Trial Magazine

When I speak at state trial lawyer associations and ask how many people in the audience handle car crash cases, at least three quarters of the hands go up. This month’s Trial shows how ­wide-ranging transportation practice areas are—with articles on ­ride-sharing liability (p. 19), bus crash cases (p. 36), side underride collisions (p. 48), air ambulance crash investigations (p. 42), and new modes of transportation such as electric scooters (p. 26). But one of the most significant disrupters in the transportation arena continues to be driverless cars. It’s no longer a question of if; it’s a matter of when.

My home state, California, was one of the first to authorize autonomous vehicle testing in 2012. That’s also when our state TLA, the Consumer Attorneys of California, had its first battle to ensure that consumers would be protected if they were harmed by a crash involving a driverless car. Since then, I’ve continued to urge plaintiff attorneys to follow the issue closely and prepare for how their practice might look when driverless cars are commonplace.

In November, Bosch and Daimler announced plans to launch a driverless ride-hailing service in San Jose, Calif., in the second half of 2019. This time line puts them in a deployment race with General Motors and Waymo (Google’s car company). After reading this quote from their announcement, ask yourself: Who is the responsible driver/party? “A selected user community will have the opportunity to hail a self-driving car, monitored by a safety driver, from a designated pick-up location and drive automatically to their destination.”

There is no definitive answer about how specific scenarios will be handled with driverless vehicles. For example, if an insect hits a sensor, does that mandate a maintenance check—and interruption of travel—or does the car keep driving? Will an autonomous ride-sharing vehicle be programmed to take the fastest route even if it involves merging onto an ­interstate that increases the risk of a crash? One thing is certain: Driverless vehicles will not be as safe as the auto and tech industries claim.

What we do know is that automakers have shown that they continue to be driven by profit instead of safety. They are keen to roll out automated driving (which is not a safety technology) but have delayed installing forward collision avoidance technology for decades, a safety technology that could have prevented hundreds of thousands of crashes to date.

In the future, handling auto crash cases likely will involve analyzing the data that driverless cars will collect and chipping away at the protections (for trade secrets, for example) on that data. These cases may involve design defect, data breach, and privacy issues.

For a primer on these issues, AAJ voting members can view AAJ’s complimentary ­member webinar “Driverless Cars Litigation Update” (www.justice.org/memberwebinars). Updates on driverless car legislation and where the industry stands will be covered at upcoming AAJ ­Education programs, including at this month’s Winter Convention in Miami held Feb. 2–5, the Jazz Fest Seminar in New Orleans on May 2–3, and at Annual Convention in San Diego held July 27–30.

AAJ’s State Affairs department provides state TLAs context and ­background on driverless car issues and assists them to avoid immunity provisions in state legislation and develop messages that resonate with state lawmakers regarding safety and who should be considered “the driver” in a driverless world. If you have questions or want more information, please email Senior State Affairs Counsel Daniel Hinkle at daniel.hinkle@justice.org.

In the states and in Washington, D.C., we are doing everything we can to help you seek justice for your clients in an ever-changing world.

Elise R. Sanguinetti is a partner at Arias Sanguinetti Wang & Torrijos in Oakland, Calif. She can be reached at elise.sanguinetti@justice.org.