In this blog post, we will look at the current laws and the need for the enactment of special laws, focusing on whether the manufacturer is responsible for system errors in the event of a traffic accident involving an autonomous vehicle.
Most car companies around the world have announced that they will launch self-driving cars by 2023. Navigant Research predicts that 75% of new cars will be equipped with self-driving features by 2035. In Korea, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport has announced a policy to commercialize self-driving cars in 2020. One of the main goals of autonomous vehicles is to reduce traffic accidents, and the development of autonomous driving technology is expected to reduce the incidence of traffic accidents. However, there is still a possibility of traffic accidents occurring due to malfunctions of autonomous vehicles or defects in software programs. So, does the legal responsibility for traffic accidents lie with the driver who is comfortably resting in the driver’s seat, or with the manufacturer that creates and manages the autonomous driving program? This article will discuss the liability of autonomous vehicles in the event of a traffic accident in Korea. This discussion is significant in that it provides practical consideration for the problems that may arise in the near future with the advent of autonomous vehicles.
Autonomous vehicles are vehicles that are operated by computer control and are equipped with a global positioning system (GPS), high-level sensors, and radar technology, meaning that they do not require additional human operation. In light of the fact that 90% of traffic accidents are caused by human negligence, autonomous vehicles are expected to greatly reduce traffic accidents and contribute to human life and safety. However, since autonomous driving systems are operated under the control of computers and errors can occur at any time due to the nature of the software, traffic accidents can occur due to malfunctions of the autonomous driving system.
In fact, there was an accident involving a Google self-driving car in February 2016. At the time, the car swerved to the left to avoid a sandbag and collided with a bus that was behind it. The reason for the accident was that the Google self-driving car thought that the bus behind it would yield. In May 2016, Tesla’s Model S collided with a large tractor trailer, causing the driver to be seriously injured and killed. The investigation found that the autonomous driving system did not apply the brakes despite the fact that the situation was about to cause a collision. As such, even if an autonomous driving system is introduced, we are always at risk of accidents.
So, who is responsible for traffic accidents in Korea today? Since traffic accidents cause damage to the property, life, and body of the driver himself or others, the main issues are civil liability for damages and criminal liability. Article 3 of the Automobile Liability Compensation Act stipulates that “a person who operates a motor vehicle for his/her own use shall be liable for damages if he/she causes the death or injury of another person through the operation of the motor vehicle,” and thus defines the subject of liability for damages as “a person who operates a motor vehicle for his/her own use.” And in order to protect the victim’s right to compensation, the operator’s liability is assessed as no-fault liability. In other words, the victim is entitled to compensation regardless of whether the driver is at fault or not. The court has held that the scope of the driver’s liability is determined based on two factors: control over the vehicle and the benefit derived from driving.
A person is considered to be in a position to control the vehicle and to derive the benefit of driving based on social norms. For example, if a designated driver causes a traffic accident, the designated driver and the owner of the vehicle are both considered to be drivers. In other words, the driver and the owner of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable for damages to the victims of a traffic accident.
When the current law is applied to self-driving cars, the owner is recognized as the legal operator, that is, the person who operates the car for his or her own benefit. There should be no controversy in this area. However, since the self-driving system, which plays the same role as a designated driver, is software, it has no status as an operator and therefore cannot be subject to the Automobile Liability Compensation Act. Therefore, the question of whether manufacturers can be held liable for autonomous driving systems should be considered in light of the Product Liability Act. Article 3 of the Product Liability Act stipulates that “the manufacturer shall compensate the person who has suffered damage to life, body or property due to a defect in the product,” which can be interpreted as allowing manufacturers to be held liable.
However, autonomous vehicles are not clearly defined as a product because they are a combination of “software” (autonomous driving system) and “hardware” (vehicle). Hardware such as a vehicle is recognized as a product and is subject to product liability laws, but software such as an autonomous driving system is not recognized as a product and is not subject to product liability laws. The real reason for not imposing product liability on software programs is that it is impossible for manufacturers to fully predict whether the software will function properly at all times and whether errors will occur. Nevertheless, placing the sole responsibility for accidents caused by program malfunctions on manufacturers could discourage manufacturers from developing new technologies and hinder technological progress.
Therefore, it is necessary to enact a special law on autonomous vehicles to protect the legal rights of drivers in the event of a traffic accident. This is because the legal system does not allow the manufacturer to be held liable. The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport is considering a plan to have the driver take the lead in handling accidents involving autonomous vehicles and then reimburse the driver if the manufacturer’s negligence is found. Since there have been no cases of legal disputes related to traffic accidents involving self-driving cars in Korea, it is not clear what the courts will decide. However, since it is not clear who is responsible, there is room for many legal disputes. In addition, in order to protect the rights of consumers, manufacturers need to fulfill their social responsibilities. Ultimately, to fulfill that responsibility, we need laws, which are institutional mechanisms. Companies that turn their backs on consumers without providing them with relief will have a hard time surviving in the automotive market. Recently, public opinion has been growing against United Airlines for forcibly removing customers from its flights, which has led to a decline in the company’s image and even a boycott by consumers. As such, the damage caused by a lack of corporate morality is significant. The enactment of a special law will be a device to protect the rights of consumers and enhance the image of companies. Therefore, if it is clear that the manufacturer is at fault, such as in the case of an accident caused by a software defect, it is necessary to establish a legal system to compensate for the damage without dispute.
The special law should be enacted to prevent unfair situations and legal disputes for consumers, thereby reducing social losses and protecting both manufacturers and consumers as fairly as possible. Whether or not the accident was caused by a fatal flaw in the autonomous driving system will be a key factor. If the accident was caused by a fatal flaw, the manufacturer should be held responsible, and if the accident occurred while driving manually without using autonomous driving, the consumer should be held responsible. This is fair. Therefore, manufacturers should be required to install a device that stores the records of autonomous driving when developing a car, and consumers should be required to install a black box so that the cause of an accident can be clearly identified in the event of an accident.
Of course, enacting a special law may not be the only solution to protect consumers. When purchasing an autonomous vehicle, the manufacturer may provide traffic accident compensation regulations, and insurance companies may offer special insurance products related to autonomous vehicles. However, it is unclear whether manufacturers will voluntarily propose compensation measures in the absence of legal restrictions on autonomous vehicles, and even if they do, the compensation measures will differ from manufacturer to manufacturer, and the compensation details will differ from insurance product to insurance product, so consumers will have different compensation details for each vehicle they purchase and each insurance product they purchase. This will lead to social inequality in a future society where autonomous vehicles become more widespread. Therefore, in the Republic of Korea, a “Special Act on Autonomous Vehicles,” which serves as a kind of guideline, is needed.
So far, we have discussed the legal liability issues that may arise when autonomous vehicles are commercialized. Specifically, he argued that a special law on autonomous vehicles should be enacted to discuss the responsibility for accidents involving unmanned vehicles and to guarantee the operator’s right to recourse. Of course, the demand for a special law requires mutual consultation and dialogue among many organizations, including manufacturers, academia, the financial industry, the National Assembly, and the government, and should be based on reliable data. Therefore, the short discussion in this article is limited in justifying the need for a special law. However, even if this article is based on somewhat weak evidence, its argument will be meaningful in that many ideas should be presented to resolve liability in traffic accidents in a society where autonomous vehicles are commercialized.
