Hands-Free Cars Essay

Strict liability, also known as the absolute liability, refers to the legal responsibility for injury and damages, even though the individual who is found to be strictly liable has no direct association with negligence, or being at fault. Strict liability, in this case, applies in tort such as the one committed by Hands-Free Cars, in which the argument about product liability may be brought forward, where the case is built around the injuries caused by manufactured goods, such as Hands-Free Cars. Autonomous cars introduced to the market by Hands-Free Cars are supposed to sense the surroundings and therefore navigate roads without human input. The manufacturer uses various techniques for detection of surroundings such as laser light, odometry, radar, GPS and computer vision to capture sensory information and use it to navigate paths, make signals, and avoid obstacles. As such, Hands-Free Cars can be sued for failure of its navigation systems to observe consumer safety concerns adequately thereby causing a collision between the vehicle and the motorcycle. However, the plaintiff has to prove to the court that the product caused them harm, although it is not necessary to prove that the manufacturer was careless. The plaintiff can prove this point by pointing out that AV vehicles are intelligent, whereby the term "intelligence" refers to the formulation of the action sequence with an aim to achieving system goals successfully especially in an environment riddled with uncertainty. This definition can be applied in the case of autonomous/intelligent vehicles to evade accidents and in the case of inevitable accidents, the vehicle is supposed to cause minimal damages. Any individual who purchased the product, bystanders and injured guests who lack any relationship with the motor vehicles may also sue for damages caused by the vehicle. The plaintiff must also prove that the item had a defect, which was the proximate cause of the injury and consequently, the product was rendered unreasonably dangerous. The plaintiff is likely to recover damages even if Hands-Free Cars exercised all due precautionary procedures during the manufacturing process and the sale of the motor vehicle.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Motorcyclist

The motorcycle rider can also be sued under the doctrine of strict liability if the defendant can prove that s/he was liable for committing a tort. Lane splitting, which refers to the act of riding a motorcycle between rows of slow moving vehicles in the same direction is thought to save time through bypassing of the congestion caused by traffic jams. Unfortunately, this act is illegal in most states, except California, whose laws state that lane splitting is actually a legal and necessary action as it reduces congestion and improves the safety of motorists as opposed t them driving behind vehicles. Lane splitting often leaves the rider responsible because safety for lane splitters is a judgment call. Riding between rows of slow-moving vehicles increases the vulnerability of motor vehicle riders since a vehicle can open doors unexpectedly or change lanes without warning, or the passengers can stick out a body part, say a hand, thereby putting the motorcycle's rider at the risk of crashing.

Moreover, the motorcyclist can be charged without due care, which is the act of driving below the set standards associated with competence and careful driving under the doctrine of strict liability. The motorcyclist was moving at a speed of 35mph whereas the traffic speed was at 25mph. breaking the speed limit, even if this was a temporary speed limit, can be considered as an offense since it the drivers' responsibility to understand speed limits on the road, temporary or not. Signposting limits are only essential when a motorist changes road sections and as such, the motorist cannot claim to be unaware of the traffic speed since that would be considered negligence. Other defenses that are not valid for the motorcyclists include stating that the road signs for the speed limit were not visible, the motorist was in a hurry due to lateness, speed traps were hidden, the car behind was close, or that the motorcyclists were responding to an emergency.

The Driver

Although an autonomous vehicle conducts a detailed assessment of the situation at hand and develop a suitable course of action, the vehicle leaves it to the driver to select the preferred course of action. Even if the automotive vehicle conducts cognitive functions, there is no resulting action course in which the resulting path that is determined by the technology contained within the autonomous vehicle in itself. Although the vehicle has unrestricted ability to execute commands, the driver had the responsibility of determining the best course of action for the autonomous vehicle rather than leaving the AV to execute the best course of action that creates the bests course of action by itself. The driver was required to introduce a guideline for ethics, an aspect that grapples the ethical dilemmas introduced by programming. Autonomous vehicles simply take action that leads to positive ethical action although they do not consider human ethics that focus on a code of ethics. The implication here is that the driver should have taken charge of the automobile at this point and taken the most ethical action, which is to slow the speed to 10 mph and get behind to allow the motorcycle to get past him so as to return to the center lane as soon as the motorcycle had passed and the lane was clear.