Abstract
It is widely believed that autonomous vehicles will significantly reduce the number of car accidents and therefore save lives. However, autonomous vehicles will also crash. Uber’s fatal self-driving crash in 2018 has attracted attention from all over the world. This article analyzes the Uber crash case from the perspective of Chinese law. If the Uber crash happened in China, both Uber and the driver would be at fault. Uber disabled the test vehicle’s original emergency braking function under computer control, causing a defect in the test vehicle. Therefore, the original car manufacturer could be exempted from liability due to Uber’s conversion of the vehicle. Uber’s aggressive testing attitude has also played a role in this fatal accident. Besides, the safety driver was on the job when the collision occurred. Therefore, her employer Uber, would be liable for damages resulting from the accident. By analyzing the Uber case under the context of the Chinese legal regime, we found that in the event of an autonomous car crash, potential liable parties would be the car manufacturer, the self-driving system developer and operator, the parts manufacturer, the safety driver, the pedestrian, etc. Liabilities should be allocated reasonably among them. It should be noted that, the Uber crash could also be partly attributed to Arizona’s lax approach to regulating autonomous vehicles, which gives all regulatory authorities a lesson of finding a balance between technology development and safety.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
National Transportation Safety Board (2018).
- 2.
Available at: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5759641/UberCrashYavapaiRuling03052019.pdf. Accessed 9 April 2020.
- 3.
The following analysis is based on the facts provided by National Transportation Safety Board (2018).
- 4.
Han (2019), p. 92.
- 5.
See Gurney (2013), p. 271.
- 6.
Lohmann (2016), pp. 335–340.
- 7.
In June 2017, the Ethics Commission on Automated and Connected Driving appointed by the German Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure issued Ethical Rules for Automated and Connected Vehicular Traffic, available at: https://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/EN/Documents/G/ethic-commission-report.pdf?__blob=publicationFile.
References
Gurney J (2013) Sue my car not me: products liability and accidents involving autonomous vehicles. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2352108. Accessed 30 June 2020
Han X (2019) The liability structure of automated driving—also on the three-layer insurance structure of automated driving vehicle. J Shanghai Univ (Soc Sci) 36(2):90–103
Lohmann M (2016) Liability issues concerning self-driving vehicles. Eur J Risk Regul 7(2):335–340
National Transportation Safety Board (2018) Preliminary report highway: HWY18MH010. https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/accidentreports/pages/hwy18mh010-prelim.aspx. Accessed 30 June 2020
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
He, S. (2021). Who is Liable for the UBER Self-Driving Crash? Analysis of the Liability Allocation and the Regulatory Model for Autonomous Vehicles. In: Van Uytsel, S., Vasconcellos Vargas, D. (eds) Autonomous Vehicles. Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9255-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9255-3_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-9254-6
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-9255-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)