| Abstract: | Pagrindinis šio darbo tikslas yra išsiaiškinti, ar už autonominio automobilio eismo įvykio metu sukeltą žalą privalo atsakyti jo savininkas, ar kiti subjektai. Darbo objektas – teisinė atsakomybė už autonominio automobilio sukeltą žalą. Šiuo darbu siekiama išspręsti mokslinę problemą ir atsakyti į klausimą: ar už autonominio automobilio sukeltą žalą privalo atsakyti jo savininkas? Tam, kad būtų atsakytas šis klausimas, yra būtina įvykdyti šiuos uždavinius: 1) išanalizuoti autonominių automobilių teisinę sąvoką, technines charakteristikas ir esminius skirtumus tarp kategorijų; 2) ištirti autonominio automobilio savininko atsakomybės, dėl jo autonominio automobilio sukeltos žalos, teisinį reguliavimą; 3) ištirti autonominio automobilio gamintojo atsakomybės, kai dėl techninio gedimo ar operacinės sistemos klaidų automobilis nesureagavo į iškilusį pavojų arba sureagavo netinkamai, teisinį reguliavimą.
Siekiant nustatyti, ar už autonominio automobilio sukeltą žalą privalo atsakyti jo savininkas, analizuojami Jungtinės Amerikos Valstijų, Europos Sąjungos ir Lietuvos Respublikos teisės šaltiniai, bei teismų praktika. Darbe bus naudojamas teorinis aprašomasis, lyginamasis, dokumentų analizės ir sisteminis metodas. Ši metodologija pasirinkta tam, kad būtų galimas tinkamas suformuluotų darbo uždavinių įvykdymas.
Darbą sudaro trys dalys: pirmoje dalyje atskleidžiama autonominių automobilių samprata, teisinė sąvoka, autonomiškumo kategorijos, techniniai jų galimybių skirtumai; antroje dalyje nagrinėjamos situacijos, kai atsakomybė galėtų kilti automobilio savininkui; trečioje dalyje apžvelgiama galima autonominio automobilio gamintojo atsakomybė.
Nors autonominių automobilių savininkas nuolat nevairuoja automobilio, jis yra atsakingas už tinkamą savo transporto priemonės priežiūrą. Vairuotojas yra įpareigotas nuolatos tikrinti ir rūpintis savo automobilio technine būkle. Tinkama technine priežiūra atsakingai ir atidžiai privalo rūpintis tiek pusiau, tiek pilnai autonominių automobilių savininkai. Pilnai autonominiuose automobiliuose atidi ir dažna techninė priežiūra yra ypatingai svarbi, kadangi dėl šių automobilių specifikos savininkas gali nepastebėti tų gedimų, kuriuos įprastai pastebėtų vairuodamas automobilį.
Kai pusiau autonominis automobilis yra kritinėje situacijoje ir siunčia įspėjamuosius pranešimus, jog vairuotojas privalo perimti valdymą, tačiau dėl kažkokių priežasčių vairuotojas to nepadaro arba sureaguoja netinkamai, susidarytų tokia situacija, jog autonominio automobilio vairuotojas taptų tarsi įprasto automobilio valdytojas, kuris turi stebėti situaciją kelyje ir valdyti automobilį savarankiškai. Ši situacija gali susidaryti tiktai pusiau autonominiuose automobiliuose, kadangi visiškai autonominiuose automobiliuose vairuotojas neturi būti pasiruošęs automobilio valdymo perėmimui nei įprastose, nei kritinėse sąlygose.
Pilnai autonominiai automobiliai geba visą kelionės laiką važiuoti savarankiškai, jokio žmogaus įsikišimo visos kelionės metu nėra tikimasi. Įvykus eismo įvykiui tokio automobilio vairuotojui negalėtų kilti atsakomybė už susidariusią žalą, kadangi eismo įvykis galėjo susidaryti tik dėl techninio ar sisteminio gedimo, todėl už susidariusią žalą atsakyti privalo gamintojas. Gamintojas turi pareigą atlyginti savo nekokybiško gaminio padarytą žalą tiek asmenims (pvz.: mirtis, kūno sužalojimas, sveikatos sutrikdymas), tiek nuosavybei.
Recently rapidly improving robotics science has an influence with inevitability on car innovations as well. It was not long time ago when people were impressed by automobiles, which warned the driver if he crossed the limits of the driving line or which slowed down when approached any other vehicle too close. However, in these latter years, scientists, mechanics and engineers have focused on developing completely automated vehicles. Automated vehicles, which have been launched on roads for driving, have already had some traffic accidents and made certain damage. There are a few scientists who talked about automated vehicles and emphasized weaknesses in legal framework because legislation is not amended and developed as fast as technologies; therefore, a significant number of problems and obscurities are faced. The question, who should be kept liable for the damage incurred by automated vehicles, has not been answered yet, and a lot of scientists are interested in it.
Recently, politicians, scientists as well as lawyers discuss and consider an urgent need to regulate automated cars. These vehicles could significantly improve the life quality of people with physical disabilities and those persons of older age, as well as they could reduce the accident rate and number of deaths during traffic accidents. US National Highway Safety Administration (hereinafter referred to as NHTSA) investigated 6,950 traffic accidents from January 2005 to December 2007. After the systemization and analysing the data of almost 3 years, it was established that 92% of traffic accidents were caused by human’s fault exclusively. Although most part of traffic accidents are caused by human errors, automated vehicles will not be able to completely eliminate traffic accidents; therefore, the question of the liability for the damage caused during traffic accidents is relevant, and it must be explored.
The possibility to improve the safety of road traffic would be a huge achievement; therefore, legislative regulation of automated cars should not be delayed or be too strict what could obstruct the entry of automated vehicles to market.
According to applicable Vienna Convention on Road Traffic Safety 1968, drivers are obligated all time to observe attentively the traffic situation on the road and continuously control the car. The current legislation concerning the driving of cars within the European Union does not meet latter-day technological abilities and impede innovations; therefore, it should be improved and law should keep pace with technologies.
The main goal of this paper is to find out if the owner or other subjects are liable for the damage caused by an automated vehicle during a traffic accident. The object of the research is liability for the damage caused by an automated vehicle. This work is intended to solve a scientific problem and to answer the question: Is the owner liable for the damage caused by an automated car? In order to answer this question, the following tasks should be carried out: 1) Analyse the concept of automated vehicles, technical characteristics and essential differences among their categories; 2) Disclose the possibilities of owner’s liability for the damage caused by his automated vehicle; 3) Disclose automated vehicle manufacturer’s liability when the car has not responded to a posed hazard or has responded to it improperly due to technical failure or operating system faults.
In order to establish if the owner should be liable for the damage caused by his automated vehicle, sources of law and jurisprudence of courts of the United States of America and the European Union are analysed. A theoretic descriptive, comparative and systematic method is used in this paper. This methodology has been selected in order to properly formulate the implementation of the work tasks.
The paper consists of three parts: the first part describes the conception, definition of automated vehicles, the categories of autonomy, differences among their technical abilities; the second part investigates situations when the owner of a vehicle may be liable; the third part reviews possible liability of the automated vehicle producer.
Generalisations: the current Lithuania’s legislation in accordance to which the driver is required to hold his hands constantly on the wheel, to be focused on the road, to control the vehicle during the whole trip and be liable for the damage caused by it, does not meet the fast pace of technologies and interfere with development of automated vehicle industry and with their entry to automobile market.
Although the driver of automated vehicles does not constantly drive the car, he is liable for proper care of his vehicle. The driver is obligated constantly check and follow the technical condition of his car. Both owners of semi- and fully-automated vehicles must observe proper technical maintenance responsibly and attentively. Attentive and frequent technical maintenance of fully-automated vehicles is especially important because their owner might overlook failures due to the specificity of these cars, which are usually noticed when driving a car.
When a semi-automated vehicle is in a critical situation and sends warnings, which require a driver to overtake controlling; however, due to certain reasons he does not do that or reacts improperly, the situation might require the driver to behave like a regulator of a usual car who must observe the situation on the road and control the vehicle on his own. This situation might happen in semi-automated vehicles only, because the driver of fully-automated cars must not be prepared to overtake controlling of a vehicle under both usual and critical conditions.
Fully-automated vehicles are able to drive on their own during the whole trip, and no human interference is expected during the trip. If any traffic accident takes place, the driver of such a car should not be liable for the damages caused by his vehicle because it could happen due to technical or systemic failure. The producer is obligated to compensate the damages caused by defective product to both persons (e.g. death, injuries, damage to health) and property. |
