The burden of proof lies with the autonomous car

Against the background of the development of autonomous driving, the EU wants to adjust liability law accordingly.

The question of liability has been discussed for a long time, with different approaches. Some industry stakeholders want it at the liability leave, others demand, the manufacturers and the software companies to take recourse and still others want the car to accountability draw. One Ethics Committee existed years ago. This also raises the question of data protection and data security.

Therefore, the EU Commission now wants to put the burden of proof on the car. On this basis, those who had an accident with an autonomous car could be compensated. However, this is more likely to be the exception, because, as is repeatedly emphasized, humans are to blame for 90 percent of all accidents. But accidents caused by autonomous vehicles will also be inevitable.

As the media reports with reference to the HUK-Coburg, the EU intends to reverse the evidence. This is to be regulated by the product liability directive and a law on liability due to AI errors. On the one hand, this should ensure legal and compensation security.

With the reversal of the burden of proof, the manufacturers should prove that their AI worked smoothly. Because the data is collected from the car and this is all the more problematic when the manufacturers refer to trade secrets. In this way, injured persons should AI a right of access to the evidence. A court must then weigh up what constitutes a secret and what does not. If the data is not disclosed, the manufacturer must prove that the AI ​​did not cause the damage.

In addition, the process in an AI is still not comprehensible. How are others supposed to judge this? The process is complex and, according to the EU proposal, should be assessed reasonably in connection with the AI.

Go to Source