ABSTRACT
In this study, the nature of legal liability arising from accidents caused by autonomous vehicles is analyzed within the scope of global practice and Turkish law.
I. INTRODUCTION
The subject of our study is the nature of legal liability in accidents involving autonomous vehicles. Before assessing legal liability, the concept of autonomous vehicles will be explained. Subsequently, legal characterization of autonomous vehicles will be examined globally and within the scope of Turkish law, followed by the evaluation of the legal characterization of liability in accidents involving autonomous vehicles.
II. DEFINITION OF AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES
Generally speaking, autonomous vehicles are defined as automobiles that are able to detect light and distance using artificial intelligence and software built into automatic control system hardware, identify objects and movements in traffic using high-frequency sensors, and proceed without a driver1. The Society of Automotive Engineers (“SAE”)2 has categorized autonomous vehicles from Level 0 to 5, indicating that in Levels 0-2, the driver needs to use the steering wheel, brakes, and gas3, while in Levels 3-5, the driver is not required to operate the vehicle. However, it should be noted that in Levels 3-5, the driver may need to intervene if the autonomous vehicle issues a warning.
This indicates that even in Levels 3-5, autonomous vehicles can be used without a driver in limited situations4.
III. REGULATIONS ON AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES IN GLOBAL PRACTICE
In 2018, the United Kingdom passed the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act specifically for the use of autonomous vehicles5. Germany, on the other hand, has regulated the use of autonomous vehicles and rules applicable to accidents through the Eight Act Amending The Road Traffic Act6.
The United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration accepted SAE’s classification of autonomous vehicles in 20137. Although there is no federal regulation, different states like Nevada8, Florida9 and California10 have implemented various regulations regarding autonomous vehicles, allowing vehicles with drivers to be used autonomously. Different court decisions have been made in various states, emphasizing the lack of a uniform approach.
In 2017, the responsibility became crucial in Arizona when an autonomously driven vehicle collided with a pedestrian crossing the street, resulting in a fatal outcome11. In the aforementioned example, a person wearing all-black clothing was crossing a pedestrian crossing at night in Arizona when a car in autonomous driving mode struck the bicycle because the driver did not grasp the steering wheel while watching television. The court ruled that the driver of the autonomous vehicle was found to be responsible due to not actively steering and watching a television program while in motion, causing the collision with the cyclist12.
In the year 2016 a similar incident occurred in Florida. The autonomous vehicle’s driver lost their life when the vehicle, operating in autonomous mode on the highway, collided with a truck coming from a side road. In the incident that was reviewed by the United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the sensors of the autonomous car in motion mistook the truck for a part of the sky because the trucks color was silver. As a result, the autonomous vehicle continued to travel at the same speed, colliding with the truck13. The fatal accident resulted in the death of the autonomous vehicle’s driver. During the court proceedings, the family of the autonomous vehicle’s driver claimed that the perception of the truck as part of the sky by the vehicle’s sensors was due to a software error and argued that the manufacturer was responsible for the flawed design of the vehicle. However, it was noted that an evaluation would be required to determine whether the manufacturer’s responsibility was related to a software error14. In the specific case, the autonomous vehicle was designed to issue warnings to the driver to hold the steering wheel when transitioning to autonomous mode. Despite continuous warnings to the driver to keep their hands on the steering wheel during the incident, the deceased driver was deemed at fault for watching a movie at the time of the accident. Therefore, it was concluded that the manufacturer was responsible due to a software error15, but a decision was made to apply a reduction from the compensation the manufacturer had to pay.
It is seen that it is presumed that the responsibility in accidents that may occur due to the failure of sensors operated by artificial intelligence to identify the person could result in tort liability16. However, it is noted that the draft regulation shared in the annex of the European Parliament’s decision titled “Legal Liability Rules for Artificial Intelligence” dated in 2020 indicates that the Product Liability Directive will also cover autonomous vehicles. In cases where damage occurs as a result of third-party intervention, brief responsibility will be attributed to the driver under tort liability. For damages arising from autonomous vehicles operating with high-risk artificial intelligence systems, it is specified that they should be assessed under strict liability17.
IV. REGULATIONS ON AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES IN TURKISH LAW
Although there is no specific regulation on autonomous vehicles in Turkish law, Article 8 of the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic (“Convention”) dated November 8, 1968, which ratified by Turkey on January 23, 201318, states that “Every moving vehicle or vehicle combination shall have a driver”19. According to Article 8/5 of the convention, the driver must always be able to control the vehicle20. The Turkish Road Traffic Law (“The Law”) numbered 6085 does not contain any regulations specifically related to autonomous vehicles. Similar to the driver definition in the convention, the Law is formulated on the premise that a motor vehicle can be operated and controlled by a natural person21.
In this respect, it can be argued that it is not possible for a fully autonomous (SAE levels 3-5) vehicle without a driver to enter the traffic in Turkey. For this reason, we consider that only autonomous vehicles defined by SAE as level 0-3 can be used in Turkey.
V. EVALUATION OF LEGAL LIABILITY FOR ACCIDENTS IN VOLVING AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES IN TURKISH LAW
According to the decision of the Assembly of Civil Chambers, dated May 30, 2012, with file number E. 2012/107 and decision number K. 2012/326, in accordance with Article 85/1 of the Law numbered 2918, the operation of the motor vehicle22 is jointly and severally liable for the resulting damage. In this decision, it is determined that, in cases where vehicles in operation, as per Article 85 of the Law, cause accidents leading to harm, the operator’s strict liability will generally be established23. According to this decision, the foundation of the strict liability imposed on the operator of the motor vehicle is based on the principle of liability for danger. Therefore, factors such as the degree of fault of the operator or the absence of fault do not affect the essence of liability24.
For product liability to arise in accidents involving autonomous vehicles, it is necessary for damage to occur. According to Article 6/1 of Law No. 7223 on The Product Safety and Technical Regulations (“The Regulation”), if a defective product released to the market causes harm to a person or property, the manufacturer or importer of the product is obliged to compensate for the damage25. The expression “causing harm to property” is used in the regulation, suggesting that there is no limitation on liability for damage to property, similar to damages to personal well-being. One of the conditions for product liability, as per The Regulation Article 6/2, is for the injured party to prove the causal relationship between the damage and the defect. At this point, the key issue to be examined is believed to be whether there is an error in artificial intelligence and whether the erroneous outcome is foreseeable26.
VI. CONCLUSION
The level of the autonomous vehicle used is considered crucial in evaluating legal liability. For example, if artificial intelligence can alert the driver to take control, and the driver foresees a potential problem, they can take control themselves. The level of autonomy of the vehicle is an important factor to consider when assessing the driver’s fault.
Another crucial aspect in autonomous systems is whether the driver complies with the limitations of the autonomous system27. Examples of such restrictions could include the prohibition of using the autonomous system in rainy weather or limiting the vehicle’s usage solely to highways28. Despite these limitations and prohibitions, it can be argued that the use of the autonomous system will play a significant role in determining the driver’s fault.
However, each case needs to be individually evaluated, and the assessment of responsi bility during the accident depends on whether control was in the autonomous system or the driver. According to Turkish law, it is unclear how autonomy affects responsibility because it is determined that the operator would be held strictly accountable if the requirements outlined in Article 85/1 of Law No. 2918 are fulfilled.
The issue of responsibility in accidents involving autonomous vehicles continues to be a worldwide debate. While some argue for the enactment of technical laws specifically for this issue, others advocate for the continuation of strict liability, creating a lack of consensus on who should be responsible.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
TARIK YAZICILAR, Otonom Araçlarının Kulllanımından Doğan Cezai Sorumluluk, 1.Baskı, Ankara 2022.
UĞUR KARACA, Yapay Zekanın Haksız Fiillerinden Doğan Hukuki Sorumluluk,1. Baskı,İstanbul 2023.
SİNAN OKUR, Otonom Araçlarda Sözleşme Dışı Hukuki Sorumluluk, 1.Baskı, Ankara 2021.
MARÍA LUBOMİRA KUBİCA, Autonomous Vehicles and Liability Law. Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Comparative Law. 2022.
SİNAN OKUR, Otonom Araçlarda Sözleşme Dışı Hukuki Sorumluluk, 1.Baskı, Ankara 2021.
DR. CEMRE POLAT, Sözleşme Dışı Sorumluluk Hukukunda Otonom Sistemler, 1.Baskı, Ankara 2022.
MESUT SERDAR ÇEKİN, Otonom Araçlar ve Hukuki Sorumluluk, (Date of Acces:22.11.2023) https://openaccess.tau.edu.tr/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.12846/376/0376.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
CİMO XUE, Liability Analysis of Autonomous Vehicles Accidents. Amsterdam: 2021.
JAMİN XU, Liability of Tesla’s Autopilot System Under California Tort Law. Boston College Intellectual Property & Technology Forum. 2017.
MELİNDA FLORİNA LOHMANN, Liability Issues Concerning Self-Driving Vehicles. Special Issue on the Man and the Machine. 2016.
AYŞE NUR MERVE YAZICI, Otonom Aracın Sebep Olduğu Zararlardan Üreticinin Kusursuz Sorumluluğu. 1.Baskı. Ankara: 2023.
BATU KINIKOĞLU, YÜCEL HAMZAOĞLU, MELİKE HAMZAOĞLU, (2021). Otonom Araçların Neden Olduğu Kazalardaki Hukuki Sorumluluk Rejimi. Adalet Dergisi, (66).
The Turkish Road Traffic Law numbered 6085.
The Vienna Convention on Road Traffic dated November 8, 1968.
The Decision of the Assembly of Civil Chambers, dated May 30, 2012, E. 2012/107 K. 2012/326.
FOOTNOTE
1 Ayşe Nur Merve Yazıcı, Otonom Aracın Sebep Olduğu Zararlardan Üreticinin Kusursuz Sorumluluğu, Ankara 2023, p. 37-39. Tarık Yazıcılar, Otonom Araçlarının Kulllanımından Doğan Cezai Sorumluluk, 1.Baskı, Ankara 2022, p. 27.
2 “SAE Levels of Driving Automation™ Refined for Clarity and International Audience’’, https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update (Date of Acces:13.11.2023).
3 “SAE Levels of Driving Automation™ Refined for Clarity and International Audience’’, https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update (Date of Acces: 13.11.2023).
4 “SAE Levels of Driving Automation™ Refined for Clarity and International Audience’’, https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update (Date of Acces:13.11.2023).
5 Automated and Electric Vehicles Act, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/18/contents/enacted (Date of Acces: 14.11.2023).
6 “German Road Traffic Regulations”, https://bmdv.bund.de/SharedDocs/EN/Documents/DG/eight-act-amendingthe-road-traffic-act.pdf?__blob=publicationFile#:~:text=(1)%20The%20operation%20of%20motor,used%20for%20its%20intended%20purpose. (Date of Acces:14.11.2023)
7 “Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles”, https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/automated_vehicles_policy.pdf (Date of Acces:15.11.2023).
8 “Chapter 482A - Autonomous Vehicles’’, https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NAC/NAC-482A.html (Date of Acces:15.11.2023).
9 “CS/HB 1207: Vehicles with Autonomous Technology’’, https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2012/1207 (Date of Acces:15.11.2023).
10 “Bill Number: SB 1298 Chaptered Bill Text’’, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_1251-1300/sb_1298_bill_20120925_chaptered.html (Date of Acces:16.11.2023).
11 Xue, C.‘’Liability Analysis of Autonomous Vehicles Accidents’’, Amsterdam 2021, p. 1.
12 Xue, C.‘’Liability Analysis of Autonomous Vehicles Accidents’’, Amsterdam 2021, p. 1.
3 United States District Court,Northen District of California, paragraph 44, https://www.cpmlegal.com/media/news/15117_Tesla%20Autopilot%20Complaint.pdf (Date of Acces:16.11.2023).
14 Xu.Jamin,‘’Liability of Tesla’s Autopilot System Under California Tort Law’’, s.5-6 ve s.11-17. https://lira.bc.edu/files/pdf?fileid=0c000311-75d7-40d6-bd99-20e14950dc0b (Date of Acces:17.11.2023).
15 Xu.Jamin,‘’Liability of Tesla’s Autopilot System Under California Tort Law’’, s.17. https://lira.bc.edu/files/pdf?fileid=0c00031-75d7-40d6-bd9920e14950dc0b (Date of Acces::17.11.2023).
16 ‘’Assuring Autonomy International Programme’’, https://www.york.ac.uk/assuring-autonomy/news/blog/autonomous-driving-responsibility/ (Date of Acces:16.11.2023).
17 European Parliament, “Artificial Intelligence Liability Directive’’, s. 4. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2023/739342/EPRS_BRI(2023)739342_EN.pdf (Date of Acces:17.11.2023). Dr. Cemre Polat, Sözleşme Dışı Sorumluluk Hukukunda Otonom Sistemler, 1.Baskı, Ankara 2022, s. 74.
18 United Nations Treaty Collection, “19.Convention on Road Traffic’’, https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx-?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XI-B-19&chapter=11 (Date of Acces:20.11.2023).
19 The Vienna Convention on Road Traffic Art. 8. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2012/08/20120808M1-3-1.pdf (Date of Acces:24.11.2023).
20 The Vienna Convention on Road Traffic Art. 8. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2012/08/20120808M1-3-1.pdf (Date of Acces:24.11.2023).
21 Under Article 3 of the Law, the operator is defined as follows: “The person who owns the vehicle or who is registered in the registry as a buyer in the case of sale with retention of title, or who is the lessee, loan or pledgee in cases such as long-term lease, loan or pledge of the vehicle. However, if it is proved by the relevant person that another person operates the vehicle on his/her own account and at his/her own risk and has actual control over the vehicle, this person is deemed to be the operator.”
22 Under Article 3 of the Law.
23 The Decision of the Assembly of Civil Chambers, dated May 30, 2012, E. 2012/107 K. 2012/326.
24 Batu Kınıkoğlu , Yücel Hamzaoğlu, Melike Hamzaoğlu, (2021). Otonom Araçların Neden Olduğu Kazalardaki Hukuki Sorumluluk Rejimi. Adalet Dergisi, (66), p. 368 https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1779656 (Date of Acces:21.11.2023).
25 Yazıcı, p. 215.
26 Yazıcı, p. 218.
27 Kınıkoğlu, Hamzaoğlu, Hamzaoğlu, p. 368.
28 Kınıkoğlu, Hamzaoğlu, Hamzaoğlu, p. 368.
