Purpose

The coming use of autonomous vehicles has kindled an extensive debate over the choice of a desirable liability regime. This article contributes to that debate by explaining how rules for liability and damages ought to be constructed to deal first with stranger (including highway) cases and then with consensual cases (like medical malpractice). It concludes that an output regime based on events as they unfold is applicable in the former but not in the latter. It then argues that this legal regime carries over without a hitch to autonomous vehicles. It then further notes that in private disputes there are no fixed rules for deciding how to mix rules for injunctions and liabilities for threatened harms, and further notes that the regulatory regime for IoT will face those same difficulties, which are best solved by trying to minimize the sum of Type I and Type II errors, as in other cases.

Design/methodology/approach

Legal reasoning/analysis.

Findings

One salient point is that the rules of the road should change in response to technical innovation, but liability rules should not. The sound approach for dealing with damages for past incidents ought to be constructed to deal first with stranger (including highway) cases in which there is a dichotomous decision on compliance or not. That regime is based on events as they unfold, and carries over without a hitch to autonomous vehicles. For dealing with the prevention of future harms from violation of these rules, by contrast, there are no fixed rules for deciding how to mix damages with injunction, and the substitution of a system of direct state enforcement faces the same difficulties of implementation. In both settings, the rules of the road should be held constant, after which the ideal remedial mix follows the traditional approach of trying to minimize the sum of Type I and Type II errors, relating to over and underenforcement. The basic rules of tort liability stand in contrast to the different standards of liability that arise in consensual situations, and in all cases, they must necessarily be supplemented by rules of vicarious and product liability. Overall, the bottom line is this: autonomous vehicle innovations are relevant to designing regulations for future and uncertain harms, but irrelevant to liability for past harms.

Originality/value

This is an original legal analysis on the topic of Autonomous Vehicles.

中文翻译：

---

自动驾驶汽车责任规则

目的

自动驾驶汽车的即将使用引发了关于选择理想责任制度的广泛辩论。本文通过解释应如何构建责任和损害赔偿规则以首先处理陌生人（包括高速公路）案件，然后处理双方同意的案件（例如医疗事故），从而促进了这场辩论。它的结论是，基于事件展开的输出机制适用于前者，但不适用于后者。然后它争辩说，这种法律制度可以顺利地适用于自动驾驶汽车。然后进一步指出，在私人纠纷中，没有固定的规则来决定如何混合禁令和威胁损害责任的规则，并进一步指出物联网的监管制度将面临同样的困难，

设计/方法/方法

法律推理/分析。

发现

一个突出的点是，道路规则应该随着技术创新而改变，但责任规则不应该。处理过去事故损害赔偿的合理方法应该首先处理陌生人（包括高速公路）案件，在这些案件中，对合规与否有二分法。该制度基于事件的展开，并顺利地延续到自动驾驶汽车上。相比之下，对于如何防止未来损害违反这些规则，并没有固定的规则来决定如何将损害赔偿与禁令相结合，替代国家直接执行的制度也面临同样的实施困难。在这两种情况下，道路规则应该保持不变，之后，理想的补救组合遵循传统方法，即试图将与执法过度和执法不足相关的 I 类和 II 类错误的总和降至最低。侵权责任的基本规则与在合意情况下出现的不同责任标准形成对比，在所有情况下，都必须辅以替代和产品责任规则。总的来说，最重要的是：自动驾驶汽车的创新与为未来和不确定的危害设计法规相关，但与对过去危害的责任无关。它们必须得到替代和产品责任规则的补充。总的来说，最重要的是：自动驾驶汽车的创新与为未来和不确定的危害设计法规相关，但与对过去危害的责任无关。它们必须得到替代和产品责任规则的补充。总的来说，最重要的是：自动驾驶汽车的创新与为未来和不确定的危害设计法规相关，但与对过去危害的责任无关。

原创性/价值

这是关于自动驾驶汽车主题的原始法律分析。