As intelligent connected cars hit the road, driving tasks begin to be transferred to intelligent systems. When a traffic accident occurs while the system is "driving", the division of responsibilities will become more complicated due to the superposition of algorithm flaws, system upgrades, data flaws, driver errors and other behaviors.
Is the driver or the car company responsible for traffic accidents? Should the insurance company pay? How to obtain evidence when making a claim? After insurance compensation is paid, how to recover compensation from the car company that controls the key data? The Beijing Financial Court, the Beijing Supervision Bureau of the State Financial Supervision and Administration Bureau, and the Insurance Association of China conducted special research on this issue. A reporter from the China Voice of China Radio and Television Station interviewed a judge of the Beijing Financial Court.
The victim hit someone while the system was activated, and the victim sued multiple entities. In the simulation case, Xiao Liu purchased an L3 (conditional autonomous driving) new energy vehicle and purchased compulsory traffic insurance and third-party liability insurance with a limit of 2 million yuan. One day, Xiao Liu lent his car to Xiao Zhou, and the vehicle collided with a pedestrian while the system was activated, causing serious injuries to the pedestrian. The public security and traffic control department retrieved vehicle operating data and confirmed that the accident occurred when the system was activated. The accident determination document determined that the vehicle party was primarily responsible. The market supervision department also simultaneously initiated a defect investigation and ordered a recall.
Lin Yutong, assistant judge of the Beijing Financial Court, said: A few days before the accident, the car company had used "over-the-air technology" (OTA) to upgrade relevant algorithms, remotely pushing and installing a new version of the autonomous driving algorithm program to the car, similar to how a mobile phone automatically receives a system update package and the upgrade is completed once installed. The public security and traffic control department retrieved vehicle operation data and confirmed that the accident occurred when the system was activated. After the accident, the victim sued the actual driver Xiao Zhou, the car owner Xiao Liu, the car company and the insurance company to the court, demanding that they jointly bear civil liability for compensation. The car company submitted system logs to prove that the system had issued a takeover prompt before the accident, but Xiao Zhou did not take over in time. Xiao Zhou emphasized that the system was flawed and the time was too short for him to react.
When the autonomous driving system of intelligent connected cars is activated, how to determine the subject of civil liability? Judge Lin Wenbiao of the Beijing Financial Court believes that for cars with autonomous driving functions, there are actually two subjects with driving qualifications on the car, namely the driver and the car itself. A "double-level attribution basis" can be used, which is determined by "actual executor of the driving task + control status" - if an accident occurs when the system is activated and no takeover is requested, the car company bears product liability; if the system issues a takeover request and the driver has not taken over after a reasonable buffer period, the responsibility returns to the driver. In the case discussed this time, after the system issued a takeover request, Xiao Zhou should bear fault liability for not taking over in time, and the car company should bear product liability due to system defects. The two should share the fault proportion. Xiao Liu was not at fault for lending his car to Xiao Zhou and was not responsible.
The vehicle involved in the case was insured with compulsory traffic insurance and third-party liability insurance. The market supervision department launched a defect investigation into the vehicles involved and ordered them to be recalled. The special chapter on the "Special Provisions for Autonomous Driving Vehicles" in the revised draft of the Road Traffic Safety Law under review is intended to stipulate that if a traffic violation occurs when the autonomous driving function is activated, the manufacturer or importer will handle it. If the enterprise believes that the illegal act has nothing to do with the autonomous driving function, it should bear the burden of proof. So, if the car company accepts administrative processing, will the driver and insurance company be exempted from external liability?
Judge Wang Sisi of the Beijing Financial Court pointed out: In accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code, the victim's losses shall be compensated by the compulsory traffic insurance and commercial third-party insurance insurers in order, and the shortfall shall be borne by the motor vehicle party. This structure will not change because the vehicle may have system defects. The automobile company shall not directly become the first party to pay compensation to the third party due to its administrative liability or product liability. The insurance company shall not refuse compensation on the grounds that "administrative responsibility has returned to the automobile enterprise." However, after the insurance company pays the compensation, it can pursue compensation from the car company that is ultimately responsible in accordance with the provisions of the insurance law. The vehicle owner and driver can also pursue compensation after taking responsibility.
When there is a traffic accident dispute involving intelligent connected cars, the easiest thing to argue about is whether the autonomous driving is on or not. Li Li, deputy director of the filing tribunal of the Beijing Financial Court, suggested further improving the system of intelligent connected car insurance clauses. Li Li suggested: How to increase the liability limit when the system is activated and how to prove it must be clear. It is also recommended to add a data authorization letter to protect the insured party’s right to know about data retrieval. After the insurance company settles the claim, there must also be a way to recover compensation from the car company.
Li Li also suggested building a diversified co-governance pattern of "supervision + justice + industry self-discipline". Judicial authorities, regulatory authorities and self-regulatory organizations must hold joint meetings regularly to report disputes, unify judgment standards, and promptly transfer clues to product defects if found. At the same time, typical cases and claims guidelines must be released regularly to make market expectations more stable and system supply to keep up, so that intelligent connected cars can run more steadily and be more reassuring.
