What does the author's proposal assume about compensation?
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: E. That victims' interests are better served by a simple rule than by case-by-case proof of fault
- Step 1: The proposal avoids proving carelessness in every case and calls the result certainty for victims.
- Step 2: It therefore assumes the simple rule serves victims better.
Answer
That victims' interests are better served by a simple rule than by case-by-case proof of fault.
Why not the others: The author does not assume manufacturer fault in every case or a safety advantage, and allows for faulty parts by suppliers.
Practise more Technology and law.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.