Why does the author say the two arguments 'point to the same solution'?
When a human driver causes an accident, the law asks whether they were careless. With a driverless car, there is no driver to blame, and the question of responsibility is redirected towards the manufacturer, the software supplier or the owner. Some argue that this makes the law uncertain and will slow the adoption of a technology that could save thousands of lives. Others say that clear liability on manufacturers would give them the right incentive to make the cars safe. Both arguments are partly correct, but they point to the same solution. A simple rule that the manufacturer pays compensation to victims, with a right to claim back from suppliers where a part is at fault, would provide certainty for victims and an incentive for makers, and could be applied without proving carelessness in every case.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: A. Clear manufacturer liability gives certainty for adoption and also gives incentives for safety
- Step 1: One argument wants certainty; the other wants incentives for manufacturers.
- Step 2: A simple manufacturer-pays rule provides both.
Answer
Clear manufacturer liability gives certainty for adoption and also gives incentives for safety.
Why not the others: The arguments are not about bans, owner liability, carelessness of drivers or the absence of rules.
Practise more Technology and law.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.