In this blog post, we will examine the legal issues and responsibility for traffic accidents that may occur in the era of commercialized self-driving cars.
The global automotive industry has been racing to commercialize autonomous driving technology, and major manufacturers have been rushing to release vehicles equipped with autonomous driving features since 2023. Autonomous vehicles are no longer the stuff of science fiction. Market research firm Navigant Research predicts that by 2035, approximately 75% of new cars will come standard with autonomous driving features. Korea has also been promoting the commercialization of autonomous vehicles since 2020, led by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport, and level 3 autonomous driving pilot services are currently operating in some areas.
One of the key goals of autonomous driving technology is to dramatically reduce traffic accidents. Considering that more than 90% of traffic accidents are caused by driver negligence, a system in which vehicles are driven by artificial intelligence rather than humans is clearly a safer alternative. Autonomous vehicles, which combine technologies such as precision satellite navigation (GPS), high-performance sensors, LiDAR, and radar, are designed to drive on roads without human intervention. Nevertheless, as they are software-based systems, there is still a possibility of accidents due to technical defects or unexpected errors.
In fact, there have been quite a few accidents involving self-driving cars. In February 2016, a Google self-driving car collided with a bus behind it while trying to avoid sandbags on the road, and in May of the same year, a Tesla Model S collided with a large truck, killing the driver. The Tesla vehicle’s autonomous driving system was activated, but the brakes did not engage in time, leading to tragic results. Since then, autonomous vehicles from various companies, including Tesla, Uber, and GM Cruise, have been involved in accidents, sparking controversy over the safety of the technology. In other words, the installation of an autonomous driving system does not completely eliminate the risk of traffic accidents.
So who is legally responsible when an autonomous vehicle causes an accident? Is the driver legally responsible even if they were simply resting in the driver’s seat, or is the manufacturer who developed and provided the autonomous driving software responsible?
Currently, the legal system in Korea does not clearly define who is responsible for autonomous vehicles. In general, traffic accidents involve civil liability for damages and criminal liability. With regard to civil liability, according to Article 3 of the Motor Vehicle Damage Compensation Act, “a person who operates a motor vehicle for his or her own benefit” is liable for damages caused to others as a result of such operation. This provision recognizes strict liability regardless of the negligence of the “operator” and determines the operator based on two factors: control of the operation and benefit of the operation.
For example, in the case of an accident involving a designated driver, not only the driver but also the owner of the vehicle is jointly liable as the operator. This is the result of a judgment that considers both “control of operation” and “benefit of operation.” If this logic is applied to autonomous vehicles, the owner of the vehicle will be legally liable as the “person operating the vehicle for their own benefit.” There is currently no significant disagreement on this point.
The problem is that even though the autonomous driving system itself can cause accidents just like a substitute driver, the system is not a “human” but “software.” The Automobile Damage Compensation Act is based on the premise of natural persons or legal entities, and autonomous driving systems, which are non-legal entities, are not recognized as legal entities. In that case, can the manufacturer be held liable?
The applicable law in this case is the Product Liability Act.
Article 3 of the Act stipulates that “in the event of damage to life, body, or property caused by a defect in a product, the manufacturer shall be liable for compensation for such damage.” However, in reality, there is another barrier. Autonomous vehicles are complex products that combine hardware (the vehicle itself) and software (autonomous driving algorithms), but software is not yet clearly defined as a “product.”
Legally, product liability laws tend to apply only to physical products, leaving a legal loophole for accidents caused by software defects. The main reason software is not recognized as a product is that manufacturers cannot completely predict or control software errors.
Given the complexity of software and the non-determinism of artificial intelligence, it is virtually impossible to eliminate all possibilities of error in advance. Due to these limitations, placing unconditional liability on manufacturers for defects in autonomous driving software may discourage technological development and ultimately hinder technological progress.
What is needed to address this legal loophole is a special law on autonomous vehicles. Currently, the government is considering a system whereby the driver would first compensate for damages in the event of an accident involving an autonomous vehicle, and then exercise a right of recourse against the manufacturer if the manufacturer is found to be at fault. However, as there have been no cases of traffic accidents involving autonomous vehicles in Korea that have led to full-scale legal disputes, it is uncertain how actual court cases will unfold in the future. However, in situations where liability is unclear, there is a high possibility of disputes arising, and institutional measures are urgently needed to prepare for such situations.
In addition, the social responsibility of manufacturers is very important in terms of consumer protection. If manufacturers avoid responsibility for accidents caused by obvious technical defects and shift all the burden to consumers, this could spread to become a moral issue for companies. A case in point is the 2017 incident in which United Airlines forcibly removed a passenger from a flight, resulting in a global boycott and damage to the company’s image. Therefore, manufacturers must go beyond mere legal responsibility and demonstrate a responsible attitude in order to maintain consumer trust, which can lead to increased brand value in the long term.
The Special Act on Autonomous Vehicles must serve as an institutional foundation that prevents unfair damage to consumers, reduces unnecessary legal disputes, and reduces social costs, while fairly protecting both manufacturers and consumers. In particular, whether an accident was caused by a defect in the autonomous driving system will be a key criterion for determining responsibility. Therefore, manufacturers must install a driving recorder that stores autonomous driving records, and consumers must install a black box to clearly record the situation at the time of an accident.
Of course, enacting a special law is not the only solution. Private measures are also possible, such as manufacturers specifying compensation conditions for accidents related to autonomous driving when purchasing vehicles, and insurance companies offering insurance products specifically for autonomous driving. However, these measures may vary depending on the manufacturer or insurance company, which could lead to differences in the level of consumer protection. As a result, even if consumers drive the same autonomous vehicle, the outcome of accident handling may differ depending on the insurance product they have purchased and the terms of their contract. This could lead to serious social inequality in a society where autonomous vehicles become commonplace in the future. Ultimately, national legislation is essential to correct this imbalance and secure social trust.
So far, we have discussed the legal liability issues expected in the era of commercialization of autonomous vehicles, focusing on who is responsible for accidents involving unmanned vehicles. In conclusion, we argued that a special law on autonomous vehicles is necessary to guarantee the operator’s right to compensation and to clearly distinguish accident liability. Of course, the enactment of laws is an issue that requires consultation and a cautious approach among various stakeholders, including manufacturers, academia, the insurance industry, the government, and the National Assembly. Although this article cannot cover everything, it is significant in that it reminds us of the importance of advance preparation in an era where technology is ahead of the law.
In order to minimize legal confusion and protect consumer rights in the upcoming autonomous driving society, now is the time to begin serious legal preparations.
