If you asked someone in the twentieth century where technology would be today, some would say that there would be “cars that fly themselves!” Though we are not at the level of flying cars, there are plenty of car manufacturers that utilize autonomous driving systems. Although self-driving vehicles sound like an amazing feat of engineering, in reality, they are far from perfect. Part of the issues that have come about with the implementation of autopilot features is automobile accidents. Of course, all crashes are bad, but the issue is exacerbated when it involves motorcycles, due to a lack of protection for the rider. Another major question that arises from these accidents is whether the victims can hold the manufacturers liable under a product liability theory because of the autonomous driving system causing their accidents.
Within the last year, two motorcyclists were killed as a result of crashes caused by Tesla automobiles that investigators believe had “Tesla Vision,” Tesla’s new autopilot system, engaged at the time.[i] The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) sent investigation teams to investigate both crashes further.[ii] In both fatal crashes, the motorcyclists were riding cruiser-style motorcycles (a Harley Davidson Sportster and a Yamaha V-Star), the crashes occurred when it was dark out, both riders were riding HOV lanes, and both of the riders were hit from behind.[iii] One of the main theories as to why the autopilot failed to detect the riders is due to the type of autopilot system new Teslas are using. Tesla’s new “Tesla Vision” system uses cameras that pick up the vehicle’s surroundings and uses artificial intelligence to determine when the vehicle should stop.[iv] In this instance, the crashes occurred because motorcycle brake lights are close together and the Tesla Vision system mistakes the rider for an actual car at a considerable distance. Therefore, the Tesla vehicle believes the object in front of it is “far”, and does not calculate the need to stop. However, in reality, the Tesla is approaching the motorcycle at a high rate of speed, and it is too late to slow the vehicle down, causing the motorcyclist to be hit from behind.[v]
In implementing this new system, Tesla removed the old autopilot systems, which used radar detection to determine how far an object is.[vi] The radar system sends radio waves to the object in front of it and back again to the car, which allows the car to calculate the distance between it and the object ahead.[vii] The radar system is a very simplistic design that only knows distance and does not accurately tell the car exactly what the object is in front of it. Whereas Tesla Vison knows precisely what the object is in front of it using learned data points and artificial intelligence to guess the distance between the car and the object through linear cues and other objects.[viii] However, when there are smaller objects for the system to label and dim lighting, the system is not so “precise.” Tesla has also decided to double down and stick solely with the vision systems, deciding not to incorporate a radar-style failsafe system in the event the vision system does not properly detect an object in front of it.[ix]
Major legal questions stem from these tragic incidents. Can the families of the deceased file suit against Tesla or other similar manufacturers for the loss of their loved ones? There is a strong argument that the decedent’s family can file suit against Tesla under a tort theory of product liability. Generally, for a plaintiff to succeed under a products liability theory against an automobile manufacturer they must prove three elements: (1) that the automobile or an aspect or part of the automobile was defective, (2) the defect in the automobile caused the plaintiff’s losses, and (3) the plaintiffs must prove the nature and extent of the harms they suffered as a result of the automotive defect.[x] Under element number one, the “car or some part of the car can be defective with respect to how it is manufactured, how it is designed, and/or whether there are adequate warnings or instructions regarding particular risks.”[xi] Under a “design defect” theory of liability, courts analyze the issue by looking at a standard that asks whether the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been avoided or mitigated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design.[xii] Under the second element, the plaintiffs need to prove that but for the defect, the loss would have not occurred (the but-for cause) and that the injury was a reasonably foreseeable result of the defect (proximate cause). Lastly, the plaintiffs need to show the extent of damages they have suffered because of the automotive defect. Another factor in these types of cases is the affirmative defenses that automobile manufacturers are likely to assert, such as contributory negligence, where the manufacturer can reduce or be absolved from liability because of the driver’s negligence.
In these eerily similar cases, the families of the decedents are likely to be able to show the elements necessary to prove a products liability claim against Tesla: (1) they are likely to be able to show that the Tesla car models that were involved in the crash were defected based on a design defect. In particular, they would attack the Tesla Vision system as faulty. This is a strong argument because when courts analyze this element, they look to the overall circumstances and feasibility at the time of the design.[xiii] Evidently, using a radar system that better detects motorcycles at night was feasible because it was implemented on prior models and specifically removed on the new models at issue. Another argument could be made that it was unreasonable for Tesla to solely implement a camera system and should have had a failsafe radar system in order to make up for the pitfalls in the camera system; (2) it is likely that they will be able to show that the defect caused their loss, they can show that but-for Tesla’s design defect, the riders would not have been hit and fatally injured. Although the proximate cause is a higher standard, there seem to be enough facts on its face to show that motorcyclist being struck from behind and injured as a result is a reasonably foreseeable result from the Tesla Vision systems defect in not being able to locate them adequately; (3) it will differ in each case as to the damages, but it is likely that they will be able to show compensatory damages, economic damages, or noneconomic damages.
Tesla would most likely raise affirmative defenses, such as the driver’s contributory fault because the “autopilot” system is not “fully autonomous,” and the driver is on notice that:
Autopilot, Enhanced Autopilot and Full Self-Driving Capability are intended for use with a fully attentive driver, who has their hands on the wheel and is prepared to take over at any moment. While these features are designed to become more capable over time, the currently enabled features do not make the vehicle autonomous.[xiv]
Although Tesla has a valid point, this should not absolve them of liability. Drivers using the system heavily rely on Tesla’s advertising and trust that their product will be able to detect cars and motorcycles on the road. Tesla’s system should be able to pick up motorcycle riders on a highway without driver assistance if they are going to market and advertise the car as capable of driving on the road safely. Overall, this is a serious issue that resulted in the deaths of two riders, and possibly many more, and therefore should not be taken lightly. Possible judicial action through a product liability claim is a good avenue to start change and get a possible solution so that this never occurs again.
[i] See Andy Greaser, Federal officials investigating two recent crashes involving Teslas that killed motorcyclist, Revzilla (July 28, 2022), https://www.revzilla.com/common-tread/motorcyclists-killed-by-teslas.
[ii] See Associated Press, NHTSA investigates Tesla crashes that killed 2 motorcyclists, autoblog (Aug. 5, 2022, 3:10 PM),https://www.autoblog.com/2022/08/05/tesla-fatal-motorcycle-crashes/.
[iii] Janaki Jitchotvisut, Here’s Why Tesla’s Autopilot Might Have A Problem Seeing Motorcycles, RideApart (Sep. 06, 2022, 3:10 PM), https://www.rideapart.com/news/608732/why-tesla-autopilot-ignores-bikes/.
[iv] See FortNine, Tesla Autopilot Crashes into Motorcycle Riders – Why?, Youtube (Sept. 3, 2022), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRdzIs4FJJg.
[v] Id.
[vi] See Tesla Vision Update: Replacing Ultrasonic Sensors with Tesla Vision, Tesla https://www.tesla.com/en_eu/support/transitioning-tesla-vision(last visited Feb. 10, 2023).
[vii] See id.
[viii] See id.
[ix] See id..
[x] See Daniel A. Crane, A Survey of Legal Issues Arising From Deployment of Autonomous and Connected Vehicles, 23 Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev. 191, 260–61 (2017).
[xi] Id.
[xii] Id.
[xiii] See Derek H. Swanson & Dr. Lin Wei, United States Automotive Products Liability Law, 8 (2d ed. 2009).
[xiv] See Autopilot and Full Self-Driving Capability, Tesla https://www.tesla.com/en_eu/support/transitioning-tesla-vision (last visited Feb. 10, 2023).
