Whatever

[Donatello]

Who is liable if a crash happens? The owner, driver, or Tesla?

The Driver/owner.
Because Tesla will place those warnings/caution everywhere in the operator's manual and system that this system is to be operated such and such, in this manner.
Just like they put the SRS warning label and ask you to buckle up. That way they restrict their legal liability.
Those concave Side Mirrors say 'Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear'
Engine parts say 'Caution:HOT'....you end up burning your hand, the company will claim they warned you enough.

If the car is for rental or third party use, then the owner will have to inform the driver and perhaps sign it.

So Tesla will simply put such a warning to restrict their legal liability.

 

[VCheng]

The owner.
Because Tesla will place those warnings/caution everywhere in the operator's manual and system that this system is to be operated such and such, in this manner.
Just like they put the SRS warning label and ask you to buckle up. That way they restrict their legal liability.
Those concave Side Mirrors say 'Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear'
Engine parts say 'Caution:HOT'....you end up burning your hand, the company will claim they warned you enough.

So Tesla will simply put such a warning to restrict their legal liability.

That still may not be enough to prevent a lawsuit unless the legal system clarifies this issue.

 

[Donatello]

That still may not be enough to prevent a lawsuit unless the legal system clarifies this issue.

I know for sure that in UK legal system /Europe, if the company warned the owner/operator enough and if the warning was deemed 'reasonable' for a person of 'average intelligence', then the lawsuit will be thrown out. The stupid lawsuit/sue culture is only prevalent in USA. Wasting taxpayers time and money. You know, back in early 2000 UK had that case of stupid McDonald's customer spilling hot coffee on them. They sued McDonalds that coffee was too hot. Well, genius, coffee is supposed to be hot. The judge after appropriate investigation and establishment of the facts, ruled that coffee is to be served hot, it is expected of the customer to know that, McDonalds cup design was adequate for such a beverage with enough warning on it and the fact that McDonalds staff was reasonably trained to hand over a hot beverage safely to the customer.
Poor guy didn't get anything.
Meanwhile in USA, they award hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.
WTF right?

So yes you can always file a lawsuit, but it does not mean you will have a chance at Trial.

 

[VCheng]

I know for sure that in UK legal system /Europe, if the company warned the owner/operator enough and if the warning was deemed 'reasonable' for a person of 'average intelligence', then the lawsuit will be thrown out. The stupid lawsuit/sue culture is only prevalent in USA. Wasting taxpayers time and money. You know, back in early 2000 UK had that case of stupid McDonald's customer spilling hot coffee on them. They sued McDonalds that coffee was too hot. Well, genius, coffee is supposed to be hot. The judge after appropriate investigation and establishment of the facts, ruled that coffee is to be served hot, it is expected of the customer to know that, McDonalds cup design was adequate for such a beverage with enough warning on it and the fact that McDonalds staff was reasonably trained to hand over a hot beverage safely to the customer.
Poor guy didn't get anything.
Meanwhile in USA, they award hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.
WTF right?

So yes you can always file a lawsuit, but it does not mean you will have a chance at Trial.

How about this case for comparison?

"Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants,[1] also known as the McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee lawsuit, was a 1994 product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the United States over tort reform. A New Mexico civil jury awarded $2.86 million to plaintiff Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman who suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled hot coffee in her lap after purchasing it from a McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days while she underwent skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment.

Liebeck's attorneys argued that at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C) McDonald's coffee was defective, claiming it was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment. McDonald's had refused several prior opportunities to settle for less than what the jury ultimately awarded.[2] The jury damages included $160,000[3] to cover medical expenses and compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The trial judge reduced the final verdict to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided."

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

Exactly my point, the legal system has to evolve to cater for these new types of cars.

The Driver/owner.
Because Tesla will place those warnings/caution everywhere in the operator's manual and system that this system is to be operated such and such, in this manner.
Just like they put the SRS warning label and ask you to buckle up. That way they restrict their legal liability.
Those concave Side Mirrors say 'Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear'
Engine parts say 'Caution:HOT'....you end up burning your hand, the company will claim they warned you enough.

If the car is for rental or third party use, then the owner will have to inform the driver and perhaps sign it.

So Tesla will simply put such a warning to restrict their legal liability.

That still may not be enough to prevent a lawsuit unless the legal system clarifies this issue.

Actually what would happen is there will be strict liability kind of laws if the law suites are going to be limited.
If there is a violation of traffic rules then on the hearing the fine or penalty points would be removed but the person violating would still be held responsible and would have to pay some money.

Now the problem of having cars that would be controlled without a driver and a mind of its own would also raise the issue of what planing and traffic collision avoidance systems would be available.

 

[Donatello]

How about this case for comparison?

"Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants,[1] also known as the McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee lawsuit, was a 1994 product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the United States over tort reform. A New Mexico civil jury awarded $2.86 million to plaintiff Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman who suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled hot coffee in her lap after purchasing it from a McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days while she underwent skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment.

Liebeck's attorneys argued that at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C) McDonald's coffee was defective, claiming it was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment. McDonald's had refused several prior opportunities to settle for less than what the jury ultimately awarded.[2] The jury damages included $160,000[3] to cover medical expenses and compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The trial judge reduced the final verdict to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided."

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think that is what i meant.....it's similar case in UK, in 2002, didn't have any damages awarded to the person filing the lawsuit.

Read the fine print. Coffee was hot at 82-88C....i mean wtf....even if it was 60-70C (don't know who would brew coffee at that temp) It would still cause burns......unless McDonalds advertised cold coffee and served hot........

Or one of those stupid Apple patenting the shape of a phone lawsuit in Californian court.

 

[VCheng]

Actually what would happen is there will be strict liability kind of laws if the law suites are going to be limited.
If there is a violation of traffic rules then on the hearing the fine or penalty points would be removed but the person violating would still be held responsible and would have to pay some money.

Now the problem of having cars that would be controlled without a driver and a mind of its own would also raise the issue of what planing and traffic collision avoidance systems would be available.

Yes, there are many issues that need to be sorted out before these cars become widespread.

 

[Donatello]

Actually what would happen is there will be strict liability kind of laws if the law suites are going to be limited.
If there is a violation of traffic rules then on the hearing the fine or penalty points would be removed but the person violating would still be held responsible and would have to pay some money.

Now the problem of having cars that would be controlled without a driver and a mind of its own would also raise the issue of what planing and traffic collision avoidance systems would be available.

If the car fails to brake in time and crashes into another car/property, then you can sue the car maker claiming that the system and sensors were faulty or the software.....a thorough investigation would need to be done.....and seen if it was car makers fault or some other reason. For example, what if your blind corner sensor (which is coming in many new cars now) is covered in snow? It doesn't work to warn you or the computer, and the car crashes......who is at fault here? Car company for not telling you that the sensor cannot work in such weather.....or if they never informed you then you can file for negligence.

Yes, there are many issues that need to be sorted out before these cars become widespread.

Developed countries will sort it out, especially Europe. Here, enjoy an Audi RS7 piloting itself around a track:

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

I know for sure that in UK legal system /Europe, if the company warned the owner/operator enough and if the warning was deemed 'reasonable' for a person of 'average intelligence', then the lawsuit will be thrown out. The stupid lawsuit/sue culture is only prevalent in USA. Wasting taxpayers time and money. You know, back in early 2000 UK had that case of stupid McDonald's customer spilling hot coffee on them. They sued McDonalds that coffee was too hot. Well, genius, coffee is supposed to be hot. The judge after appropriate investigation and establishment of the facts, ruled that coffee is to be served hot, it is expected of the customer to know that, McDonalds cup design was adequate for such a beverage with enough warning on it and the fact that McDonalds staff was reasonably trained to hand over a hot beverage safely to the customer.
Poor guy didn't get anything.
Meanwhile in USA, they award hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.
WTF right?

So yes you can always file a lawsuit, but it does not mean you will have a chance at Trial.

The deference between British and US legal system is that, Law suites that are mostly accepted and British system need to be against the company where as in USA they can be for an individual person.

The case you have mentioned is a very good one because the person spilling the coffee was a person who was self serving. Had this been done by a staff of Mc Donalds then the situation would have been entirely opposite.

In the US though Mc. Donalds might not have been judged to be at fault but they would have argued on what is the maximum temperature that the coffee can be served. Taking in consideration health of the persons inter organs tolerance of the bearable temperature so that some other complication may not arise.

 

[Donatello]

The deference between British and US legal system is that, Law suites that are mostly accepted and British system need to be against the company where as in USA they can be for an individual person.

The case you have mentioned is a very good one because the person spilling the coffee was a person who was self serving. Had this been done by a staff of Mc Donalds then the situation would have been entirely opposite.

In the US though Mc. Donalds might not have been judged to be at fault but they would have argued on what is the maximum temperature that the coffee can be served. Taking in consideration health of the persons inter organs tolerance of the bearable temperature so that some other complication may not arise.

Buddy, if you are purchasing hot coffee, you know you can burn yourself. That is a fact. Now if a blind person was served coffee that he spilled, that would be an interesting case. even if you serve coffee at 60C it is still pretty hot. And then you will file another lawsuit that the coffee was not brewed properly.

You don't stick your fingers in the power socket and then sue the utility company. Some things in life are simple. And that's how European justice works. You can sue/file claims all you want....however it does not mean that a judge will want to carry on the trial. They have to take into account other pressing issues as well.

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

If the car fails to brake in time and crashes into another car/property, then you can sue the car maker claiming that the system and sensors were faulty or the software.....a thorough investigation would need to be done.....and seen if it was car makers fault or some other reason. For example, what if your blind corner sensor (which is coming in many new cars now) is covered in snow? It doesn't work to warn you or the computer, and the car crashes......who is at fault here? Car company for not telling you that the sensor cannot work in such weather.....or if they never informed you then you can file for negligence.

Not really there have been cases in which the manufacturer has said that the system that is installed is required by the law to give multiple options to avoid an accident. If that system chooses one and still the crash occurs though a common person would have chosen the other option which is reality would not have caused a crash. The data the is to be decoded is insufficient hence we must consider that the crash was never unavoidable.

Classic example is The Mid Air Collision between DHL and Aeroflot under Swiss Radar Control.
The word in contention was 'ADVICE'
If it was advice then it can be disregarded.

What a radar controller gives are "Command"
Command has to be followed at all times.

 

[Donatello]

Not really there have been cases in which the manufacturer has said that the system that is installed is required by the law to give multiple options to avoid an accident. If that system chooses one and still the crash occurs though a common person would have chosen the other option which is reality would not have caused a crash. The data the is to be decoded is insufficient hence we must consider that the crash was never unavoidable.

Classic example is The Mid Air Collision between DHL and Aeroflot under Swiss Radar Control.
The word in contention was 'ADVICE'
If it was advice then it can be disregarded.

What a radar controller gives are "Command"
Command has to be followed at all times.

Yes, very interesting cases out there....especially in Aviation. But see, aviation is something that is expected to maintain very high standards. Again, the equipment that goes on board a passenger aircraft is way more robust than the equipment in your house or car.....because hundreds of lives depend on it. That is why you see lawsuits being filed after plane crashed in USA/Europe once it is known that it was technical fault....but whose fault was it? Engine failure...plane crash lands.....that is not Boeing's fault for example...Boeing does not make engines so Boeing gets to transfer that legal liability burden on someone else.....and so on so forth.
This is called 'indemnity chain'..............you sue someone.....they sue someone else and so on.

They are already trying to put 'black boxes' in cars....so that it aids in the help of crash investigations....but one of the questions is that who owns it? Can the government access the data without your permission or warrant? They certainly cannot look into your iphone or laptop without authorization under law or by you......so questions like these remain, but good thing is, in the developed world....law keeps up with technology......or sometimes law forces the technology to raise the bar.....for example in Europe....they have the 'Euro emission standards' so cars sold after a certain date must meet those........starting this year, 2015, all cars sold in Eurozone must have some form of stability control in the car....

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

Yes, very interesting cases out there....especially in Aviation. But see, aviation is something that is expected to maintain very high standards. Again, the equipment that goes on board a passenger aircraft is way more robust than the equipment in your house or car.....because hundreds of lives depend on it. That is why you see lawsuits being filed after plane crashed in USA/Europe once it is known that it was technical fault....but whose fault was it? Engine failure...plane crash lands.....that is not Boeing's fault for example...Boeing does not make engines so Boeing gets to transfer that legal liability burden on someone else.....and so on so forth.
This is called 'indemnity chain'..............you sue someone.....they sue someone else and so on.

They are already trying to put 'black boxes' in cars....so that it aids in the help of crash investigations....but one of the questions is that who owns it? Can the government access the data without your permission or warrant? They certainly cannot look into your iphone or laptop without authorization under law or by you......so questions like these remain, but good thing is, in the developed world....law keeps up with technology......or sometimes law forces the technology to raise the bar.....for example in Europe....they have the 'Euro emission standards' so cars sold after a certain date must meet those........starting this year, 2015, all cars sold in Eurozone must have some form of stability control in the car....

Aviation sector technology if going to be transferred to public transport / road cars must be developed and matured product at its pinnacle. Why?
Aviation industry is far more organised, systems rules and highest possible safety parameters have been devised. Hence it is one of the safest.

Roads are not as safe because the space is limited and rules are often not followed. Even if Government is allowed to install and on MOT they are given access to download the data recorder still it is not going to establish if this person was driving or there was some one else at that time some irregularity took place. What this is going to do is that each car would require only the owner to drive something like that is being done in Saudi Arabia.

The British or other citizens that think a car is for the family then this is going to have a negative impact then a positive one.

I know there are many things that are required in EU. UK has some differences hence the models in UK some times have some things added or removed. The emission standards started long time back with the Catalytic converters were made optional in the late 80's and in late 90's they were mandatory.

Now look at this possibility A person drives from Turkey in an Iranian manufactured car would it have the same standard at the time it enters EU. Can Eu ask this person to leave this car at the crossing because this does not meet the requirements required by EU manufacturers. No they can not do that for a product that is not going to be used in EU. If this person take it for few days then he would be allowed but if it is going to be for a longer period then things would be different.

We can go on and on discussion but the end result would always be.
Improvement in legal systems and evolution of mentality to accept the changes.

 

[Armstrong]

@SvenSvensonov @Transhumanist @Nihonjin1051 @Gabriel92 - Long time no see....where have all of you guys been ?

 

[Gabriel92]

@SvenSvensonov @Transhumanist @Nihonjin1051 @Gabriel92 - Long time no see....where have all of you guys been ?

Because of : -Laziness
- Try to spend more time with family this time.