Source: https://www.tysonmendes.com/tag/autonomous-vehicles/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 23:50:10+00:00

Document:
A few years ago, National Public Radio discussed the similarities between elevators and autonomous vehicles. (Remembering When Driverless Elevators Drew Skepticism, Morning Edition, NPR, July 31, 2015.) This discussion centered on how the automatic passenger elevator took over 50 years to become what it is today – not even a second thought about getting in and going. Originally, elevators required operators to guide the cars to the correct floor then manually open and close the doors. Mishaps happened and lawsuit arose. As time went on, automatic elevators with safety features became the norm. Yet, even after introduction of the automatic elevator, it took over 50 years for riders to get used to not having an operator in the car. There are many stories of operators remaining in the elevator simply to push the button to calm nerves and usher in a new era.
In 2018, California passed regulations allowing the State’s Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) to issue permits related to the testing and public use of autonomous vehicles on the State’s public roadways. Those permits encompass all phases of the autonomous vehicle rollout, including human driver-accompanied testing, driverless testing, and full-blown public use (deployment). While the manufacturers work fervently to obtain first-mover advantages and bring these driverless vehicles to market, the public remains concerned over liability and where potential accident victims should turn if there is no other driver with whom to exchange insurance information.
As autonomous vehicles become mainstream, many questions remain about how to regulate auto manufacturers concerning the development and implementation of such technologies. Surprisingly, the federal government has yet to enact minimum design, safety, and performance standards governing autonomous vehicles. Instead, the federal government has left regulation up to individual states. Although several manufacturers, including Tesla and Google, announced they would assume liability if one of their autonomous vehicles causes a collision, the manufacturers recently sought assistance from Congress to loosen federal regulations on the development of autonomous vehicles.
Robocop: Will Driverless Police Vehicles be Rolling Out Soon?
Autonomous driving technology has entered the fast lane in recent years. Beginning with automated vehicles manned with a driver, and most recently driverless taxis, is Robocop next? If Ford Motor Company has its way, autonomous police cars will be hitting the pavement soon.
Will Statistical Analysis Be Necessary to Assert the Sudden Emergency Doctrine in Cars Equipped with Autonomous Vehicles?
In Washington, and in many other states, defendants in a car accident can assert that they were “suddenly confronted by an emergency through no negligence of his or her own and who is compelled to decide instantly how to avoid injury and who makes such a choice as a reasonably careful person placed in such a position might make, is not negligent even though it is not the wisest choice.” WPI 12.02. The sudden emergency doctrine applies when a person has been placed in a position of peril and must make an instinctive choice between courses of action after the peril has arisen. See Brown v. Spokane County Fire Prot. Dist. No. 1, 100 Wn.2d 188, 197, 668 P.2d 571 (1983) (citing Sandberg v. Spoelstra, 46 Wn.2d 776, 285 P.2d 564 (1955)). The sudden emergency doctrine is not available to one whose negligent conduct creates a hazard. Pidduck v. Henson, 2 Wn. App. 204, 206, 467 P.2d 322 (1970) (citing Tackett v. Milburn, 36 Wn.2d 349, 218 P.2d 298 (1950) and Miller v. Cody, 41 Wn.2d 775, 252 P.2d 303 (1953)); Tuttle v. Allstate Ins. Co., 134 Wn. App. 120, 131, 138 P.3d 1107 (2006); 16 Wash. Prac., Tort Law And Practice § 2:33 (4th ed.). Under such circumstances, negligence is a question of fact for the jury to decide. Rhaodes v. DeRosier, 14 Wash.App. 946, 546 P.2d 930 (Div. 1 1976).
The future of autonomous vehicles in California is a development with stakeholders eager to make their mark. There are parties in every corner with no shortage of ideas about where the industry is headed, and the State is looking to ensure it is prepared for what comes next.
Just as autonomous vehicles are in their early stages, so is litigation involving autonomous vehicles. Although potential theories of liability have not been completely fleshed out in court, it is a safe bet we can expect the plaintiffs’ bar to bring negligence, product liability, and statutory claims. Autonomous vehicle manufacturers are currently testing different defenses, and autonomous vehicle manufacturers are expected to start creating other defenses which have not yet made a debut in civil litigation.
Generally, when we hear about autonomous vehicles, we hear about the innovations and strides being made by companies like Uber, Apple, Microsoft, and Google. Other than Tesla, it is rare we hear news about the traditional automakers performing vehicle testing: the Big Three of their respective regions. There is no doubt these companies will quickly start marketing and selling their branded autonomous vehicle. If they plan to start doing so in the State of Washington, they will likely need to add motor vehicle liability insurance to their coverage portfolio.
Guest Editor: Raymond K. Wilson Jr.
As driverless cars become a reality on American roadways, major automakers and technology companies are scrambling to get a piece of the autonomous vehicle market. Apple recently signed a deal with Volkswagen to develop a driverless vehicle. GM’s self-driving unit Cruise announced its intention to begin mass production of autonomous vehicles next year.  Not to be outdone by its historic rival, Ford intends to launch a cargo delivery service using its own self-driving cars by 2021.
Tyson & Mendes LLP launched a new practice group to defend insurers and manufacturers of autonomous vehicles.
Civil litigation firm Tyson & Mendes has launched a new practice group dedicated to the defense of insurers and manufacturers of autonomous vehicles. The Autonomous Vehicles Liability Litigation practice group, led by Managing Partner Robert Tyson and Partner Cayce Greiner, provides clients with the firm’s automotive liability litigation experience and knowledge about the ever-changing regulation and legislation arising in response to more autonomous vehicles on the road.
First Self-Driving Car Accidents: a Potential Speed Bump for Manufacturers?
While examination of potential autonomous vehicle liability has heightened in recent years, questions remain as to how to attribute fault in an incident involving self-driving vehicles. Two recent incidents involving autonomous vehicles raise questions among insurers and manufacturers.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2
 v.