NTSB Preliminary Report Reminds That Driver Error Persists

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recently issued its preliminary report concerning the March 18, 2018 incident in Tempe, Arizona in which a pedestrian was struck and killed by a Volvo XC90 sport utility vehicle equipped with self-driving capabilities. The vehicle was part of Uber’s autonomous vehicle pilot program. The program was suspended by Arizona’s governor following the incident.

According to the NTSB, although the vehicle’s systems identified the pedestrian, the vehicle’s emergency braking system had been disabled to prevent conflict with other self-driving systems. A driver in the vehicle was expected to apply the brakes when needed, but the vehicle’s driver was looking at the vehicle’s display screen and failed to do so in time.

The incident offers important insight into a nascent issue. Many anticipate that the liability trend for vehicle crashes will involve movement away from driver-assigned errors and towards system-assigned or design-assigned errors. While this ultimately may prove true, the NTSB’s preliminary report is a reminder that we are not there yet. Driver error persists. In concept, vehicle automation will curb such driver errors. But current partial-automation systems work only when drivers continue to pay attention to the road and do not rely on such systems without thought.

Vehicle automation is not going away. Accenture estimates that 23 million fully autonomous vehicles will be traveling American roads by 2035. In the meantime, the advanced-driver assistance systems (ADAS) market will continue to grow. Some predict the global ADAS market will reach 67.53 billion dollars by 2025. ADAS is also becoming increasingly democratized. ADAS can be found from entry-level vehicles to luxury models, and a growing number of ADAS technologies are mandated by law. For instance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s final rule requiring backup cameras in all vehicles under 10,000 pounds became effective in May 2018.

Vehicle automation will also have numerous societal benefits. According to a 2015 NHTSA report, 94% of vehicle crashes are assigned to driver error. And an earlier NHTSA report states that vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children of every age from 2 to 14 years old. Reducing the number of vehicle crashes, especially those caused by driver error, is a worthy goal. There are also 36 million people in the United States with disabilities, and vehicle automation is anticipated to enhance mobility for these populations. Autonomous vehicles should also make traffic operations more efficient; vehicle automation is hoped to improve road efficiency and mitigate the growing costs of congestion.

But even as vehicles progress towards full automation and even as the anticipated benefits of such technologies are realized, recent events remind that the long-standing threat of driver error remains present.

Litigation of vehicle crashes, even those caused by driver error, will increasingly involve a product liability component. The growing complexity of autonomous vehicles will mean that trials involving these vehicles will involve more technical issues, will be longer, and will consequently be more expensive. Questions will be raised as to whether driver-assistance technologies were designed and functioned properly. Expert witnesses will be necessary to explain these technologies to fact finders. Data recording features in autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles may provide for more robust crash-reconstruction modeling. Video evidence too may offer unprejudiced evidence of what occurred in the moments prior to a crash. But such resources further increase the rising costs of litigating vehicle crashes.

At this phase in the development of autonomous vehicles, and underscored by the persistence of driver error, manufacturers and technology developers face significant litigation risk. While manufacturers and technology developers continue to traverse reputational concerns related to the adoption of autonomous vehicle technologies, such entities must also continue to be mindful that the adoption of such technologies will test the existing legal framework and will expose manufacturers and technology developers to increasingly complicated and technical litigation.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.