Liability for Damage Caused by Autonomous Vehicles

Preface ix
Summary xi

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Damage Caused by (or through) the Automation of Vehicles 1
1.2 Central Research Questions and Methodology 2
1.3 Definitions and Levels of Automation 4
1.4 Six Scenarios 5
1.5 Structure of This Book 7
1.5.1 Part 1 of the Book 7
1.5.2 Part 2 of the Book 7

Part 1 Analysis: Noncontractual Liability Rules Applied to Claims for Damage Caused by Autonomous Vehicles
2 Analysis of Product Liability Law 11
2.1 Introduction 11
2.2 Regime of the Product Liability Directive Applied to Autonomous Vehicles 11
2.2.1 Rationale 11
2.2.2 The ‘Common Core’: Main Rules of the PLD 12
2.2.3 Liable Parties under the PLD: Who Bears the Risk? 13
2.2.3.1 Producers and Developers 13
2.2.3.2 Component Makers 13
2.2.3.3 Software (and Hardware) Makers 14
2.2.3.4 Car Dealers, Suppliers 14
2.2.3.5 Rental Companies (or Other Service Providers Such as Taxi Companies) 15
2.2.3.6 Alternative Grounds for Liability of Parties outside the Scope of the PLD 15
2.2.4 Defectiveness and New Technologies 16
2.2.4.1 Measures as to the Level of Safety 16
2.2.4.2 Degree of Proof; Specificity 17
2.2.5 Defenses under the PLD 19
2.2.5.1 Limited List 19
2.2.5.2 Victim’s Own Sphere of Risk 21
2.2.6 Other Causes of Action (Outside the PLD-Scope) 21
2.2.7 External Defendants: Joint Liability 22
2.3 Back to the Six Scenarios 22
2.3.1 Scenario 1 – The Failing Sensor 23
2.3.2 Scenario 2 – Sudden Interruption of the Software 23
2.3.3 Scenario 3 – Unavailability of Wireless Network Frustrates Download 24
2.3.4 Scenario 4 – Driver/Operator Neglects Instructions 24
2.3.5 Scenario 5 – Hacking of Software by Third Parties 25
2.3.6 Scenario 6 – Injuring a Pedestrian When Trying to Avoid a House 25
2.4 Possible Constraints, Gaps, and Regulatory Challenges 26
2.5 Conclusion 27

3 Analysis of Traffic Liability Rules 31
3.1 Introduction: Why Claimants Will Prefer Traffic Liability over the PLD 31
3.2 Comparative Overview of National Traffic Liability Rules Applied to Autonomous Vehicles 32
3.2.1 Claims for Damages against the Driver or ‘Operator’ : FaultBased 33
3.2.2 Claims for Damages against the Owner/Keeper: Risk Based 35
3.2.2.1 France 36
3.2.2.2 Germany 38
3.2.2.3 The Netherlands 38
3.2.3 Claims for Damages against the No-Fault Insurer: Objective Liability 40
3.2.3.1 Belgium 40
3.2.3.2 Sweden 41
3.2.3.3 United Kingdom 42
3.3 Back to the Six Scenarios 43
3.3.1 Scenario 1 – The Failing Sensor 44
3.3.2 Scenario 2 – Sudden Interruption of the Software 44
3.3.3 Scenario 3 – Unavailability of Wireless Network Frustrates Download 45
3.3.4 Scenario 4 – Driver/Operator Neglects Instructions 45
3.3.5 Scenario 5 – Hacking of Software by Third Parties 46
3.3.6 Scenario 6 – Injuring a Pedestrian When Trying to Avoid a House 46
3.4 Possible Constraints, Gaps, and Regulatory Challenges 46
3.5 Conclusion 47

4 Hacking and Privacy Issues 49
4.1 Introduction 49
4.2 Cyber Liability and Hacking of Autonomous Vehicles 49
4.2.1 Introduction 49
4.2.2 Liability of Producers of Hacked Autonomous Vehicles 50
4.2.3 Liability of Operators of Hacked Autonomous Vehicles 51
4.3 Issues Concerning Sharing of Data and Information 52
4.3.1 Introduction 52
4.3.2 Legal Conditions for Processing TT-Data in the EU 53
4.3.2.1 Applicable Legal Framework 53
4.3.2.2 TT-Data, Personal Data? 53
4.3.2.3 Controllers, Processors, and Data Subjects 54
4.3.2.4 Fair and Lawful Processing 55
4.3.2.5 Rights of Data Subjects 56
4.3.2.6 Data Security 56
4.3.2.7 Personal Data Breaches, Liability, and Fines 57
4.3.2.8 Concluding Remarks 58
4.4 Conclusion 59

5 Conclusions of Part 1 63
5.1 Product Liability Presents Serious Points of Concern 63
5.2 Alternative Route: Traffic Liability. Concern: Not Harmonized 63
5.3 Fault Liability Rules: Limited Role for Damage Caused by Autonomous Vehicles 66
5.3.1 Scheme of the Basic Findings in Part 1 64

Part 2 New Ways to Regulate Noncontractual Liability for Autonomous Vehicles
6 European Added Value 69
6.1 Introduction 69
6.2 European Added Value 69
6.3 Legal Basis, Limits, and Scope 72
6.4 Policy Instruments, Subsidiarity, and Proportionality 73
6.5 Conclusion 74

7 Three Legal ‘Solution Models’ 77
7.1 Introduction 77
7.2 Three Legal ‘Solution Models’ (with Combinations and Variations) 77
7.3 Model 1: Product Liability Reform 78
7.3.1 Basic Model 78
7.3.2 Ways (and Degrees in Which) to Change Product Liability Law 78
7.3.3 Pros and Cons of Allocating the Damage to ‘the’ Producer 80
7.3.4 Regulatory Challenges 82
7.3.5 Conclusion 83
7.4 Model 2: Traffic Liability Reform 83
7.4.1 Basic Model 83
7.4.2 Ways to Change and Harmonize the Laws on Traffic Liability 83
7.4.3 Pros and Cons of Imposing Liability on the Owner or Operator 84
7.4.4 Regulatory Challenges 85
7.4.5 Conclusion 86
7.5 Model 3: No-Fault Insurance 86
7.5.1 Basic Model 86
7.5.2 Finance, Assessment of Damage, Role Left for Civil Liability 87
7.5.2.1 Policyholder and Premium Payments 87
7.5.2.2 Mandatory? 88
7.5.2.3 Insured Risk 88
7.5.2.4 Role Left for Liability 88
7.5.3 Pros and Cons of the No-Fault Insurance Model 89
7.5.4 Regulatory Challenges 91
7.5.5 Conclusion 91

8 Conclusions 93
8.1 General Remarks 93
8.2 Conclusions Regarding the Current Regulatory Framework 93
8.2.1 Legal Implications of the Current Product Liability Rules 93
8.2.2 Legal Implications of the Current Traffic Liability Laws 95
8.2.3 Legal Implications of the Current Fault Liability Rules: Hacking and Privacy Issues 97
8.3 Conclusions Regarding the European Added Value 99
8.4 Conclusions Regarding the Legal Solution Models 100
8.4.1 Three Legal Solution Models 100
8.4.2 Solution Model 1: Product Liability Reform 100
8.4.3 Solution Model 2: Traffic Liability Reform 101
8.4.4 Solution Model 3: No-Fault Insurance 102
8.4.5 Preferred approach 104

Bibliography 105