Hacker News Reader

Comment by abalone | Hacker News Reader

You're forgetting about tort damages. Insurance does not typically cover the cost of killing or seriously injuring someone. Those damages go into the millions, far exceeding the maximum coverage. Cases of serious injury and death often end up bankrupting the responsible individual.

Also consider that there are more people who can sue per accident, because humans aren't responsible anymore. Today if you're driving the car and get in a accident and it's your fault, you can't sue anyone. Now you can. That's one more party per accident, and a whole category of single-vehicle accidents than now result in lawsuits.

View on HN

> You're forgetting about tort damages. Insurance does not typically cover the cost of killing or seriously injuring someone. Those damages go into the millions, far exceeding the maximum coverage. Cases of serious injury and death often end up bankrupting the responsible individual.

And you're forgetting that, to the extent that such injuries can be laid at the food of manufacturers' defects, manufacturers are already liable for them, and since plaintiffs are unlikely to be able to fully collect from drivers, will often be sued now, so self-driving cars don't actually change things that much.

> Also consider that there are more people who can sue per accident, because humans aren't responsible anymore.

Incorrect.

> Today if you're driving the car and get in a accident and it's your fault, you can't sue anyone.

Incorrect. If you get in an accident and suffer damages and you allege that this is due to a manufacturer's defect, this is a basis for suit against the manufacturer. Now, you won't win if the manufacturer can show by a preponderance of the evidence that the accident was your fault rather than theirs. [0]

Similarly, quite likely, in a self-driving car regime, if your car crashes you can sue the manufacturer and claim a defect was responsible, but if they can prove its the fault of something else (such as your own failure to properly maintain the vehicle), they won't be liable to you.

[0] http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/product-liability-cla...

I think your logic is correct, but your implied outcome is probably wrong.

>"If you get in an accident and suffer damages and you allege that this is due to a manufacturer's defect, this is a basis for suit against the manufacturer."

Right now, this is an edge case. The self driving car may cause it to become common.

> The self driving car may cause it to become common.

Yes, because exactly those cases where the driver (as operator, as distinct from the -- often the same person's role as -- owner-as-maintainer) is responsible now become the manufacturer's responsibility. But, again, that's exactly what insurance covers.

But, again, we know the cost of that liability is -- its the cost of driver's insurance.

Driver's insurance is the cost of liability to drivers, whose ability to pay damages is practically capped by their own insurance coverage.

A major corporation does not have the same practical ability to cap their damages. I am not convinced it's a straight comparable cost as you keep saying. The two risks are not exactly comparable, thus I would not expect the insurance costs to be the same.

> Insurance does not typically cover the cost of killing or seriously injuring someone.

Umm... That's pretty much exactly what liability insurance covers. Even with maximums, insurance companies frequently have to pay the whole amount regardless of what the policy says.

Anyone who is collectible (i.e, who can't just declare bankruptcy in the case of a multi-million dollar settlement) should carry umbrella coverage, though, because the insurance company may try to come back to you to collect.

It's cheap compared to car insurance, and it can cover into the millions.

>and a whole category of single-vehicle accidents than now result in lawsuits.

If you're talking about single-vehicle accidents where the human is at fault, then I wouldn't be surprised if those dropped to almost zero for self-driving cars. The place where self-driving cars have the most trouble is in complex situations involving multiple moving objects; most situations where the car just runs into something, harming its occupants, would rightfully be considered a defect.

And as others have mentioned, manufacturers already factor in the cost of defects into the total cost of producing a car.

>>>Those damages go into the millions, far exceeding the maximum coverage.

I have $2 million liability coverage (in BC Canada) and it's not that unusual or that expensive - is that very uncommon in the US?

No, it's not uncommon in the US. Almost everyone who owns a house has a $1mm+ umbrella policy as part of the standard homeowner's policy.

Edit: And I rent, so I bought an explicit $2mm umbrella policy, it's $267/year. That's a lot less than my car insurance, and a bit more than my renter's insurance.

The solution is to cap the level of damages as already happens in the airline industry.

That's wishful thinking.

1. Airplanes have highly trained trained human pilots who are highly vigilant and often in semi-manual control during takeoff and landing. Not a valid comparison.

2. Typical auto insurance policies have liability limits of around $100K. In cases of serious injury or death, tort damages often exceed that tremendously and bankrupt the responsible person. The solution is to get the legislature to cap tort damages for killing someone at ~$100K? Not going to happen.

I am not too sure it won’t happen (most legislators are rather fond of large donations). There is plenty of potential to play states off against each other to get the cap through.

I do agree with you that until the manufacturers liability is solved there won’t be autonomous cars sold.

Commercial planes and cruise ships buy insurance to deal with these issues.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com