Comparing Tort Liability Frameworks in Autonomous Vehicle Accident Governance

With the rapid development of artificial-intelligence technologies in the field of automated driving, many jurisdictions have successively adopted legislation and policy guidance to regulate the safe use of such technologies and to promote their orderly development. This article takes as its objects of study a set of jurisdictions that are particularly representative in terms of legislation and practice across different legal systems. The study finds that liability regimes for traffic accidents involving automated driving fall mainly into four types: the driver liability regime, the system liability regime, the manufacturer or operator liability regime, and the composite liability regime.

In application, each of these regimes reveals different types of institutional dilemmas, including blurred boundaries of liability, underdeveloped mechanisms for evidence production and fact-finding, imbalanced allocation of liability, and fragmentation of the rules governing liability determination. In response to these dilemmas, this article proposes corresponding optimisation pathways, including clarifying the boundaries of driver liability and improving supplementary liability mechanisms; specifying in greater detail the obligations of system providers and strengthening data-related fact-finding rules; developing a reasonable allocation of liability between manufacturers and operators together with supporting insurance arrangements; and enhancing institutional coordination under the composite liability regime. These optimisation pathways not only provide institutional reference for jurisdictions seeking to maintain risk controllability while fostering innovation amid rapid technological evolution, but also lay the groundwork for the systematic improvement of future governance of automated driving.