Torts Liability of Autonomous Vehicles

• Main Authors: TSUNG,LIN, 叢琳
• Other Authors: 曾品傑
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2019
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/n7u2v4

碩士 === 國立中正大學 === 財經法律系研究所 === 107 === Artificial intelligence (AI) has flourished in recent years, bringing many legal issues. Autonomous vehicle (self-driving car) is a part of the use of artificial intelligence and is closely related to human life. Torts Liability of Autonomous Vehicles is an important issue. This article aims to start from the perspective of "new technology danger", exploring "changes in human roles" and "improvement of machine autonomy" will raise the possible impact of the existing law on the torts liability of "users" and " manufacturers" or the applicable difficulties and propose possible solutions. In terms of torts liability of users, in order to facilitate the observation of the interaction between humans and machines, the six levels of the SAEJ3016 standard are divided into " human operation" (level 0 - level 2), "human-machine cooperation" (level 3), and "machine autonomy " (level 4, level 5).The conclusions are as follows: 1.In the "human operation" stage, most of the accident liability can be solved by applying Article 191-2 of the Civil Code. 2.In the "machine autonomy " stage, the role of the driver ceases to exist and there is no application of Article 191-2 of the Civil Code. The human role only means "passenger" at this time, and the tort liability will focus on the product liability of the manufacturer, not the user. 3.The "human-machine cooperation" stage is the intermediate type. When human driving, it should be compared with the human operation stage; while in the self-driving state, it is compared with the machine autonomy stage. If the driver does not respond to the system takeover request and thus causes damage, it involves the conversion of control rights. The author believes that the concept of "driver" in section 191-2 of the Civil Code can be expanded from "actual driving driver" to "allowing self-driving driver". There will be an application of Article 191-2 of the Civil Code. As for the product liability of manufacturers , the conclusions are as follows: 1." Transformation of Goods Defects", the design defect includes lack of safety in self-driving systems. Failure to warn has turned into a lack of dynamic warning. And discussion on the defect scientifically undiscoverable and artificial intelligence black box. 2." The reasonably expected use (the common use) of autonomous vehicles", the author argues that the driver initiates autopilot outside operational design domain (ODD) is not reasonably expected use (the common use). Since the reasonably expected use (the common use) essentially involves the causality, and the focus is on whether the "damage" is the realization of "the risk of goods defects" or the danger created by the improper use of consumers, should be judged on the purpose and function of the goods. Initiating autonomous driving outside the ODD will exceed the limits of sensor technology and exceed the purpose and function of the product, so it is not " reasonably expected use (common use)". 3. “The burden of proof of causality”, the unexplainability of the decision-making process of the self-driving system may increase the difficulty of the evidence presented by the victim who did not have professional skills. In the case of a merger lawsuit in Article 191-1 of the Civil Code and Article 7 of the Consumer Protection Act, the "causality " in Article 7 of the Consumer Protection Act also has the effect of presumption of Article 191-1 of the Civil Code. For the burden of proof of " common use", the author considers that the victim has the burden of proof, and the " reasonably expected use "in Enforcement Rules of Consumer Protection Act should still be burdened by the trader. 4. “Strengthening the Obligation of Follow-up Observing of manufacturers”, this paper believes that even when the point of time of defect judgment is to place the goods into the stream of commerce, it is necessary to strengthen the follow-up observation obligations of the manufacturer. Finally, looking forward to the future, the development direction of autonomous vehicles will be from "private vehicles " to " mobility service " mode. The tort liability of traders will change from "goods liability" to "service liability ".