Who Is Liable in Partially Automated Car Crashes

With the rise in partially automated cars driving down roads today, don’t be surprised to see more accidents. Yes, these vehicles are equipped with smart and powerful Level 2 systems that let them do all the steering and braking. But that doesn’t mean the driver can be passive or avoid blame in the event of a crash.

Not even the smartest systems can always steer clear of a crash. And when one does occur, it’s not always easy to determine who is at fault. We’ll go over the details in the article that follows to help understand what liability looks like in partially automated car crashes.

What is Level 2 Automation?

Level 2 systems are capable of tackling both steering and braking within a vehicle. Even so, the human driver must be engaged with the process. There could be a situation where they need to take control of the wheel.

The drivers should keep their hands on the wheel and stay vigilant. They might need to shift the car back into its lane or make a sudden stop.

As a result, during crashes, it’s not always easy to determine liability. It’s always better to be careful with statements and not assign blame. A good local car accident lawyer, particularly one familiar with state-specific liability rules, is essential for anyone navigating a partially automated car crash.

Considering Crash Liability in Different States

Car crash liability generally falls into two categories within the United States. If an accident happens in an at-fault state, the driver in the responsible vehicle must cover costs connected to the affected car. In other words, their insurance will pay costs related to car damage and personal injuries, like whiplash.

For accidents happening in no-fault states, the terms are different. Regardless of guilt, both drivers will use their own insurance policies to address costs first. But the injuries need to be significant to merit suing the at-fault driver.

How do these differences impact situations with partially automated drivers? Determining who was overseeing the car matters more in an at-fault state.

Understanding Comparative Negligence

A driver needs to maintain oversight when in a partially automated car. But the car manufacturer has to do their part to ensure the vehicle is operating as it should. When the car fails due to something beyond the driver’s control, comparative negligence may come into play.

With comparative negligence, both the driver and another party, such as the car manufacturer, will share liability. Maybe the automation system didn’t function properly, but the driver was checking a screen, too. In that situation, a judge may assign a percentage of the blame to each party.

Since both humans and technology factor into operating partially automated vehicles, comparative negligence can be a positive legal principle. Rather than heaping blame on one party, the outcome shows more consideration for all details. 

Dealing with Product Liability Scenarios

What if the driver is trying to manage the situation, but the car system isn’t responsive? In those scenarios, the accident may not be something the driver could have prevented. A defective product could have been the main force behind the accident, leading to a product liability situation.

A software glitch or inactive sensor could have kept the car from avoiding a collision, for instance. The manufacturer is at fault in this example of product liability. Claims that focus on product liability generally don’t concern the driver’s actions as much as scenarios where driver negligence was the culprit.

Consulting Data for Answers

Data can be a huge asset when it comes to determining liability. In particular, vehicle data logs can provide objective information about everything from driver behavior to sensor activity. In other words, it is possible to see when the automation system activates and how drivers engage with controls in the vehicle.

Ultimately, this data can help show that an automation system was either working or failing in the moments leading up to a crash. Likewise, the data can help describe whether the driver was engaged with the car’s controls.

Determining Liability

There’s not a simple, direct answer when it comes to determining liability in partially automated car crashes. You must look at state regulations before delving into other details. It is also important to factor in the driver’s level of engagement and the system’s performance.

Automation can make driving safer and more enjoyable when drivers understand their responsibilities. But even the best technology is not perfect. Drivers must protect themselves on the road and during insurance claim situations by staying observant.