Summary of the Key Points
The Supreme People's Court has issued the first set of specialized judicial guidelines in the field of AI in China, aiming to address the widespread disputes over liability in cases involving autonomous driving. Instead of creating complex new legislation, the court has integrated existing provisions from the Civil Code and traffic regulations with the specific context of autonomous driving. This clarifies responsibilities in various aspects, such as civil compensation, criminal liability, regulation of false advertising by car manufacturers, and the collection of accident evidence, thus establishing a unified standard for court rulings in such cases. This will prevent different parties from having different interpretations of the same incidents.
---
Detailed and Easy-to-Understand Explanation
1. The primary rule: Liability in autonomous driving accidents is determined according to regular traffic laws. If there is a defect in the vehicle, the car manufacturer is responsible for compensation.
Many people debated whether special laws were needed for autonomous driving accidents. The Supreme People's Court has made it clear that there is no need for such laws. The basic responsibilities of the parties in an accident are determined by the usual traffic laws and the Civil Code. For example, if you cause a collision while using autonomous driving and it is later found that the accident was not due to your actions but a defect in the vehicle's autonomous system (such as the system misidentifying an obstacle or making sudden steering movements), you can directly seek compensation from the car manufacturer or the dealership.
This rule creates a "green channel" for car owners and victims. Previously, car manufacturers often blamed the owners for the accidents. Now, if it can be proven that the issue was with the vehicle, the manufacturer must bear the responsibility.
2. In cases where both the person and the vehicle are at fault, each party is responsible for their own portion of the damage.
Many autonomous driving accidents involve faults on both sides. For instance, if the owner ignores system warnings and gets distracted while using assisted driving, and the system fails to detect a pedestrian crossing the road, the victim can sue both the owner and the manufacturer. The court will determine the proportion of each party's fault and allocate the compensation accordingly. This rule protects the victim's rights, especially if the owner is an ordinary individual with limited financial resources; they can still seek compensation from the manufacturer if the insurance is insufficient.
3. Assisted driving does not replace the driver; misuse can result in legal consequences.
There was a misconception that using L2+ level assisted driving meant you could relax completely in the passenger seat. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the driver remains legally responsible. Misuse of assisted driving, such as sleeping or using tricks to deceive the system, is illegal. If an accident occurs, the driver will face penalties for traffic violations, even if they were asleep or used fraudulent devices.
4. Misleading advertising about autonomous driving is prohibited, and consumers can seek compensation from manufacturers.
Some car manufacturers exaggerated the capabilities of their vehicles to sell them. The new rules prohibit such misleading claims and allow consumers to sue manufacturers for compensation. The revised traffic law also includes provisions to address this issue, limiting manufacturers' ability to exaggerate the capabilities of their vehicles.
5. Car manufacturers must provide critical autonomous driving data; the court can compel them to share it.
In previous cases, car manufacturers controlled all the data related to autonomous driving accidents. The new rules require them to provide complete records of the system's operation during the accident. The court can order them to share this data, and any refusal or tampering with it will result in a loss in the lawsuit. This gives the court the power to verify the facts independently.
---
This new set of guidelines aims to ensure fairness and clarity in autonomous driving-related disputes, providing a clear legal framework for all parties involved.