header-logo header-logo

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

Insurance for driverless cars

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll