Seite - (000628) - in Autonomes Fahren - Technische, rechtliche und gesellschaftliche Aspekte

60727.6 Conclusion Another result could be greater automation: Given the choice between paying for the mistakes of their own technologies and paying for the mistakes of their disparate customers, many companies would likely opt for their technology. Automation would become a solu- tion to rather than merely a source of litigation. Even if pure enterprise liability remains a thought experiment, its principles are evident in other areas relevant to automation. Fleet operators are an attractive market for automated vehicles in part because they are already liable for injuries caused by the negligence of their drivers. Automation may also offer near-term financial or market advantages to insurers, which similarly pay for injuries caused by their insured. More broadly, as manufacturers gain and assert more control over the products they have sold through technology and contract, they may also incur greater legal obligations in tort [21]. These obligations, which might approach enterprise liability without actually reaching it, could have a similar effect on design decisions. Eventually, selling a vehicle that lacks safety-critical automation features might itself be unreasonable. 27.6 Conclusion This chapter began with two fundamental questions: How should risk be allocated in the face of significant uncertainty – and who should decide? Its focus on public actors reflects the significant role that legislatures, administrative agencies, and courts will play in answering these questions, whether through rules, investigations, verdicts, or other forms of public regulation. The eight strategies discussed above would in effect regulate that regulation. They seek to ensure that those who are injured can be compensated, that any prospective rules devel- op in tandem with the technologies to which they would apply, that reasonable design choices receive sufficient legal support, and that conventional driving is subject to as much scrutiny as automated driving. Table 27.2 (below) summarizes. Table 27.2 Potential Regulatory Strategies Ensure sufficient compensation for those who are injured Expand public insurance Facilitate private insurance Force information-sharing by the private sector to enhance regulation Privilege the concrete Delegate the safety case Simplify both the technical and the regulatory challenges in coordination Limit the duration of risk Exclude the extreme Raise the playing field for conventional actors along with automated systems Reject the status quo Embrace enterprise liability