Not everyone is so sure that laws must be rewritten or that motorists are at risk.
Motor vehicle laws and the principles that underpin them have evolved over a century, and that evolution should continue, Smith said.
“We don’t need to throw everything out and start over,” he said.
Drivers who use a Level 3 system within the bounds of the manufacturers’ directions should not be held liable for system mistakes so long as they use it as directed, he said.
If a vehicle with Drive Pilot engaged strikes and kills a pedestrian, the human motorist using the system as directed, “would not have the legal culpability to be charged with a crime,” Smith said. “At the same time, it is not clear Mercedes would be charged with manslaughter either.”
Mercedes-Benz did not address its potential criminal liability in such cases but acknowledged its overall responsibility “expands as the vehicle assumes more of the dynamic driving task.”
“In the context of Drive Pilot, this means that if a customer uses the system as intended and instructed and the system fails to perform as designed, we stand behind our product.”
But the company stopped short of acknowledging a “duty of care,” a legal term used to discern how a reasonable entity or person might act in particular circumstances. Courts can use duty-of-care standards to determine negligence.
Motorists should not expect the company’s assurances to either supersede state laws or exonerate them with courts, Widen said. They should wait to use such automated driving systems until laws clarify their role in the driving process.
“The law is simply not clear on these points, and it should be clear,” he said.
