Three Laws Blog: Law and Artificial Intelligence

Abraham and Rabin on Automated Vehicles and Manufacturer Responsibility for Accidents @UVALaw @StanfordLaw

Kenneth S. Abraham, University of Virginia School of Law, and Robert L. Rabin, Stanford Law School, are publishing Automated Vehicles and Manufacturer Responsibility for Accidents: A New Legal Regime for a New Era in volume 105 of the Virginia law Review (2019). Here is the abstract.

The United States is on the verge of a new era in transportation, requiring a new legal regime. Over the coming decades, there will be a revolution in driving, as manually-driven cars are replaced by automated vehicles. There will then be a radically new world of auto accidents: most accidents will be caused by cars, not by drivers. Thus far, however, proposals for reform have failed to address with precision the distinctive issues that will be posed during the long transitional period in which automated vehicles share the roadway with conventional vehicles, or during the succeeding period that will be dominated by accidents between automated vehicles. A legal regime for this new era should more effectively and sensibly promote safety and provide compensation than the existing tort doctrines governing driver liability for negligence and manufacturer liability for product defects will be able to do. In a world of accidents dominated by automated vehicles, these doctrines will be anachronistic and obsolete. We present a proposal for a more effective system, adopting strict manufacturer responsibility for auto accidents. We call this system Manufacturer Enterprise Responsibility, or “MER.” In describing and developing our proposal for MER, we present the first detailed, extensively analyzed approach that would promote deterrence and compensation more effectively than continued reliance on tort in the coming world of accidents involving automated vehicles.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Smith on The Trolley and the Pinto: Cost-Benefit Analysis in Automated Driving and Other Cyber-Physical Systems @bwalkersmith

Bryant Walker Smith, University of South Carolina School of Law; Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society, is publishing The Trolley and the Pinto: Cost-Benefit Analysis in Automated Driving and Other Cyber-Physical Systems in the 2017 volume of the Texas A&M Law Review. Here is the abstract.

Automated driving has attracted substantial public and scholarly attention. This brief Article describes how that attention has brought new fame to a classic philosophical thought experiment (the “trolley problem”), critiques how this thought experiment has been applied in that context, proposes a more practical extension of that experiment based on risk rather than harm, notes that this extension may still involve programming value judgments, argues with reference to the Ford Pinto debacle that these judgments could inflame juries or the public at large, and emphasizes the need for appropriately focused public discussion of these issues. The Article may be especially relevant to developers and regulators of cyber-physical systems, including the automated driving systems that operate self-driving vehicles.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Beep, Beep! Regulating Driverless Cars

The National Law Journal's Cheryl Miller examines the rise of driverless cars from sf fantasy to road reality, and the consequent need to look at regulation. Link here. More coverage of possible regulation of driverless cars here (from the L. A. Times), here (from Science Daily), here (from Governing the States and Localities).

Rapaczynski on Driverless Cars and Tort Law

Andrzej Rapaczynski, Columbia Law School, has published Driverless Cars and the Much Delayed Tort Law Revolution as Columbia Law and Economics Working Paper No. 540. Here is the abstract.

The most striking development in the American tort law of the last century was the quick rise and fall of strict manufacturers’ liability for the huge social losses associated with the use of industrial products. The most important factor in this process has been the inability of the courts and academic commentators to develop a workable theory of design defects, resulting in a wholesale return of negligence as the basis of products liability jurisprudence. This article explains the reasons for this failure and argues that the development of digital technology, and the advent of self-driving cars in particular, is likely to force a comprehensive rethinking of products liability, a large-scale return to the principle of strict manufacturers’ responsibility, and a host of other developments of lasting historical and economic significance. The article argues that an integration of manufacturing and insurance industries may be one of these developments.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence

From NPR, a consideration of the issue, beginning with Isaac Asimow's Three Laws of Robotics. Contemporary thinkers note that things have moved along since then, beginning with the introduction of self-driving cars. 

Pearl @ProfTracyPearl on the Regulation on Driverless Cars

Tracy Hresko Pearl, Texas Tech University School of Law, has published Fast & Furious: The Misregulation of Driverless Cars. Here is the abstract.

The United States is on the cusp of a revolution in transportation. The sale and widespread use of both semi-autonomous and fully autonomous vehicles, also known as “driverless cars,” are both imminent and likely to significantly change the way in which citizens commute, interact, and travel. While there is substantial concern amongst state lawmakers and the general public about the overall safety and desirability of these vehicles, experts predict that fully autonomous cars will dramatically improve highway safety, reduce traffic, increase productivity, and enhance the independence of individuals who are unable to obtain licenses. Lawmakers, however, motivated by irrational fears and unfounded assumptions that human drivers are far superior to automated technologies, have begun passing driverless car laws that create significant liability issues while doing very little to enhance road safety. These laws ignore the differences between semi-autonomous and fully autonomous vehicles, chill technological advancement, impose unwarranted liability on human drivers in many circumstances, and may actually incentivize human driver behavior that is less safe than letting vehicles drive autonomously. Both “operator” and override provisions – two very common types of driverless car laws – make these mistakes. These laws should be revised significantly or struck down and replaced with laws and regulations that are both carefully tailored to particular levels of autonomous technologies and informed by the growing amount of empirical research suggesting that fully autonomous vehicles are far safer than those controlled by human drivers.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.