HUMAN VS. MACHINE
Author: Katherine Shearer, Associate Editor
The emergence of self-driving vehicles has opened doors to more efficient travel, including increased safety, decreased energy costs, new uses for commuting time, and greater mobility for those unable to drive. However, there are many downsides to the use of self-driving vehicles.[i] One of such concerns includes the question of who is liable in the case of an accident that harms an individual or property. Courts have grappled with the ideas of whether the individual who was “behind the wheel” in the vehicle, but not driving, is liable as compared to the manufacturer of the self-driving technology itself.
Although courts have not directly addressed the idea of liability for self-driving cars, a New York District Court ruled that the connection between a car accident caused by the driver and holding the manufacturer liable is too attenuated.[ii] For example, in Risley v. Univ. Nav. Inc., there was a dispute concerning liability for the exchange of currency that was a scam, but since it was a scam there was no defendant.[iii] The plaintiffs then brought suit against the technology that facilitated the scam, alleging the technology was liable for the same. This parallels self-driving cars by holding technology liable when technology is the controlling factor in the activity. Here, the court noted that allowing a driver to escape liability for damage from a vehicle in their control improperly holds the developer or manufacturer liable for a third party’s traffic violation.[iv]
The court further compared holding manufacturers liable in such instance to an act that is done by a human, yet attempts to hold the intermediate company liable for the resulting harm.[v] For example, Plaintiff’s theory in Risley operated on the assumption that the flaw or harm was done by Defendants by dint of their creating a system that could allow for the Scam Tokens, and not by the Token issuers themselves.[vi] Such argument is less like a manufacturing defect, and more like a suit attempting to hold fund transfer applications such as Venmo and Zelle liable for drug deals facilitated over their platforms.[vii] Here, as is possible with self-driving cars, collateral third party human intervention may cause the harm rather than the underlying platform.[viii] Therefore, the question arises as to whether the human using the machine, or technology, is liable for acts that occur while employing the technology as opposed to the manufacturer. As with Scam Tokens, the question concerning self-driving cars will likely center around control of the object that caused harm to the property or individual.
While human intervention is plausible, there is nevertheless difficulty in proving the extent to which humans were “in control” of the self-driving technology. The enterprise liability doctrine is particularly useful in such case.[ix] Black’s Law Dictionary defined enterprise liability as “liability for crime(s) committed by a constituent business, department, or unit that is applied and accountable corporate-wide.”[x] Since enterprise liability compensates victims by holding businesses strictly liable for risks associated with their routine operations, it falls under the umbrella of “respondent superior.”[xi] Respondeat superior, also known as “let the chief answer,” means that a superior is responsible for any acts of omission or commission by a person of less responsibility to him.[xii] Therefore, since manufacturers and developers engage in the self-driving vehicle business with known risks, they must bear such risks as their own in the case of defects caused by employees in the manufacturing process.[xiii] In the face of equity and justice, however, the driver must also be held liable for their vehicle’s conduct in the scope of (1) their role related to the vehicle and (2) the damage the vehicle caused.[xiv] For example, the liability for driving under the influence while a self-driving vehicle is in operation attaches to the driver.[xv] As such, a driver is still liable for their improper involvement in the operation of a self-driving car.[xvi]
As the world of technology is constantly evolving, the legal world is attempting to keep up with the changing times. As the legal landscape for self-driving cars develops, an equitable outcome demands that manufacturers are held accountable through enterprise liability, while operators are held liable for the conduct within the scope of their own role as to their vehicle.
[i] Walpert, Jacob D., NOTE: CARPOOLING LIABILITY?: APPLYING TORT LAW PRINCIPLES TO THE JOINT EMERGENCE OF SELF-DRIVING AUTOMOBILES AND TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANIES, 85 Fordham L. Rev. 1863, 1865.
[ii] Risley v. Universal Navigation Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152946 at *44 (S.D. NY. Aug. 29, 2023).
[iii] Id. at syllabus.
[iv] Id.
[v] Id. at *45.
[vi] Id.
[vii] Id.
[viii] Id.
[ix] Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 657 (1980).
[x] Enterprise Liability, Black’s Law Dictionary (2d ed. 1910).
[xi] Victoria C. Dawson, Who Is Responsible When You Shop Until You Drop?: An Impact on the Use of the Aggressive Marketing Schemes of “Black Friday” Through Enterprise Liability Concepts, 50 Santa Clara L. Rev. 747, 766 (2010).
[xii] Respondeat Superior, Black’s Law Dictionary (2d ed. 1910).
[xiii] Bryant Walker Smith, Automotive Vehicles are Probably Legal in the United States, 1 Tex. A&M L.Rev. 411 (2014).
[xiv] Id.
[xv] Christopher Coble, Can You Get a DUI in a Self-Driving Car? (2016), https://perma.cc/XZ4X-2KP9.
[xvi] Id.