liable for an accident caused directly or indirectly by another driver, human or computer? Before driverless cars can happen, those questions need to be answered or mitigated one way or another. And it will have to be done in a way that is financially acceptable to those involved. I expect lots of legislative wrangling over it.
      - warfangle 14y ago
        Either way, each accident will have orders of magnitude more data to describe the situation than we have now. Imagine an airplane black box on steroids. Blame will be efficiently placed, I think.
dragonwriter 14y ago
> I can't imagine the car manufacturers will be able to handle the costs of the liability by themselves Manufacturers are already liable for the damages caused by crashes, etc., due to manufacturing defects. Heck, several of the textbook cases on manufacturer liability for damages resulting from defective products involve automakers. > I mean, nobody wonders who's going to cover the liability of a subway system. Actually, they usually do, especially if the owner and operator of the system are different. The difference is, most people are neither the owner nor the operator of a subway system. > Perhaps this will wind up a government service, out of reach of the personal injury lawyers. Government transit services are not "out of reach of the personal injury lawyers". Heck, there are personal injury lawyers that specifically advertise about these kinds of cases, e.g., http://www.quellerfisher.com/vehicle-accidents/subway-accidents/ http://www.quellerfisher.com/vehicle-accidents/subway-accide...
- macspoofing 14y ago
  >Heck, several of the textbook cases on manufacturer liability for damages resulting from defective products involve automakers The difference is that very few accidents are the result of defective automobile. In the hypothetical world where most(all) people ride in drive-less cars, the car manufacturer would be theoretically liable for EVERY car accident.
  - dragonwriter 14y ago
    > The difference is that very few accidents are the result of defective automobile. Doesn't really change anything fundamental to how the system works. > In the hypothetical world where most(all) people ride in drive-less cars, the car manufacturer would be theoretically liable for EVERY car accident. Probably not; maintenance is going to still be a big part of correct operation, and owners are almost certainly still going to be liable for accidents caused by the vehicle not being maintained in a safe operating condition, and likely the person giving commands to the car, as the legal "driver" whether in direct control every second or not, will remain initially liable for harms caused by the vehicle operating outside of legal rules for speed, direction of travel, etc. Especially, as is likely for the first very many years of self-driving-capable cars, the car allows manual operation as well as automatic operation. They may have the opportunity to <i>prove</i> that the improper operation resulted from a manufacturer's defect, and shift liability to (or seek contribution from) the manufacturer. But, again, that's true, now, too.

steven777400 14y ago

I know that small airplane manufacturers stopped production in the 80s for the same reason (liability costs) and didn't resume until a special liability limitation was passed in Congress (General Aviation Revitalization Act, 1994). I think it shows a significant failure in our tort system that so many industries are crippled by liability unless they receive special treatment, and even then, sometimes it's not enough.

rayiner 14y ago

Why would the manufacturer be liable? An automated car crashing isn't necessarily a design defect. driving inherently creates risk, whether automated or not, and that risk should be carried by the owner of the car and his insurer.

damoncali 14y ago
You're riding along in your self driving car, and it suddenly veers off to the side, killing a pedestrian (or a pedestrian jumps in front, killing himself in the process). Who is at fault there? It's not black and white, but I'm going to say it's more on the manufacturer than the owner - either way, someone is getting sued and we need a legal/financial system that can handle the new paradigm.

eksith 14y ago

Vaccines don't compare to cars as much since the mere exposure to cars don't really cause injury or death. Unless they're in motion or were in the car while running (carbon monoxide poisoning). Although so many people drive, and there are so many accidents, it isn't an imminent threat to all people. The mere exposure to a disease is often all that's needed to for it to spread to an individual's family and their families/friends and so on until we have an exponential infection rate. This puts vaccines on the critically needed list so the government stepped in to mitigate the greater harm of lacking them altogether. I still think it will be a case of shared blame for driverless cars, although my hope is that blame would be largely unnecessary. If driverless cars can reach the same reliability of autopilots in aircraft, this will save lives.

Kliment 14y ago
The mere exposure to cars can cause injury or death. How about getting run over on the street? How about getting poisoned by exhaust fumes? It is an imminent threat to all people. Driverless cars are likely to be safer, and hopefully eventually cleaner, but ask the people who had to breathe that crap back when there was lead in gas whether exposure to cars is dangerous or not.
- eksith 14y ago
  Hence the... "Unless they're in motion or were in the car while running (carbon monoxide poisoning)."
  - Kliment 14y ago
    Ah, I see what you mean now. That was an extremely confusing sentence.

moe 14y ago

I can't imagine the car manufacturers will be able to handle the costs of the liability by themselves Why not? Self-driving cars should cause much fewer crashes than human drivers, no?

mikeryan 14y ago
But the liability for human driven cars isn't on the manufacturer it's dispersed across millions of drivers.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- moe 14y ago
  I'm pretty sure my car manufacturer is already liable today when my airbag doesn't fire or if the brakes stop working on the freeway. What's the difference?
  - damoncali 14y ago
    The risks to manufacturers today are well understood by both the manufacturers and their insurance companies. We have decades of history to look at. With driverless cars, on the other hand, who knows? What will the rate of accident be? Will they be minor or major? How many can be properly blamed on the operator? How many cars will they be responsible for? Will these accidents be spread out over time, or lumped together one way or another? Is the manufacturer liable for an accident caused directly or indirectly by another driver, human or computer? Before driverless cars can happen, those questions need to be answered or mitigated one way or another. And it will have to be done in a way that is financially acceptable to those involved. I expect lots of legislative wrangling over it.
    - warfangle 14y ago
      Either way, each accident will have orders of magnitude more data to describe the situation than we have now. Imagine an airplane black box on steroids. Blame will be efficiently placed, I think.

dragonwriter 14y ago

> I can't imagine the car manufacturers will be able to handle the costs of the liability by themselves Manufacturers are already liable for the damages caused by crashes, etc., due to manufacturing defects. Heck, several of the textbook cases on manufacturer liability for damages resulting from defective products involve automakers. > I mean, nobody wonders who's going to cover the liability of a subway system. Actually, they usually do, especially if the owner and operator of the system are different. The difference is, most people are neither the owner nor the operator of a subway system. > Perhaps this will wind up a government service, out of reach of the personal injury lawyers. Government transit services are not "out of reach of the personal injury lawyers". Heck, there are personal injury lawyers that specifically advertise about these kinds of cases, e.g., http://www.quellerfisher.com/vehicle-accidents/subway-accidents/ http://www.quellerfisher.com/vehicle-accidents/subway-accide...

macspoofing 14y ago
>Heck, several of the textbook cases on manufacturer liability for damages resulting from defective products involve automakers The difference is that very few accidents are the result of defective automobile. In the hypothetical world where most(all) people ride in drive-less cars, the car manufacturer would be theoretically liable for EVERY car accident.
- dragonwriter 14y ago
  > The difference is that very few accidents are the result of defective automobile. Doesn't really change anything fundamental to how the system works. > In the hypothetical world where most(all) people ride in drive-less cars, the car manufacturer would be theoretically liable for EVERY car accident. Probably not; maintenance is going to still be a big part of correct operation, and owners are almost certainly still going to be liable for accidents caused by the vehicle not being maintained in a safe operating condition, and likely the person giving commands to the car, as the legal "driver" whether in direct control every second or not, will remain initially liable for harms caused by the vehicle operating outside of legal rules for speed, direction of travel, etc. Especially, as is likely for the first very many years of self-driving-capable cars, the car allows manual operation as well as automatic operation. They may have the opportunity to <i>prove</i> that the improper operation resulted from a manufacturer's defect, and shift liability to (or seek contribution from) the manufacturer. But, again, that's true, now, too.