Self-Driving Uber Car Kills Arizona Pedestrian (cost of, design, companies)

[JGMotorsport64]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

But you also have a reasonably complete record of the accident which will likely show no fault of the AV in the vast majority of the events. So it will virtually always be the human drivers insurance paying.

From who? The police report is never conclusive and is often inadmissible. The police report could be used as a defense, but it would be irrelevant to the case.

The police do not have the training to spot defects or design issues in a complicated technology. That would be left to (expensive) experts and discovery. If there is a negligent design or defect issue, it often does not matter if the injured party acted negligently so long as it was foreseeable by the manufacturer. A car accident is foreseeable in a car.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

From who? The police report is never conclusive and is often inadmissible. The police report could be used as a defense, but it would be irrelevant to the case.

The police do not have the training to spot defects or design issues in a complicated technology. That would be left to (expensive) experts and discovery. If there is a negligent design or defect issue, it often does not matter if the injured party acted negligently so long as it was foreseeable by the manufacturer. A car accident is foreseeable in a car.

No technology involved. You have LIDAR and video images that would be easily available. Equivalent of a fancy dash cam. And pretty much a precise record of what went down.

There will of course be an occasional issue of causality that will require expert testimony. But they will be the exception not the rule.

[JGMotorsport64]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

No technology involved. You have LIDAR and video images that would be easily available. Equivalent of a fancy dash cam. And pretty much a precise record of what went down.

There will of course be an occasional issue of causality that will require expert testimony. But they will be the exception not the rule.

The whole thing is technology.

The issue would a claim of defect or design defect. It would be easy to allege (and hire an expert to prove) that the designs failed or were defective and not reasonable, even if the system in place performed as intended. If the issue is a design defect, it does not matter what LIDAR tells you. What matters is what could have or should have been done, but was not by the manufacturer while designing and implementing the technology.

Theories could be the failure to perform ordinary maneuvers, deficient collision avoidance algorithms, improper vehicle dynamics, inadequate human-computer coordination, or inadequate designs depending on inadequate data from sensors, the possibilities are endless.

Following some discovery, which apparently Uber is not a fan of, an expert can make a theory and show why the design is defective or how or why the manufacturer could have, should have, would have done x y or z. It does not take much more than that to get to a trial and a settlement (as trial is expensive and who wants the publicity?).


What will probably happen is that Congress will enact regulations to preempt state common law. That is already being lobbied for as we speak.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

The whole thing is technology.

The issue would a claim of defect or design defect. It would be easy to allege (and hire an expert to prove) that the designs failed or were defective and not reasonable, even if the system in place performed as intended. If the issue is a design defect, it does not matter what LIDAR tells you. What matters is what could have or should have been done, but was not by the manufacturer while designing and implementing the technology.

Theories could be the failure to perform ordinary maneuvers, deficient collision avoidance algorithms, improper vehicle dynamics, inadequate human-computer coordination, or inadequate designs depending on inadequate data from sensors, the possibilities are endless.

Following some discovery, which apparently Uber is not a fan of, an expert can make a theory and show why the design is defective or how or why the manufacturer could have, should have, would have done x y or z. It does not take much more than that to get to a trial and a settlement (as trial is expensive and who wants the publicity?).


What will probably happen is that Congress will enact regulations to preempt state common law. That is already being lobbied for as we speak.

You are simply obfuscating the issue. You have video and LIDAR recordings of what happened. The issue is whether the traffic laws or rational driving rules were not obeyed. That takes care of 98% of the incidents.

The mechanism of how the vehicle was operated simply does not come into play.

I am sure that some attorney will attempt to claim the AV could have avoided the accident. But that will play well only in a tiny portion of the incidents. And in the early days the courts will likely be less tolerant of it.

[JGMotorsport64]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

You are simply obfuscating the issue. You have video and LIDAR recordings of what happened. The issue is whether the traffic laws or rational driving rules were not obeyed. That takes care of 98% of the incidents.

The mechanism of how the vehicle was operated simply does not come into play.

I am sure that some attorney will attempt to claim the AV could have avoided the accident. But that will play well only in a tiny portion of the incidents. And in the early days the courts will likely be less tolerant of it.

What in the world do you think litigation is? The attorney won't claim it. Joe Engineer with a Ph.D. will write a report detailing it. It will say that there were feasible alternatives, that if those alternatives were considered then an accident would not have happened. It will be enough to escape summary judgment.

Just watch. This exact scenario I've described is already being discussed and written about by academics and will be a result.

Here's is an example:

https://www.americanbar.org/content/...thcheckdam.pdf


https://www.brookings.edu/research/p...r-legislation/


I also disagree that courts will not be tolerant of it. This claim would be more plausible than most of what they see on a daily basis and a jury, especially an older one, would be sympathetic.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

What in the world do you think litigation is? The attorney won't claim it. Joe Engineer with a Ph.D. will write a report detailing it. It will say that there were feasible alternatives, that if those alternatives were considered then an accident would not have happened. It will be enough to escape summary judgment.

Just watch. This exact scenario I've described is already being discussed and written about by academics and will be a result.

Here's is an example:

https://www.americanbar.org/content/...thcheckdam.pdf


https://www.brookings.edu/research/p...r-legislation/


I also disagree that courts will not be tolerant of it. This claim would be more plausible than most of what they see on a daily basis and a jury, especially an older one, would be sympathetic.

Read your own cite...


************************************

Because of accidents involving AVs, some of which may be catastrophic, product liability
litigation1 is inevitable, especially in cases where conventional vehicles would not have
crashed.
************************************

the issue being discussed by the lawyers is the classic as epitomized by the Tesla accidents.

It is not the failure of a human powered vehicle to yield when it should have. And that will be the normal accident.

[JGMotorsport64]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

Read your own cite...


************************************

Because of accidents involving AVs, some of which may be catastrophic, product liability
litigation1 is inevitable, especially in cases where conventional vehicles would not have
crashed.
************************************

the issue being discussed by the lawyers is the classic as epitomized by the Tesla accidents.

It is not the failure of a human powered vehicle to yield when it should have. And that will be the normal accident.

And if the accident is severe then we come full circle. The policy limits are low (maybe the other driver is under/uninsured) and the injuries are severe. The driver needs more money. There is a huge and deep pocket for the taking under a products liability theory. A smart lawyer is going straight after Uber doing exactly what I just said.

If you drove a conventional car you'd probably go after your own policy and then look for other theories like road design. Those are more difficult because road design is already established. Autonomous cars are new waters. There are a lot of could have would haves.

Read 26.4 of the article.

Driver of the autonomous car goes after Uber. Uber has to maintain its own policy of insurance because it's going to get inundated with lawsuits by its own drivers and possibly others. That is going to be expensive. The ultimate goal of this sort of lawsuit is to get over a summary judgment motion, which would be easy because the technology is new and more complicated than a typical state court judge is going to comprehend.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

And if the accident is severe then we come full circle. The policy limits are low (maybe the other driver is under/uninsured) and the injuries are severe. The driver needs more money. There is a huge and deep pocket for the taking under a products liability theory. A smart lawyer is going straight after Uber doing exactly what I just said.

If you drove a conventional car you'd probably go after your own policy and then look for other theories like road design. Those are more difficult because road design is already established. Autonomous cars are new waters. There are a lot of could have would haves.

Read 26.4 of the article.

Driver of the autonomous car goes after Uber. Uber has to maintain its own policy of insurance because it's going to get inundated with lawsuits by its own drivers and possibly others. That is going to be expensive. The ultimate goal of this sort of lawsuit is to get over a summary judgment motion, which would be easy because the technology is new and more complicated than a typical state court judge is going to comprehend.

Again 26.4 has nothing to do with the normal automobile accident. It deals with product liability which is most likely to be between the AV manufacturer and the AV owner or AV user.

And the AV is going to win virtually all those normal accident claims. That is because it will almost never be at fault and it will have a good record of what occurred.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

It really bears mentioning that especially does not mean only.

And in a comparative fault state, you’re just trying to get past summary judgment so they settle.

"Especially" ? What is that about. No "Especially" in the quoted.

Makes no difference. You seem to be missing the point that the AV owner is the plaintiff and not the defendant.

[JGMotorsport64]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

"Especially" ? What is that about. No "Especially" in the quoted.

Makes no difference. You seem to be missing the point that the AV owner is the plaintiff and not the defendant.

No that’s exactly what I’m saying. AV owner=driver. Driver sued negligent driver. Negligent driver has low policy limits.

AV Owner needs more money. AV owner sues manufacturer for a defect. AV owner gets an expert to write a report. AV Owner gets past summary judgment. AV owner gets a settlement.

The old way was to look for other pockets. AV manufacturers are now the pockets.

I cannot say this any clearer