Legislators, safety advocacy groups, and others are mulling over not only the security of semi- or fully autonomous vehicles but who is to blame and accountable when they’re involved with crashes. So how does that affect insurance and repairers?
A lawsuit delivered to New Jersey District Court last week from Camden County Superior Court against Tesla is one example of a semi-AV court conundrum that may leave many wondering who is at fault – Tesla or the owner? And who pays for damages? Toll collector Sharon Scott filed the suit because she says she was injured when a 2022 Model X allegedly accelerated on its own causing a crash at the toll booth she was working at around the New Jersey Turnpike in 2022.
Scott is suing Tesla, vehicle owner Mike Gao, and Kim Lam, who had been “operating” the vehicle at the time of the crash. A category of “yet unknown individuals, corporations, or partnerships who sold, marketed, maintained, manufactured, designed and/or supplied an automobile or aspect of a vehicle involved with this accident” are also listed as defendants. The suit alleges negligence, material misrepresentations about safety, and violations of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act. It demands a jury trial as well as an unspecified quantity of compensation for Scott’s injuries.
Perhaps out of this case repairers can see why following all OEM repair procedures and documenting every step is essential to not only ensure safe repairs but to avoid liability in case of a malfunction or crash. For instance, if the vehicle was repaired before the crash, to what extent would the repair business have to defend its process in restoring safety system functionality?
“Like a direct and proximate consequence of conduct, breach of warranties and negligence by the aforementioned Defendants, and product defects in the subject vehicle, the Plaintiff, Sharon Scott, suffered serious and permanent injuries,” the suit states.
It also claims that for several years Tesla drivers have reported “Sudden Uncommanded Acceleration or ‘SUA,'” meaning the vehicles accelerate at full power with no driver touching the accelerator or when the accelerator is pushed hard enough to warrant full power. A 2022 federal lawsuit is noted that claims the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration received 13 SUA complaints around the Model X during its first year to be on the highway.
In its response to the complaint, Tesla denied negligence and violation from the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. It also denied the negligence allegations made against Lam and instead blamed Scott and unnamed third parties.
“Plaintiff was responsible for negligence which either caused or led to the happening from the alleged accident and resulting injuries,” Tesla’s attorney wrote within the answer to the complaint. “The Complaint herein fails to state a claim where relief can be granted. The negligence herein, if any, was the negligence of organizations over whom these defendants didn't have control.”
Lam and Gao also filed a cross-claim against Tesla to indemnify them for “liability and damages from the type alleged by plaintiffs and to procure insurance protecting defendants.” The situation was referred to arbitration on Feb. 8, based on the case docket.
Nonprofit research organization RAND Corp. studied the results AVs could have around the future of car insurance by interviewing 43 unnamed “subject-matter experts” from 35 stakeholder organizations and conducting an “extensive” literature review.
The study echos what AV industry representatives have claimed: that AV technologies have the potential to save lives, prevent injuries, and increase mobility for Americans who can’t drive due to disability or otherwise. However, it’s noted that there are technological and infrastructure barriers for AVs including camera and sensor performance hindrances in inclement weather and dust and also on unpaved roads or where there is a insufficient signs, markings, and mapping. Deficiencies in federal safety regulations is also stated like a “challenge,” which many overall said is needed throughout a Feb. 2 U.S. House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit hearing.
“From the theoretical perspective, there are many reasons to believe that automation will lead to a transfer of liability in the individual driver to the manufacturer,” the research states. “The primary historical justifications of tort law provide a few rationales for this type of shift. Existing products liability law doctrines, including manufacturing defect, design defect, and failure to warn, could readily apply to crashes involving automated vehicles. … It seems likely that manufacturers may increasingly contend with traditional auto insurers and provide insurance packaged with their vehicles.”
The study states that car insurance is really a “critical factor that policymakers must consider as they seek to realize the societal benefits of automation” not only to adhere to existing state regulations but also for consumers to trust AV technologies.
“Policymakers do not need to fundamentally change car insurance law to determine automated vehicle technology advance,” the study states. “Currently, insurance coverage is governed by states, and each state sets its very own particular requirements as well as rate approval. This makes some sense within the federal system because tort law is usually the purpose of state regulations. This permits a state-by-state determination of financial solvency and rates.”
