Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Automated Vehicles, Liability, and Insurance

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Regulation of Automated and Autonomous Transport

  • 321 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter aims to investigate the problems that algorithmic automation of vehicles poses in the area of civil liability and liability insurance.

The first part frames the types of automatic vehicles by identifying the different risk profiles. The second part deals with the ethical issues that arise with respect to automated choice. The third part deals with the problem of civil liability in the event of an automated action. The fourth part is dedicated to insurance coverage to find relief from the damage caused by the automated vehicle.

This chapter was written by Prof. Sara Landini, Full Professor Business Law, University of Florence, and Dr. Francesco La Fata, Researcher in Economic Law, at the University of Florence. Particularly, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 refer to Prof. Sara Landini, while paragraph 5 refers to Dr. Francesco La Fata.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Nof (2009), pp. 13–52.

  2. 2.

    Simon (1979), p. 10.

  3. 3.

    Parasuraman et al. (2000), pp. 286–297.

  4. 4.

    Ching-Yao (2017), pp. 208–216. Among the first contributions “Hearings on automation and technological change,” in Subcommittee on Economic Stabilization of the Joint Committee on the Economic Report, (US Congress October 1955) 14–28; Buckingham (1961).

  5. 5.

    Sara Landini (2020a), pp. 291–312.

  6. 6.

    Lütge (2017), p. 9; Ethik-Kommission (2017) Automatisiertes und Vernetztes Fahren. https://www.bmvi.de.

  7. 7.

    Bonab et al. (2021); Dafoe et al. (2017), pp. 729–754.

  8. 8.

    Independent High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence set up by The European Commission (2019). Ethics Guidelines For Trustworthy AI, Brussels.

  9. 9.

    Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (CoE) (2020) Recommendation on the human rights impacts of algorithmic systems. Brussels.

  10. 10.

    Bodansky (1991), pp. 4–44.

  11. 11.

    Boehmer-Christiansen (1994), pp. 38–39.

  12. 12.

    Christoph Lütge (2017).

  13. 13.

    Chen et al. (2015); Kroll et al. (2016), p. 633; Kim (2017), pp. 166, 189; Sandvig et al. (2014); Surden and Williams (2016), p. 121.

  14. 14.

    Mittelstadt et al. (2019); Miller (2019), pp. 1–38.

  15. 15.

    Patrick Hubbard (2015), p. 1803, Chopra and White (2011); Gless and Seelmann (2016).

  16. 16.

    Vladeck (2014), p. 146. See also Anderson et al. (2010), http://www.rand.org. We have to say that a strict liability rule on the owner or the user could discourage the use of AI in contrast with the common idea that AI represent an important instrument to reduce risks. In this sense, see Landini (2020b), p. 159. Different would be in the case of strict liability on the producer, which is the entity that obtains profits and can limit the risks. On this matter, see, among the others, Borges (2021), pp. 32–39; Zech (2021), pp. 147–158; Wendehorst (2020), pp. 150–180; Spiecker gen. Döhmann (2012); Spindler (2019); Čerka et al. (2015), pp. 376–389; Fluet (2002), pp. 845–861.

  17. 17.

    European Parliament, Resolution of 16 February 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)).

  18. 18.

    Aida Joaquin Acosta (2018) “What Governments across the globe are doing to seize the benefits of autonomous vehicles.” Cyber Harvard edu. https://cyber.harvard.edu/.

  19. 19.

    Greger (2018), pp. 1–5.

  20. 20.

    Gnambs and Appel (2019), pp. 53–61.

  21. 21.

    Gallage Alwis (2020).

  22. 22.

    A. Biard, PRODUCT LIABILITY 2.0 How to make EU rules fit for consumers in the digital age.

  23. 23.

    Verheyen (2019), pp. 44–56. See also Pape (2012), p. 257; Lenze (2005), p. 105; Verheyen (2018), pp. 119–140; Taschner (2005), p. 159.

  24. 24.

    The Commission has launched a public consultation on the rules on compensation for damage caused by defective products. A specific focus will be on the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in products and services. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/.

  25. 25.

    Clifford Law Office (2021).

  26. 26.

    Nikitas (2015).

  27. 27.

    Sébastien et al. (2019), pp. 390–395.

  28. 28.

    Kaelbling et al. (1996), pp. 237–285; Pandian and Noel (2018), pp. 16–29; van Otterlo and Wiering (2012), pp. 3–42.

  29. 29.

    For additional reading on the various aspects of the issue, see Pongelli (2020), p. 83 et seq; Albanese (2019), p. 995 et seq; Nazzaro (2018), p. 77 et seq; Cerini (2018), p. 401 et seq; Rizzuti (2018), p. 215.

  30. 30.

    Rizzuti (2018), p. 216.

  31. 31.

    Particularly, Nazzaro (2018), p. 83, bases his argument on behavioral pricing models, where insurance players develop new offers using data provided by car manufacturers.

  32. 32.

    For some initial interesting considerations on the issue, which the doctrine has not yet addressed, see Cerini (2018), p. 401 et seq.

  33. 33.

    On this aspect, see Cerini (2018), p. 401 et seq.

  34. 34.

    For further information on digitalization in insurance distribution, see Marano (2021), p. 143 et seq.; Stoeckli et al. (2016), p. 287 et seq.; and the paper published by Sigma-Swiss re. (2014), pp. 1–37.

  35. 35.

    Heymann (2010), pp. 393–415, 2010, William & Mary Law School Research Paper No. 09-50.

References

  • Acosta Aida Joaquin (2018) What Governments across the globe are doing to seize the benefits of autonomous vehicles. Cyber Harvard Edu. https://cyber.harvard.edu/

  • Albanese A (2019) Le responsabilità civile per i danni da circolazione di veicoli ad elevata automazione. Europa e diritto privato:995 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson M et al. (2010) The US experience with no fault automobile insurance: a retrospective. http://www.rand.org

  • Biard A. Product liability 2.0 How to make EU rules fit for consumers in the digital age, Bruxelles

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodansky D (1991) Law: scientific uncertainty and the precautionary principle. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 33(7):4–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehmer-Christiansen S (1994) The precautionary principle in Germany–enabling government. Interpr Precaut Princ 31(1994):38–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonab AB, Rudko I, Bellini F (2021) A review and a proposal about socio-economic impacts of artificial intelligence. In: Dima AM, D'Ascenzo F (eds) Business revolution in a digital era. Springer proceedings in business and economics. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Borges G (2021) AI Systems and Product Liability. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL 2021, pp 32–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckingham W (1961) Automation: its impact on business and people. Harper & Brothers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cerini D (2018) Dal decreto smart roads in avanti: ridisegnare responsabilità e soluzioni assicurative. Danno e responsabilità, p 401 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  • Čerka P, Grigienė J, Sirbikytė G (2015) Liability for damages caused by artificial intelligence. Comput Law Secur Rev 31(3):376–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen L, Mislove A, Wilson C (2015) Peeking beneath the hood of Uber. IMC 2015

    Google Scholar 

  • Ching-Yao C (2017) Advancements, prospects, and impacts of automated driving systems. IJTST, 208–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Chopra S, White LF (2011) A legal theory for autonomous artificial agents. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Clifford Law Office (2021) The dangers of driverless cars. Natl Law Rev, 5 May 2021

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (CoE) (2020) Recommendation on the human rights impacts of algorithmic systems. Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Dafoe A, Evans O, Grace K, Salvatier J, Zhang B (2017) When will AI exceed human performance? Evidence from AI experts. J Artif Intell Res 62:729–754

    Google Scholar 

  • Ethik-Kommission Automatisiertes und Vernetztes Fahren. Bericht 2017. https://www.bmvi.de

  • Fluet C (2002) Liability insurance and moral hazard under the strict liability and negligence. Revue D'économie Politique 112(6):845–861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallage Alwis S (2020) Updating the EU product liability directive for the digital era. Droit Technol, 24 February 2020

    Google Scholar 

  • Gless S, Seelmann K (eds) (2016) Intelligente Agenten und das Recht. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Gnambs T, Appel M (2019) Are robots becoming unpopular? Changes in attitudes towards autonomous robotic systems in Europe. Comput Human Behav 2019:53–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greger R (2018) Haftungsfragen beim automatisierten Fahren. Zum Arbeitskreis II des Verkehrsgerichtstags. Neue Zeitschrift fuer Verkehrsrecht 31:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Heymann LA (2010) Reading the product: warnings, disclaimers, and literary theory (June 3, 2010). Yale J Law Human 22:393–415, 2010, William & Mary Law School Research Paper No. 09-50

    Google Scholar 

  • Independent High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence Set Up by The European Commission (2019) Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • JCER (1955) Hearings on automation and technological change. In: Subcommittee on Economic Stabilization of the Joint Committee on the Economic Report, US Congress October 1955, pp 14–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaelbling LP, Littman ML, Moore AW (1996) Reinforcement learning: a survey. J Artif Intell Res. 4:237–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim PT (2017) Auditing algorithms for discrimination. Univ Pa Law Rev 166:189

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroll JA, Barocas S, Felten EW, Reidenberg JR, Robinson DG, Yu H (2016) Accountable algorithms. Univ Pa Law Rev 165:633

    Google Scholar 

  • Landini S (2020a) Ethical issues, cybersecurity and automated vehicles. In: Noussia K, Marano P (eds) InsurTech: a legal and regulatory view. Springer, pp 291–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Landini S (2020b) The insurance perspective on prevention and compensation issues relating to damage caused by machines. Ital Law J:159

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenze S (2005) German product liability law: between European Directives, American Restatements and common sense. In: Fairgrieve D (ed) Product liability in comparative perspective. CUP, p. 105

    Google Scholar 

  • Lütge C (2017) The German ethics code for automated and connected driving. Philos Technol, p 9

    Google Scholar 

  • Marano P (2021) Management of distribution risks and digital transformation of insurance distribution—a regulatory gap in the IDD. Risks 9:143 et seq

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller T (2019) Explanation in artificial intelligence: insights from the social sciences. Artif Intell:1–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittelstadt B, Russell C, Wachter S (2019) Explaining explanations in AI. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT* ’19). 2019. New York, NY: US

    Google Scholar 

  • Nazzaro AC (2018) Macchine intelligenti (smart cars): assicurazione e tutela della privacy. Diritto del mercato assicurativo e finanziario, p. 77 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nikitas A (2015) Automated cars: a critical review of the potential advantages and disadvantages of driverless technologies. In: First International Workshop on Smart Urban Mobility, 26–27 November 2015

    Google Scholar 

  • Nof SY (2009) Automation: what it means to us around the world. In: Nof SY (ed) Springer handbook of automation. Springer, Berlin, pp 13–52

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pandian BJ, Noel MM (2018) Control of a bioreactor using a new partially supervised reinforcement learning algorithm. J Process Control 69:16–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pape B (2012) Warnings and product liability – lessons learned from cognitive psychology and ergonomics. Eleven International Publishing, p. 257

    Google Scholar 

  • Parasuraman R, Sheridan Thomas B, Wickens Christopher D (2000) A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transact Syst Man Cybernet Part A Syst Humans 30(3):286–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patrick Hubbard F (2015) Sophisticated Robots: balancing liability, regulation, and innovation. Florida Law Rev 66:1803

    Google Scholar 

  • Pongelli G (2020) Autonomous vehicles and legal issues on civil liability and motor insurance. Diritto del mercato assicurativo e finanziario, p. 83 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzuti M (2018) I veicoli automatici, problemi e prospettive. Diritto del mercato assicurativo e finanziario, p. 215

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandvig C, Hamilton K, Karahalios K, Langbort C (2014) Auditing algorithms: research methods for detecting discrimination on Internet platforms. 64th Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, May 22

    Google Scholar 

  • Sébastien D, Dominique G, Jean-Marie B, Sébastien G, Grégoire L, Olivier O, Andry R (2019) Global risk assessment in an autonomous driving context: impact on both the car and the driver. IFAC-PapersOnLine 51(34):390–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sigma-Swiss re (2014) Digital distribution in insurance: a quiet revolution. 2:1–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1979) Models of thought. Yale University Press, New Haven, p 10

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiecker gen and Döhmann I (2012) Rechtliche Begleitung der Technikentwicklung im Bereich moderner Infrastrukturen und Informationstechnologien. In: Hill H, Schliesky U (eds) Die Vermessung des virtuellen Raums

    Google Scholar 

  • Spindler G (2019) User liability and strict liability in the internet of things and for Robots. In: Lohsse S, Schulze R, Staudenmeyer D (eds) Liability for artificial intelligence and the internet of things. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoeckli E, Dremel C, Uebernickel F (2016) Exploring characteristics and transformational capabilities of InsurTech innovations to understand insurance value creation in a digital world, p. 287 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  • Surden H, Williams MA (2016) Technological opacity, predictability, and self-driving cars. Cardozo Law Rev 2016:121

    Google Scholar 

  • Taschner H (2005) Product liability: basic problems in a comparative law perspective. In: Fairgrieve D (ed) Product liability in comparative perspective, p. 159

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Otterlo M, Wiering M (2012) Reinforcement learning and Markov decision processes. Reinforcement Learn Adapt Learn Opt 12:3–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verheyen T (2018) Full harmonization, consumer protection and products liability: a fresh reading of the case law of the ECJ. Eur Rev Priv Law:119–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Verheyen T (2019) Modern theories of product warnings and European product liability law. Utrecht Law Rev 15(3):44–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vladeck DC (2014) Machines without principals: liability rules and artificial intelligence. Wash Law Rev 89, 117:146

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendehorst C (2020) Strict liability for AI and other emerging technologies. J Eur Tort Law 11(2):150–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zech H (2021) Liability for AI: public policy considerations. ERA Forum 22:147–158

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Florence, Firenze, FI, Italy

    Sara Landini & Francesco La Fata

Authors
  1. Sara Landini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francesco La Fata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco La Fata .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University of Reading, Reading, Berkshire, UK

    Kyriaki Noussia

  2. Law School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

    Matthew Channon

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Landini, S., La Fata, F. (2023). Automated Vehicles, Liability, and Insurance. In: Noussia, K., Channon, M. (eds) The Regulation of Automated and Autonomous Transport. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32356-0_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32356-0_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-32355-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-32356-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation