Identifying Defects in Robot Cars

While it is not necessary to be an engineer, computer programmer, or automotive products liability expert to identify a defect, you do need to have a basic working knowledge of products liability legal theories. Products liability focuses on the product and any defect it may have. In most jurisdictions, there are three products liability theories: design defects, manufacturing defects, and marketing defects. A product has a design defect when its specifications or plans are defective. A product has a manufacturing defect when a product is not made or constructed to its specifications or plans. And a product has marketing defect when its warnings or instructions are inadequate. A product may have no defect, a design defect, a manufacturing defect, a marketing defect, or a combination of defects. You also need to have a basic working knowledge of who was sitting where; who was injured; the extent of their injuries; and what happened in the wreck. Often, after an investigation, your initial understanding of these facts may be proven wrong. Causation is an element in each products liability theory. The defect must be the producing cause of the injury. A robot car, autonomous vehicle, semi-autonomous vehicle, or crash avoidance technology may have the most egregious defect. But if that defect did not cause the wreck or injuries, the claim will fail.

With respect to robot car, autonomous vehicle, semi-autonomous vehicle, or crash avoidance technology defects, the focus should be on the details of the wreck itself. The concern is the symptom, not the underlying cause of the symptom. For the foreseeable future, anytime there is a robot car, autonomous vehicle, a semi-autonomous vehicle, or crash avoidance technology involved in a wreck, there is a significant chance that there is a products liability defect in the sensors, cameras, radars, computers, programming, or some combination thereof.

Simply put, if the wreck is a wreck that crash avoidance technologies should have or could have prevented, there may be a defect in the crash avoidance technology or a failure to equip defect. Below is a non-exhaustive list of the current, common feasible crash avoidance technologies.

Forward Collision Avoidance Systems

Forward collision avoidance systems (“FCAS”) are a group of crash avoidance systems that are designed to prevent frontal collisions. FCAS continuously monitors the automobile’s speed relative to the distance between the automobile itself and people or objects outside of the automobile, and other automobiles in front of and to the side of the FCAS-equipped automobile. When the FCAS detects an emergency situation, depending upon the level of autonomy, FCAS should warn the driver, prepare the automobile to stop, slow the automobile, stop the automobile so as to prevent the frontal collision, or a combination thereof. FACS is also implicated in what is commonly referred to as adaptive cruise control, which autonomously speeds up or slows the automobile down to maintain a safe distance between the FACS-equipped automobile and another automobile in front of it. In the end, if a FCAS-equipped automobile is involved in a frontal collision and FCAS did not prevent the collision or a new automobile was not equipped with FCAS, there may be a defect.

Side Collision Avoidance Systems

Side collision avoidance systems (“SCAS”) are a group of crash avoidance systems that are designed to prevent side collisions. SCAS continuously monitors the automobile’s speed relative to the distance between the automobile and outside people or objects, between other automobiles behind and to the side of the SCAS-equipped automobile, and the lane the SCAS automobile is traveling in. When the SCAS detects that another automobile, person, or object coming from behind or beside the automobile is unintentionally or unsafely changing lanes, depending on the level of autonomy, SCAS warns of the approaching automobile, person, or object or impending lane change, adds steering input to assist the driver in keeping the automobile in the correct lane, keeps the automobile in the proper lane without driver assistance, or a combination thereof. If there is a side collision and SCAS did not prevent the crash or a new automobile was not equipped with SCAS, there may be a defect.

Injury Mitigation Systems

Injury mitigation systems (“IMS”) are a group of autonomous features that are designed to diminish physical harm to occupants. IMS continuously monitors the automobile’s speed relative to the distance between the automobile and outside people or objects, other automobiles in front, behind, and to the side of the IMS-equipped automobile, and the lane the IMS automobile is traveling in. When the IMS-equipped automobile decides that a wreck is imminent, IMS prepares the automobile for the wreck by tightening the seatbelts, adjusting the headrests, raising the windows, closing the sunroof, or combinations thereof. If there is a wreck and the injury is the kind IMS could have prevented but did not, or if the automobile was not equipped with IMS, there may be a defect.

Failure to Equip

Defects can happen by commission and omission. When a manufacturer chooses not to equip an automobile with a crash avoidance technology or chooses to make that technology an option, that choice causes injury, and the crash avoidance technology likely would have prevented the injury, a “failure to equip” claim may exist. If the technology is missing and could have prevented the wreck or victim’s injury, there is a chance there is a defect. Failure to equip cases, however, are dependent upon what is state of the art at the time the automobile was manufactured and marketed. It must have been economically and technologically feasible for the manufacturer to have equipped the automobile with the crash avoidance technology. For example, a 1950’s automobile involved in a frontal collision would not be defective for failing to be equipped with forward collision avoidance systems technologies.