Abstract:Walter Huang, a 38-year-old Apple Inc. engineer, died on March 23, 2018, after his Tesla Model X crashed into a highway barrier in Mountain View, California. Tesla immediately disavowed responsibility for the accident. "The fundamental premise of both moral and legal liability is a broken promise, and there was none here: [Mr. Huang] was well aware that the Autopilot was not perfect [and the] only way for this accident to have occurred is if Mr. Huang was not paying attention to the road, despite the car providing multiple warnings to do so." This is the standard response from Tesla and Uber, the manufacturers of the automated vehicles involved in the six fatal accidents to date: the automated vehicle isn't perfect, the driver knew it wasn't perfect, and if only the driver had been paying attention and heeded the vehicle's warnings, the accident would never have occurred. However, as researchers focused on human-automation interaction in aviation and military operations, we cannot help but wonder if there really are no broken promises and no legal liabilities. Science has a critical role in determining legal liability, and courts appropriately rely on scientists and engineers to determine whether an accident, or harm, was foreseeable. Specifically, a designer could be found liable if, at the time of the accident, scientists knew there was a systematic relationship between the accident and the designer's untaken precaution. Nearly 70 years of research provides an undeniable answer: It is insufficient, inappropriate, and dangerous to automate everything you can and leave the rest to the human. There is a systematic relationship between the design of automated vehicles and the types of accidents that are occurring now and will inevitably continue to occur in the future. These accidents were not unforeseeable and the drivers were not exclusively to blame.

Automated Driving: Liability of the Software Producer and the Producer of the Automated Vehicle

Consumer Protection Against Defects in Automated Vehicles

Automated Driving and Product Liability

Responsibility for crashes of autonomous vehicles: an ethical analysis

Strafrechtliche Produktverantwortung für automatisiertes und autonomes Fahren

The Awkward Middle for Automated Vehicles: Liability Attribution Rules When Humans and Computers Share Driving Responsibilities

Research on tort liability of autonomous vehicle

Autonomous Cars and Tort Liability

Unsafe At Any Level: NHTSA's levels of automation are a liability for autonomous vehicle design and regulation

Who is to blame for crashes involving autonomous vehicles? Exploring blame attribution across the road transport system

Approaches to Autonomous Driving Vehicle Traffic Accidents Liability in China

Artificial Intelligence and Legal Liability

Drivers of partially automated vehicles are blamed for crashes that they cannot reasonably avoid

The law and economics of AI liability

Product liability for defective AI

When both human and machine drivers make mistakes: Whom to blame?

A risk-based approach to assessing liability risk for AI-driven harms considering EU liability directive

Autonomous and Automated Vehicles in Germany and Hungary, with Special Attention to the Question of Civil Liability

Plenty of blame to go around: Attributions of responsibility in a fatal autonomous vehicle accident

Not in Control, but Liable? Attributing Human Responsibility for Fully Automated Vehicle Accidents

Legal Framework for Rear-End Crashes in Mixed-Traffic Platooning: A Matrix Game Approach