header-logo header-logo

Insurance for driverless cars

18 January 2017
Issue: 7730 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Compulsory motor vehicle insurance is to be extended to protect victims of crashes caused by driverless cars.

The Department of Transport published its response last week to a consultation on driverless cars, also known as automated vehicle technology (AVT) and advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS).

The consultation, Pathway to driverless cars, which closed on 9 September, looked at what regulatory barriers to the introduction of AVT and ADAS could be removed, insurance requirements for automated vehicles and the regulatory framework for driving such vehicles.

The department said minimum legislative changes will be made to enable the insurance market to develop automated vehicle insurance products. However, it will be compulsory to have insurance to protect victims where the vehicle causes a crash in automated mode.

The department’s response states: “The victim will have a direct right against the motor insurer and the insurer in turn will have a right of recovery against the responsible party to the extent there is a liability under existing laws, including under product liability laws.”

Nicholas Bevan, solicitor and motor insurance specialist, said the department had accepted his and other respondents’ “concern that whilst the automated driving function is active, the driver would, in effect, be a passenger, necessitating statutory intervention to compel insurers to meet claims without the victim having to prove a product defect was causative”. 

“It reflects our concern (in the company of various other respondents) over the causational and other difficulties faced by claimants in pursuing and establishing a product liability claim. It has accepted that insufficient protection would be provided under its initial proposal (which we criticised) of simply imposing a duty on owners and users to have product liability cover or just incorporating such cover within an existing third party motor policy without more.

“I think this is a major achievement.”

The department said it would bring forward a Modern Transport Bill this year.

Issue: 7730 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll