From: GBurch1@aol.com
Date: Sun Nov 08 1998 - 13:18:56 MST
In a message dated 98-11-08 11:51:52 EST, Spike Jones wrote:
> ralph, you have hit on the issue which will prevent computer controlled
> cars, as well as most future revolutions. if that computer fails and
> kills someone, it is unclear in our litigious society, who gets sued.
I have to beg to differ -- somewhat. The same basic AngloAmerican common law
system of liability has been in effect throughout the period when we have
developed and implemented some of our most important technological
innovations. While it is certainly true that the U.S. is the most litigious
society on Earth, we certainly aren't the most backward, technologically.
Japan, one of the least litigious societies, is not significantly quicker to
adopt new consumer technologies. Let me address the questions you ask to
demonstrate how the system currently in place will accommodate computer-driven
vehicles.
> what if your 6 yr old takes your computer driven car and it
> hits someone?
Just as with any other potentially dangerous device, the answer depends on who
or what CAUSED the accident. If the six-year-old input instructions into the
computer to drive in the same fashion as he had recently done on his Nintendo
256 "DeathRace 2010" video game, then at least some liability will likely fall
on the kid's parents, for letting him have free access to the car. The same
rules apply today to parents who carelessly allow their children to take
control of dangerous instrumentalities. If, instead, the accident was caused
by a basic programming flaw in the machine as it was purchased by the child's
parents, then the suit is a standard products liability suit -- no different
from one today against auto makers. In fact, since it's quite foreseeable
that a six-year-old might get into an automated car, one can argue that
safeguards against user inputs similar to those found in "DeathRace 2010"
should be built into the system. So the manufacturer might well share some
liability with the parents even in the first scenario.
Do such suits pose a cost to automakers? Of course. And I think most people
think they should. One only has two alternatives when approaching product
safety: Private suits and central government regulation. Which is more
consistent with individual liberty?
> what if you send your car unaccompanied to your
> friend's house and it hits someone?
Same answer as in the hypothetical with the child. If you programmed the
computer to take the shortest route to your friend's house -- including
shortcuts through your neighbor's bedroom -- then you'll likely have some
liability. On the other hand, Ford or GM should likely be at least partially
financially responsible if they produce the car to accept such inputs.
> what if your computer car
> is sitting still at a light and some yahoo who wants a new car
> sees you asleep in the passenger side and backs into you, then
> claims you hit her?
The fact that the car has an automated guidance system doesn't change this
scenario from the situation we have always faced: There will always be people
who try to cheat, whether in the private tort system or in a less
individualized, less flexible system of public responsibility.
>we insist that someone be responsible always,
> even if the computer driven car is ten times safer.
Actually, neither of these propositions is true. The defense of "unavoidable
accident" is still alive and well in our tort system. The civil common law
tort system recognizes and enforces the principle that "sh*t happens".
Your second assertion actually works the other way. When a demonstrably safer
technology becomes available, the civil tort system creates powerful
incentives to adopt it. Imagine the field day a plaintiff's lawyer would have
in an auto accident case today involving a current-model car NOT equipped with
seatbelts.
> besides, if computer driven cars became accepted, microsoft
> would get into, then dominate that market. i would not only
> refuse to ride in a microsoft car, i would flee in terror from
> any such device. {8^D spike
Ahh, antitrust law -- not my bag :-§
Now, there IS a quite difficult legal issue buried in here, actually -- one we
recently thrashed about on the extropians lawnode list. What happens when the
software agent at the heart of the guidance system becomes so sophisticated
that it is capable of generating goals on its own initiative? I leave that
knotty problem as an exercise for the reader.
Greg Burch <GBurch1@aol.com>----<burchg@liddellsapp.com>
Attorney ::: Director, Extropy Institute ::: Wilderness Guide
http://users.aol.com/gburch1 -or- http://members.aol.com/gburch1
"Good ideas are not adopted automatically. They must
be driven into practice with courageous impatience."
-- Admiral Hyman Rickover
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:44 MST