Why may liability be a hindrance to self-driving cars?
<p>One aspect that has been barrier as a hindrance for the adoption of self-driving cars has been liability.  For example:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34475031" rel="nofollow"><em>Who is responsible for a driverless car accident?</em>, BBC News, 8 October 2015</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Uncertainty over liability for a driverless car crash is seen as one of the biggest barriers to adoption.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Wikipedia <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_liability" rel="nofollow">describes</a> liability as <em>the legal bound obligation to pay debts</em>, such as damages due to causing an accident.  </p>

<p>That means that either:</p>

<ul>
<li>The owner/passenger is liable.  S/he pays the insurance premium and if s/he is at fault at an accident, the insurance company pays the damages.</li>
<li>The manufacturer is liable.  The manufacturer may either get insurance, or self-insure.  In either case, the manufacturer has insurance costs.  These insurance costs are probably passed onto the owner/passenger.</li>
</ul>

<p>In both cases, costs for the owner/passenger are the same.  If the owner/passenger is liable, s/he will pay less for the car but more for insurance.  If the manufacturer is liable, the owner/passenger will pay more for the car but less for insurance.  In the end, it's the same cost for the owner/passenger.</p>

<p>If the cost are the same for the owner/passenger either way, then why is the question of liability a <em>legal</em> barrier for the adoption of driverless cars?  Why would the aspect of liability require any legal changes?</p>

<p>This seems like an economics question more than a legal question.</p>

<p>It seems the legal question underlying your question is "who is responsible when there is an accident involving a self-driving car?". The insurance aspect is a red herring in that they just happen to help the responsible party if the responsible party is insured.</p>

<p>Would it be the owner/passenger of the self-driving vehicle? Unless deemed responsible by statute, simple ownership and presence isn't enough to establish liability.</p>

<p>Would it be the vehicle manufacturer? It could be, if the cause of the accident was a decision engineers made and that was proximate enough to the actual injury. However, this has never been tested in court yet.</p>

<p>That is the legal state of things. My <em>guess</em> about why this is an economic barrier is that no one has certainty about how liability will actually be handled. It just needs to be sorted out. There are many ways to do it. Legislators, courts, and manufacturers just need to agree on one.</p>

liability traffic