Support@brillianttermpapers.com

1-206-973-7012

Product liability in respect to Autonomous Vehicles

Name:

Professor:

Course:

Date:

Product liability in respect to Autonomous Vehicles

Autonomous vehicles, also known as driverless cars, appear set to become a reality in people’s lives in the near future with companies such as Uber, Google, and Tesla all conducting tests to introduce them for mass consumption.[1] Many people are optimistic that such vehicles could help reduce the number of deaths caused by road accidents which stood at 37,461 in 2016 according to the US NHTSA.[2] This amounts to about 90 people each day and is a problem especially when you consider that more than 90% of such accidents are caused by an element of human error according to research.[3] This goes to show, in theory at least, that with the removal of the human element in driving and with highly capable software roads would be a lot safer for humans. The quest for autonomous vehicles to be available for use on the road has however been dampened by some occurrences that have put their reliability as more suitable options to question.

On February 14, 2016, a Google self driving car took a turn into oncoming traffic in California and collided with a bus though no one was hurt in the incident.[4] On March 18, 2018, an Uber autonomous car knocked down a passenger crossing the road in Arizona despite having a person in the car to act as a back up to the software in case it malfunctioned or in cases of emergencies.[5] Such incidences have raised questions with legislators and legal scholars trying to determine who the liability falls to in such instances with the driver not operating the car in that situation.[6] The question would thus be does the responsibility fall on the manufacturer or would the driver have been required to follow certain instructions thus maintaining some responsibility. Would the manufacturer also be liable in the instance where automated technology was added by a third party? This paper shall discuss these issues as it explains how product liability laws will be affected by these new technologies and how they would adapt without being too punitive thus stifling its progress.

Product Liability Traditionally

Traditionally, it has been easy to place blame in the case of a motor vehicle accident.  In Ireland, the main product liability law is the liability for defective products act, 1991 which was enacted in accordance with European Commission directive 85/374. This is act in conjunction with the Road traffic act of 1961 are used in making judgments in vehicle accident cases. With certain parts of the car being operated by the driver, a malfunction could be as a result of negligence by the driver or what can be referred to as consumer misuse of the product.[7] This means that it possible for a claim to be lodged against the driver for instance for negligence, injury or criminal charges. The liability in this instance is with the driver rather than the manufacturer. However, there are instances where faulty parts, design failure or a mechanical defect in the product leads to a claim against a manufacturer if it leads to the accident.  For instance under the consumer protection act of 1987, liability is firmly on a manufacturer in the case of a defective product with the injured party only required to show that the defective product caused the injury.[8] Under this act, a product is considered defective whereby it is not safe to the standard where people are entitled to taking into account its purpose in the market, warning provided and how it could have reasonably been used. This shows that the law places great emphasis on consumer expectations to determine whether a product can be reasonably considered to have met what is acceptable as a standard product.

While it was easier to adequately estimate this in traditional combustion engine cars, it becomes more difficult with the modern autonomous vehicle.[9] One reason for this is the lack of understanding of the technology being used in these vehicles by the wider public. This makes it harder even for law makers to come up with regulations for instance with regards to safety standards. It also makes it harder for potential customers of the final product as they would have to be aware of how to use the product once they acquire it and how to interact with the technology.[10] With lawmakers developing ways to understand autonomous vehicles and how to regulate them, manufacturers also have to consider any potential instructions and warnings that they would have to accompany their products with to help them with any claims that may arise.[11]

Development of Autonomous Vehicles

Automation in vehicles is something that has been available for consumers for several years and it has provided numerous safety benefits. With features such as anti lock breaking being in existence in cars since the 1970s, it means that having computers in cars to control certain features is not something that is new.[12] This automation is evolving as computers take up more complicated features with the objective being to have the car operate fully without a driver. Technology such as electronic stability control that reduces the effects of skidding when a driver loses control were introduced in cars in the 1990s before becoming compulsory in the US in 2011.[13]The technology works by braking particular wheels and reducing the engine’s speed in order to maintain control of the vehicle. Other technologies developed in the auto industry include technology such as automatic braking systems which prevent the occurrence of collision with a vehicle ahead of you by breaking automatically. It does so by analyzing the distance between the two vehicles and if the driver does not apply the brake themselves within a reasonable distance and judged on their speed according to Volvo.[14] Other forms of technology include car parking assist technologies and technologies that ensure that drivers do not deviate from their lane by using sensors that detect the lines alerting the driver when they cross them. [15]

Today, research in developing autonomous vehicles is rapidly gathering pace. With many companies, manufacturers, and governments putting resources into it, it has led to growth in the industry. This is because of the benefits that autonomous vehicles offers to society for instance less crashes and fatalities, better mobility for those unable to drive, less traffic congestion, reduced emissions, and better usage of time as people can do other things during a commute rather than just driving.[16] Growth of the industry has provided hope for future use of the autonomous car but as with the examples provided above it has not yet been perfected and could be prone to errors in the future. Because of this probability and to handle such occurrences if they occur, courts would require to consult product liability laws to determine the remedy for any injury incurred.

Product Liability Law and Automobiles

Product liability law contains guidelines for pursuing damages when a defective product causes harm to a person or property. It usually has elements of both tort and contract law.[17] Tort law pertains to civil cases where a person seeks damages for injury for instance because of negligence.[18] Contract law involves explicit and implicit assurances between a consumer of a product and a seller. This relates to product liability law for example in an instance where a product is not of the expected quality and this causes injury to the user.[19] Theories of liability that a victim may pursue in court include: negligence, misrepresentation, breach of warranty, and strict liability.[20]

Strict liability is based on the expectation that a product should not endanger the user unreasonably. A plaintiff who brings such a claim to court has to demonstrate that the product was defective and that it caused harm to the plaintiff. Product liability has three elements: manufacturing defect, design defect, and warning defect. A manufacturing defect is a defect that occurs when a product does not meet design specifications. Design defect entails a situation where a product’s design makes it unreasonably dangerous. Warning defect entails a situation where a manufacturer fails to provide instructions or warnings to ensure safe usage of the car. [21]

Product liability cases involving automobiles can also be further classified into two sections: accidents caused by the automobile’s defects and accidents caused by the automobile’s reaction after a collision otherwise referred as crashworthiness. The first instance considers the situation where the car collides with an object while the second instance considers how the car sufficiently protects its users in the face of such a crash.

Defects leading to a car crash

Defects that most commonly cause automobile accidents are manufacturing and design defects. An example is where a tire was inadequately made causing it to disintegrate while in use resulting in injury. Another example is an instance where a car suddenly accelerates without input from the driver causing an accident. In the instance of design defects, a car’s design may be considered to increase its chances of rolling thus can be considered unreasonably dangerous. In such instances, the court uses the customer expectation test and the risk vs. utility test. The customer expectation test is used to show whether the product did not perform in a reasonably expected way. The risk utility test is used to show that the level of danger posed by the product as designed outweighs its utility.[22]

 

Defects enhancing injury after crash

Claims can arise where a consumer considers that a vehicle fails in protecting users in collisions between the user and the vehicle’s interior. For example in Larsen vs. General motors corp., the plaintiff drove into a head on collision with the impact thrusting the steering into the plaintiff’s head and causing his death. He was driving a Chevrolet Corvair manufactured by the defendant. The court held that negligence principles applied in the case because of the manufacturer’s failure to use reasonable caution to avoid users being subjected to risk of injury or enhancement of injuries they may have. The court stated that not only should cars be a means of transportation, they should also be a safe one.[23] This is considered to be a landmark ruling concerning the automobile industry and product liability. In such cases, the court also applies the customer expectation and the risk vs. utility tests. It is is thus important to consider how such tests would be applied in the case of autonomous vehicles.

In another case, Grimshaw vs. Ford motor company the court of appeal in California upheld a verdict by the jury that had awarded $2.5 million in compensation damages to the plaintiff as well as $125 million as punitive damages. In the case where a user died as a result of a fire that occurred when a Ford Pinto gas tank caught fire after a rear impact accident killing the occupant, the jury found that Ford knew about the risk of fire posed by the unsafe design of the gas tank but they made the decision to use the gas tank in order to save money causing the death of the occupant.[24]

 

 

Product Liability and Autonomous vehicles

With autonomous vehicles being predicted to have occupied the roads by 2025, lawmakers are reacting by either carrying out research in the field or enacting appropriate laws.[25] Other stakeholders such as insurance companies are developing new strategies to stay on track with the expected changes in how society operates.[26] The legal framework in Ireland is inadequate when it comes to dealing with autonomous vehicles as it is at the moment. The road Traffic act enacted in 1961 defines driving as managing and controlling a vehicle.This would not apply to autonomous vehicles where technology controls the vehicle and not the driver. While the legal framework in Ireland has not been rapidly developing with regards to autonomous vehicles, the European commission established a high level committee to study the automotive industry and expected changes to formulate policy recommendations for the future. It also intends to aid development of standard policies across Europe. This committee also referred to as GEAR 30 is to outline the legal status of liability in highly automated vehicles. The group is set to provide its findings yearly with laws projected to be enacted by 2030.[27] In the UK, the insurance industry has been working with technology developers in understanding the risks faced in order to develop new products. This led to the government publishing a draft bill in 2017known as the vehicle technology and aviation bill.[28] The bill proposes to have the compulsory motor vehicle insurance to cover autonomous vehicles when they are in autonomous mode as it would cover the driver when driving the vehicle. The bill provides that when the car gets into an accident when driverless, the insurer is liable for damage. In essence the insurer takes the place of the manufacturer in settling claims. The insurer can then claim compensation from the manufacturer in cases where their product malfunctioned. This means that consumers can get a quick resolution of their claims while the insurer deals with the manufacturer. It is not clear whether Ireland will adopt similar proposals.

Challenges caused by technology

As discussed above, in determining liability, courts normally use the customer expectation test and the risk vs. utility test. While it may still be possible to use the risk vs. utility test to determine whether an autonomous vehicle is unreasonably dangerous, it may be more difficult to judge consumer expectation. This is because autonomous vehicle technology is highly complex and it would thus be difficult to set a standard of expectations for the average consumer. Autonomous vehicles operate by making complex and sophisticated decisions that are not found in many other types of machinery such as elevators or autopilot modes.[29] With an elevator moving up and down on a single track, it means that the chances of error are very limited as well as the scenarios for error. Autonomous vehicles have to make numerous calculations every minute if not every second. An example is whether the vehicle when encountered with a dangerous situation should act to save the occupants of the car or a possible casualty outside of the car. This is when taking into consideration that the vehicle is programmed not to run into people or other vehicles.[30] Autopilot on the other hand requires a human to supervise it and take over when necessary. This means that the driver always has to be alert and thus it takes away from what autonomous vehicles are meant to offer. This is freeing up the driver so that they are able to do other tasks during the commute. It is also meant to transport those who are not able to drive for instance the disabled and even minors.[31] A question that thus arises is whether the autonomous vehicle making a wrong decision and going into oncoming traffic for instance, like in the case above, would qualify as a design defect. Also in such as case, would the risk vs. utility test, customer expectation test, and the crashworthiness test be deemed adequate in determining liability?

Recommendations

While liability issues are something that would need to be addressed in depth with the future commercial use of autonomous vehicles, they should not have to be addressed in advance. This is because having this as a condition for the development of such vehicles will stifle their development.[32] Another thing to consider is that product liability law has shown that it always adapts to new technology in the past. This is shown with technologies such as air bags and the electronic braking system (EBS) discussed above. In this and other cases, the courts have shown to adequately handle the cases even as new technologies were regularly introduced especially in the 20th century.[33] Manufacturers who produce non autonomous cars should also not be held responsible for defects caused by conversion into autonomous vehicles by a third party. With the European commission developing guidelines for future laws in the region, this appears to be a step in the right direction as they are able to ensure adequate preparation for when the technology comes into use. Ireland should also take a more proactive role in developing policies for the autonomous vehicle so as not to not have sufficient product liability laws when the technology is in place. Failure to do so would hamper solution of any claims when they arise in the future.

Conclusion

Autonomous vehicles are projected to have numerous benefits such as freeing up time, better safety, and convenience for those who can’t operate motor vehicles. However, some accidents that have occurred during testing by some major technology companies have shown us that the technology is not perfect as it is and there could be challenges in the future as people wonder how to handle such cases. This has illustrated how automobile product liability law has not been changing at the rate that the technology is changing and is now lagging behind. With that said, although there is a need for legislation to be developed to address new liability challenges posed by this technology, passing these laws should not be hurried and it should not be at the expense of progress in the field. As discussed above, product liability law has shown to adapt to changes in technology in the past and thus we should expect it to be able to adequately handle liability issues in the future. Manufacturers should also take an active role in developing a reasonable car standard. This is through keeping adequate records and providing them for further development of the field. They should also design cars with an emphasis on the law and what it would require of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Anderson, James M., Kalra Nidhi, Karlyn D. Stanley, Paul Sorensen, Constantine Samaras, and Oluwatobi A. Oluwatola. Autonomous vehicle technology: A guide for policymakers. Rand Corporation, 2014.

“Autonomous Vehicles – Self-Driving Vehicles Legislation.” National Conference of State Legislatures, Feb. 23, 2016, http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/autonomous-vehicles-legislation.aspx. Accessed April 9, 2018

Boustead, Anne E., and Karlyn D. Stanley. “The Legal and Policy Road Ahead: An Analysis of Public Comments in NHTSA’s Vehicle-to-Vehicle Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.” Minn. JL Sci. & Tech., vol. 16, no. 2, 2015, pp. 693-733

Boeglin, Jack. “The costs of self-driving cars: reconciling freedom and privacy with tort liability in autonomous vehicle regulation.” Yale JL & Tech., vol. 17, no. 1, 2015, pp. 171-173.

Cohen, Roy Alan. “Self-Driving Technology and Autonomous Vehicles: A Whole New World for Potential Product Liability Discussion.” Defense Counsel Journal, vol. 82, no. 3, 2015, pp. 328.

Colonna, Kyle. “Autonomous cars and tort liability.” Case W. Res. JL Tech. & Internet, vol. 4, no. 1, 2012, pp. 81-130

“Crash avoidance technologies.” Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Dec, 2012. http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/crash-avoidance-technologies/hldi-research. Accessed April 8, 2018

Fagnant, Daniel J., and Kara Kockelman. “Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 77, 2015, pp. 167-181.

Funkhouser, Kevin. “Paving the Road Ahead: Autonomous Vehicles, Products Liability, and the Need for a New Approach.” Utah L. Rev., 2013, pp. 437.

Garza, Andrew P. “Look ma, no hands: wrinkles and wrecks in the age of autonomous vehicles.” New Eng. L. Rev. 46, 2011, pp. 581.

Graham, Kyle. “Of frightened horses and autonomous vehicles: Tort law and its assimilation of innovations.” Santa Clara L. Rev. 52, 2012, pp. 1241.

Gurney, Jeffrey K. “Sue my car not me: Products liability and accidents involving autonomous vehicles.” U. Ill. JL Tech. & Pol’y, 2013, pp. 247.

“High Level Group on Automotive Industry ‘GEAR 2030’.”European Commision, 19 Oct, 2015. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/automotive/policy-strategy_en Accessed April 17, 2018.

Johnson, Anita. “Products Liability Reform: A Hazard to Consumers.” NCL Rev., vol. 56, no. 4, 1978, pp. 677-692

Kessler, A. M., and B. Vlasic. “Semiautonomous driving arrives, feature by feature.” New York Times, Apr 2, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/automobiles/semiautonomous-driving-arrives-feature-by-feature.html?_r=0 Accessed April 8, 2018

Levin, Sam & Wong, Julia C. “Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian.” The Guardian, Mar. 19, 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/19/uber-self-driving-car-kills-woman-arizona-tempe Accessed April 8, 2018

New NHTSA Report Shows Federal ESC Requirement Saving Lives.” National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, Nov. 30, 2012, http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2012/New+NHTSA+Report+Shows+Federal+ESC+Requirement+Saving+Lives Accessed April 8, 2018

Owen, David G. “Moral Foundations of Products Liability Law: Toward First Principles.” Notre Dame L. Rev., vol. 68, 1992, pp. 427-506

“Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Autonomous Vehicles 4–5.” National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, Oct 2016, http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/Automated_Vehicles_Policy.pdf. Accessed April 9, 2018

Schwartz, G.T., 1982. Deterrence and Punishment in the Common Law of Punitive Damages: A Comment. S. Cal. L. Rev., 56, p.133.

Schroll, Carrie. “Splitting the bill: creating a national car insurance fund to pay for accidents in autonomous vehicles.” Nw. UL Rev., vol. 109, no. 3, 2014, pp. 803-834

Statt, Nick. “Google’s bus crash is changing the conversation around self-driving cars.” Verge, Mar. 15, 2016, http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/15/11239008/sxsw2016googleselfdrivingcarprogramgoalsaustin Accessed April 8, 2018

“Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (HC Bill 143)”. UK Parliament, Feb, 2017. https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2016-2017/0143/cbill_2016-20170143_en_2.htm   Accessed April 17, 2018

Webb, K. C. “Products Liability and Autonomous Vehicles: Who’s Driving Whom.” Rich. JL & Tech., vol. 23, no. 4, 2016, pp. 1.

 

[1] Anderson, James M., Kalra Nidhi, Karlyn D. Stanley, Paul Sorensen, Constantine Samaras, and Oluwatobi A. Oluwatola. Autonomous vehicle technology: A guide for policymakers. Rand Corporation, 2014.

[2] “Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Autonomous Vehicles 4–5.” National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, Oct 2016, http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/Automated_Vehicles_Policy.pdf. Accessed April 9, 2018

[3] Garza, Andrew P. “Look ma, no hands: wrinkles and wrecks in the age of autonomous vehicles.” New Eng. L. Rev. 46, 2011, pp. 581.

[4] Statt, Nick. “Google’s bus crash is changing the conversation around self-driving cars.” Verge, Mar. 15, 2016, http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/15/11239008/sxsw2016googleselfdrivingcarprogramgoalsaustin  Accessed April 8, 2018

[5] Levin, Sam & Wong, Julia C. “Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian.” The Guardian, Mar. 19, 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/19/uber-self-driving-car-kills-woman-arizona-tempe Accessed April 8, 2018

[6] Webb, K. C. “Products Liability and Autonomous Vehicles: Who’s Driving Whom.” Rich. JL & Tech., vol. 23, no. 4, 2016, pp. 1.

[7] Cohen, Roy Alan. “Self-Driving Technology and Autonomous Vehicles: A Whole New World for Potential Product Liability Discussion.” Defense Counsel Journal, vol. 82, no. 3, 2015, pp. 328.

[8] Anderson, James M., Kalra Nidhi, Karlyn D. Stanley, Paul Sorensen, Constantine Samaras, and Oluwatobi A. Oluwatola. Autonomous vehicle technology: A guide for policymakers. Rand Corporation, 2014.

[9] Graham, Kyle. “Of frightened horses and autonomous vehicles: Tort law and its assimilation of innovations.” Santa Clara L. Rev. 52, 2012, pp. 1241.

[10] Cohen, Roy Alan. “Self-Driving Technology and Autonomous Vehicles: A Whole New World for Potential Product Liability Discussion.” Defense Counsel Journal, vol. 82, no. 3, 2015, pp. 328.

[11] Schroll, Carrie. “Splitting the bill: creating a national car insurance fund to pay for accidents in autonomous vehicles.” Nw. UL Rev., vol. 109, no. 3, 2014, pp. 804

[12] Kessler, A. M., and B. Vlasic. “Semiautonomous driving arrives, feature by feature.” New York Times, Apr 2, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/automobiles/semiautonomous-driving-arrives-feature-by-feature.html?_r=0 Accessed April 8, 2018

[13] New NHTSA Report Shows Federal ESC Requirement Saving Lives.” National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, Nov. 30, 2012, http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2012/New+NHTSA+Report+Shows+Federal+ESC+Requirement+Saving+Lives Accessed April 8, 2018

[14] “Crash avoidance technologies.” Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Dec, 2012. http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/crash-avoidance-technologies/hldi-research. Accessed April 8, 2018

[15] Kessler, A. M., and B. Vlasic. “Semiautonomous driving arrives, feature by feature.” New York Times, Apr 2, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/automobiles/semiautonomous-driving-arrives-feature-by-feature.html?_r=0 Accessed April 8, 2018

[16] Gurney, Jeffrey K. “Sue my car not me: Products liability and accidents involving autonomous vehicles.” U. Ill. JL Tech. & Pol’y, 2013, pp. 247.

[17] Owen, David G. “Moral Foundations of Products Liability Law: Toward First Principles.” Notre Dame L. Rev., vol. 68, 1992, pp. 447

[18] Johnson, Anita. “Products Liability Reform: A Hazard to Consumers.” NCL Rev., vol. 56, no. 4, 1978, pp. 682

[19] Owen, David G. “Moral Foundations of Products Liability Law: Toward First Principles.” Notre Dame L. Rev., vol. 68, 1992, pp. 431

[20] Graham, Kyle. “Of frightened horses and autonomous vehicles: Tort law and its assimilation of innovations.” Santa Clara L. Rev. 52, 2012, pp. 1241.

[21] Anderson, James M., Kalra Nidhi, Karlyn D. Stanley, Paul Sorensen, Constantine Samaras, and Oluwatobi A. Oluwatola. Autonomous vehicle technology: A guide for policymakers. Rand Corporation, 2014, pp. 12.

[22] Owen, David G. “Moral Foundations of Products Liability Law: Toward First Principles.” Notre Dame L. Rev., vol. 68, 1992, pp. 478

[23] Larsen v. General Motors Corporation, 274 F. Supp. 461 (D. Minn. 1967), Johnson, Anita. “Products Liability Reform: A Hazard to Consumers.” NCL Rev., vol. 56, no. 4, 1978, pp. 677

[24] Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 119 Cal. App. 3d 757, 174 Cal. Rptr. 348 (1981), Schwartz, G.T., 1982. Deterrence and Punishment in the Common Law of Punitive Damages: A Comment. S. Cal. L. Rev., 56, p.133.

[25] Fagnant, Daniel J., and Kara Kockelman. “Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 77, 2015, pp. 171.

[26] Schroll, Carrie. “Splitting the bill: creating a national car insurance fund to pay for accidents in autonomous vehicles.” Nw. UL Rev., vol. 109, no. 3, 2014, pp. 806

[27] “High Level Group on Automotive Industry ‘GEAR 2030’.”European Commision, 19 Oct, 2015. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/automotive/policy-strategy_en Accessed April 17, 2018.

[28] “Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (HC Bill 143)”. UK Parliament, Feb, 2017. https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2016-2017/0143/cbill_2016-20170143_en_2.htm   Accessed April 17, 2018

[29] Colonna, Kyle. “Autonomous cars and tort liability.” Case W. Res. JL Tech. & Internet, vol. 4, no. 1, 2012, pp. 81

[30] Gurney, Jeffrey K. “Sue my car not me: Products liability and accidents involving autonomous vehicles.” U. Ill. JL Tech. & Pol’y, 2013, pp. 248.

[31] Garza, Andrew P. “Look ma, no hands: wrinkles and wrecks in the age of autonomous vehicles.” New Eng. L. Rev. 46, 2011, pp. 581

[32] Funkhouser, Kevin. “Paving the Road Ahead: Autonomous Vehicles, Products Liability, and the Need for a New Approach.” Utah L. Rev., 2013, pp. 437.

[33] Graham, Kyle. “Of frightened horses and autonomous vehicles: Tort law and its assimilation of innovations.” Santa Clara L. Rev. 52, 2012, pp. 1241.

We have the capacity, through our dedicated team of writers, to complete an order similar to this. In addition, our customer support team is always on standby, which ensures we are in touch with you before, during and after the completion of the paper. Go ahead, place your order now, and experience our exquisite service.

Use the order calculator below to get an accurate quote for your order. Contact our live support team for any further inquiry. Thank you for making BrilliantTermpapers the custom essay services provider of your choice.

Type of paper Academic level Subject area
Number of pages Paper urgency Cost per page:
 Total: