Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (December 2020) 11(6):1227–1249
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-020-00978-9
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Review and analysis of the importance of autonomous vehicles
liability: a systematic literature review
Mohamed Alawadhi1 • Jumah Almazrouie2 • Mohammed Kamil3
Khalil Abdelrazek Khalil1,3
Received: 17 December 2019 / Revised: 30 March 2020 / Published online: 17 April 2020
Ó The Society for Reliability Engineering, Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM), India and The Division of Operation and
Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden 2020
Abstract The introduction of autonomous vehicles (AVs)
has led to a shift in liability from driver to AV. This paper
is a systematic review of the literature on liability with
AVs. Articles were selected from EBSCO, SCOPUS and
PROQUEST and then sorted based on inclusion and
exclusion criteria. The findings reveal that most such arti-
cles have been published in law journals and transport
journals. The articles mainly discuss the steps being taken
by developed countries, such as the US, the UK and Ger-
many; the modification of existing laws; and the formula-
tion of new laws. The articles also address the shift in
liability from humans to AVs and affirm that there is no
general rule on liability for AVs. Researchers conclude that
liability would depend on the particular details of a situa-
tion, the role of the driver, the level of autonomy exercised
by the vehicle, and the environmental factors among other
considerations. Earlier papers have also suggested that
ethical considerations should be studied when dealing with
& Mohamed Alawadhi
U16101432@sharjah.ac.ae
Jumah Almazrouie
Jumah.almazrouie@daep.ae
Mohammed Kamil
mmohammed@sharjah.ac.ae
Khalil Abdelrazek Khalil
kabdelmawgoud@sharjah.ac.ae
1
Engineering Management Department, College of
Engineering, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE
2
Reliability Assurance Department, Dubai Aviation
Engineering Projects, Dubai, UAE
3 sumption and segregation among travelers based on their
Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department, University
of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE
•
liability. Further research needs to be done on how users
perceive liability and how liability evolves with the con-
siderable changes in the law.
Keywords Autonomous vehicles
Self-driving vehicles

Driverless vehicles
Liability
1 Introduction
A recent trend in the automobile industry is the develop-
ment of autonomous vehicles (AVs) in preparation for the
introduction and mass implementation of driverless vehi-
cles. Conventional transport would then be replaced by
automated transport—giving full control to a driverless
vehicle. Shladover (2018) described the basic concept of
AVs as partially or fully replacing human intervention with
electronic or mechanical devices, thus making the transport
driverless. With the advancement of technology and the
pace at which the automobile industry is evolving, the topic
of AVs has become of great interest to researchers, engi-
neers, government bodies and industry experts in recent
years.
Freemark et al. (2019) study explored how AV tech-
nology affects cities and found that cities have made only
limited preparations, with bureaucrats concerned about the
potential risks of AVs, such as increased number of kilo-
meters travelled per vehicle. There is thus an opportunity
for upgrades in city design so it can be compatible with
AVs (Duarte and Ratti 2018). AVs could increase sprawl
because travelers would be willing to commute farther
(Hamidi et al. 2015), which can increase energy con-
income (Johnson 2001). The interaction between different
123
1228
modes of travel depends on choices made in the design of
infrastructure, such as the amount of space allocated for
streets (Schreurs and Steuwer 2015; Riehl 2018). AVs can
reduce parking needs, for example, because they can
increase shared travel, and they can park themselves else-
where. This could make land now utilized for parking
available for other purposes. However, these positive and
negative effects of AVs are conjectural.
The uncertainty concerning autonomous vehicles
therefore it is in the context of extensive experimentation.
Automobile companies test AVs on public roads all around
the world even though the complete schedule for unveiling
AVs in the market is still unknown (Freemark et al. 2019).
If people continue to use conventional vehicles along with
AVs, minor changes in transportation systems may be
made. On the other hand, transportation systems need to
change completely when the whole traffic system becomes
automated. City policies will change based on evaluations
of the level of public interest in AVs (Niles 2019).
Accordingly, government officials will have an important
role to play in setting the agenda and formulating policies
regulating AVs (Marsden and Reardon 2017).
In their research, Consilvio et al. (2019a, b) stated that
population increases lead to increased transport needs,
which in turn cause more problems related to mobility,
including pollution, accidents and congestion, especially in
cities where population density is high. There is a strong
need for governments to plan effective transport networks
to address mobility problems and handle traffic move-
ments. The current problem is determining the optimal
configuration of an existing road network in terms of fac-
tors such as directions, capacities and signals (Porter 2018).
Additionally, Consilvio et al. (2019a, b) predicted that
private and public transport will be automated in the future.
Automation will greatly impact city infrastructure, requir-
ing a complete redesign of land use regulations (Madadi
et al. 2020). The current situation is a transition from
manual to autonomous driving, with increased interactions
between the two and between AVs and infrastructure.
According to Vleugel and Bal’s (2018) research, cities
occupy more people than the past, and also urban popu-
lation will grow with time, increasing transport needs.
Infrastructure development is costly, but it is necessary to
accommodate more cars. Large cities require huge invest-
ments in infrastructure development, while small cities are
unable to manage large investments. For a city to be sus-
tainable, the supply and consumption of energy and goods
should be economical. This is not the case a present in most
cities.
Vehicle manufacturing is undergoing huge advances in
technology, with AVs being the most noteworthy advance.
Although AVs have not entered the mass market yet,
conventional cars already feature some elements of
123
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (December 2020) 11(6):1227–1249
autonomous technology. Technological progress con-
tributes to the development of new transport systems to
ensure accessibility and progressive and sustainable cities.
New transport systems are needed, especially in major
cities where there is high-density traffic. Constructing more
roads is not possible in already developed cities, and
constructing roads around a city can negatively impact the
environment.
Marçal et al. (2017) affirmed that mobility is one of the
key issues of modern society discussed all over the world.
AVs are consequently expected to be an important part of
the new transportation system and have hence become an
area of interest for automotive research and development
projects and the most popular research topic in modern
history (Fan and Chang 2016). AVs will affect not only
urban mobility but also the transport system and the soci-
ety. Many issues related to the development of AVs need to
be addressed—for example, the effects of autonomous
driving on mobility behavior, the interaction of humans
with machines and other issues related to safety (Schreurs
and Steuwer 2015). The introduction of AVs will change
city structures (Zakharenko 2016), although it is still
unclear how this evolution in traffic systems will affect
people’s lives.
AVs are expected to change transportation modes,
whether directly or indirectly. According to Nikitas et al.
(2019), along with the transport revolution prompted by
AVs, other developments will occur simultaneously in
public transport, such as driverless metros in major cities in
the Western world (Powell et al. 2016). Similarly, Attias
(2017) argued that the transport revolution will continue in
the direction of AVs, with other technical objects, such as
buses, also becoming autonomous in the near future.
Sustainability is one of the key aspects to be considered
when designing AVs and developing infrastructure
(Mladenovic and McPherson 2016). According to Suresh
and Manivannan (2014), autonomous driving consumes
less energy, which not only reduces pollution but also
offers other benefits, such as reduced accidents, reduced
injuries and deaths, less traffic congestion and more
opportunities for people who cannot drive.
Evaluating the societal impact of AVs, Schoitsch (2016)
found that AVs can reduce resource consumption, increase
mobility opportunities for older persons and people with
special needs, reduce parking needs and decrease envi-
ronmental effects. Safety is another goal of AVs, and safety
risks and privacy violations have yet to be addressed. For
example, it is not yet clear what disruptions AVs can cause
in society, given that they involve people handing over
tasks and decisions to machines.
Kyriakidis et al. (2015) claimed that AVs have gained
the attention of stakeholders because of their ability to
transform society and personal mobility. With maturity,
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (December 2020) 11(6):1227–1249
AVs are expected to change the everyday lives of indi-
viduals and transform traditional transportation standards.
To achieve the desired transformation, this evolution in
transportation should bridge manufacturing and technology
to deliver smart solutions and create an environment that
welcomes the adoption of AVs.
Urooj et al. (2018) investigated legal liability in acci-
dents involving privately owned AVs and other vehicles,
pedestrians or property. Current laws put the liability on
the human driver, since the actions of the driver cause the
collision, which is not the case with AVs. Similarly, laws
governing computers hold the operators liable for any
abuse, misuse or noncompliance, but these laws do not
address liability issues of AVs. Other laws related to
computers are only applicable to commercial transactions
and thus cannot be applied to AVs. Their solution is to
consider AVs as people’s best friends. Tort law treats dogs
and computers as personal possessions as such the Laws
that govern canine ownership demonstrates that the appli-
cation of strict liability to AV owners accomplish twofold
purpose: identifying and establishing the liability of AVs
without hindering the mass adoption of the technology. But
there are no laws that clarify liability in accidents involving
AVs. Since there is no law to guide courts regarding AV
liability issues, canine ownership laws can be applied to
AVs in an effective and practical way. Some clauses in
current vehicle and computer laws can also be applied to
AVs.
Marchant and Lindor (2012) affirmed that AVs, partic-
ularly those that are privately owned, will change the way
liability is determined. Considering these dynamics, it is
important to differentiate between partially and fully
autonomous cars. A partially autonomous car has systems
that warn drivers to reduce speed, for example, or to
change lanes before the vehicle touches another car or
object (Gurney 2016). For partially autonomous cars, only
some liability shifts from driver to vehicle, since the main
decision-maker is still the human driver; nonetheless, col-
lision risks are reduced because of system interference and
guidance. A fully autonomous car, however, takes full
responsibility for any collision, since it takes charge of the
entire decision-making process, with no human interfer-
ence at all.
Furthermore, Marchant and Lindor (2012) stated that in
the case of a failure in the accident avoidance system,
partially and fully autonomous vehicles carry the same
liability implications. Apportioning liability is difficult
when the human driver is given an opportunity to control
the AV to avoid a collision but chooses not to use it. By
contrast, when the human occupant decides not to follow
the AV manual diligently (e.g. by using the AV in certain
weather even though one is clearly instructed not to do so),
liability should be apportioned to him or her, at least
1229
partially. Likewise, if the occupant does not utilize an
override mechanism to control the AV in an unforeseen
situation, liability is assigned to the occupant (Sparrow and
Howard 2017). In most cases, however, human occupants
do not incur liability while driving AVs.
In conventional driving, drivers are liable in any colli-
sion (Gurney 2013), but this is not the case for AVs, and
this difference has significant implications. One the main
benefits of AVs is that they can reduce accident rates. In
contrast to accidents involving conventional vehicles, in
accidents involving AVs, the automobile manufacturer, the
software company or a third party is liable (Lederman et al.
2016), since there is a chance that the reason for the
accident is a system failure or an inability of the AV to
react in a certain situation (Hevelke and Nida-Rumelin
2015). In conventional vehicles in which any vehicle
malfunction is considered an error (e.g. a burst tire or
system failure). While, an AV malfunction is a program-
ming error, which makes the above-mentioned parties
involved in the manufacture of the AV liable (Geistfeld
2017).
For shared AVs, Webb (2016) claimed that autonomous
technology also impacts the insurance industry, and this
topic has generated much research. When the vehicle is in
fully autonomous mode at the time of collision, insurance
companies shift liability from the driver to the manufac-
turer. One solution suggested is to establish a national fund
to pay for accidents involving AVs. This fund would be led
and provided by manufacturers and would allow them to
negotiate with other stakeholders regarding contributions,
which would be a better option than going to court and
being sued.
The increase in ride-sharing services and the emergence
of AVs will change the nature of vehicle ownership and
driver control, which underlines the need to change current
traffic laws. Walpert (2016) raised some liability questions
for shared AVs. The first is what is the tort structure
appropriate for this imminent occurrence? The second
question is this: is current tort jurisprudence sufficient to
guide judges who will preside over accident litigation in
the future? Walpert’s third question is how would legisla-
tures faced with a growing number of AVs and increased
ride-sharing modify current law? The answers to these
questions will have serious implications for vehicle tech-
nology manufacturing stakeholders and for individual
vehicle drivers. Apportioning liability could hinder AV
technological advances, even though AVs provide safety
benefits over conventional modes of transport.
Uber envisions having a fleet of AVs that transport
passengers without the need for human drivers, thus
increasing operational efficiency (Casey 2016). The
increased usage of vehicle-sharing services like Uber is a
disruptive force in the automotive industry amid the
123
1230
emergence of AV technology (Kang et al. 2017). In vehi-
cle-sharing services, drivers use their own private cars and
do not have commercial licenses (Shaheen et al. 2012).
This fact has raised issues under ride-sharing laws, such as
questions about the liability of drivers for tortious behav-
iors (Walpert 2016).
On the issue of shared AVs, Walpert (2016) described
how individuals can be held liable for any outcome
resulting from a shared experience. To do this, he applied
enterprise liability theory (Choi 2019), which proposes that
separate entities can be liable for shared actions (Smith
2017). Liability can be ascertained by courts in cases when
plaintiffs are not able to show or prove any particular
entity’s fault (Abraham and Rabin 2019a).
Enterprise liability theory states that activities with
foreseeable hazards should bear the costs of the danger
they cause (Cowger 2018). Proponents expect enterprise
liability law to move beyond traditional negligence and
include no-fault negligence (Eastman 2016). Selbst (2019)
argued that enterprise liability should make the doer bear
the loss rather than distribute the cost based on the pro-
portions of fault. Since accidents cause injuries, enterprise
liability should focus on compensating the victim (Patti
2019).
The Geneva Convention on Road Traffic (1949) and the
Vienna Convention on Road Traffic (1968) involve a large
number of countries and outline the effects of traffic laws
on these countries. The Geneva Convention, signed by 96
countries, was replaced by the Vienna Convention, signed
by 73 countries. The countries that were signatories to the
Geneva Convention but did not sign the Vienna Conven-
tion are still bound to follow the former. These two con-
ventions formulated and established traffic laws that should
be followed by signatory countries to ensure traffic safety.
If the contents of these conventions are not updated in
response to technology advancements, the conventions
may hinder the mass implementation of AVs, which are
expected to reduce crashes due to human error, which is the
cause of 90% of car crashes (European Parliament 2016).
For more than a decade, countries have been updating
UN regulations to incorporate technological advancements.
The arrival of AVs will require further changes in these
regulations. The UN Economic Commission for Europe
(UNECE) has two bodies working to revise the UN con-
ventions: WP.1 (Global Forum for Road Traffic Safety)
and WP.29 (World Forum for the Harmonization of
Vehicle Regulations). Advancements, such as emergency
brakes and warning systems, form the basis for the updates
in these conventions (UNECE 2012). Current treaties will
require extensive amendments to account for AVs, since
the existing conventions are based on traditional traffic in
which humans are in full control (European Parliament
2016).
123
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (December 2020) 11(6):1227–1249
1.1 History of autonomous vehicles
According to Pendleton et al. (2017), vehicle automation
was envisioned in 1918. General Motors produced the first
concept, in 1939 (Shladover 2018). The technological
developments that led to modern-day AVs started in 1948
when cruise control was invented (Ross 2014). The tech-
nology has continued to evolve over the last 70 years,
leading to the eventual conception and introduction of
AVs. Advanced information technology companies, such
as Google started a driverless car project in 2009 and
introduced such a car in 2010 (Urmson 2016).
Automobile companies have been actively engaged in
research and development to advance AV evolution. Volvo
tested its first AV in 2017 and plans to market it in 2021,
while BMW, Audi, Nissan and Mercedes-Benz are work-
ing to introduce their AVs in the market by 2020 (Faisal
et al. 2019). Such clear plans from automobile companies
require a massive transition in many areas, including in
laws and regulations.
1.2 Appropriation of liability with the introduction
of autonomous vehicles
Fast-paced developments have motivated researchers to
study topics associated with AVs, including AVs’ history,
evolution, classification and mass adoption; the challenges
in producing them; the attitudes and profiles of drivers
influencing the adoption process; the implications of
technological advances; and the laws and policies gov-
erning their use.
The issue of civil and criminal liability has been dis-
cussed extensively in the literature (Browning 2014). The
driver is generally considered liable when a conventional
car is involved in an accident (Collingwood 2017). With
significant changes in conventional transport and infras-
tructure imminent, current laws and regulations may not be
applicable to the new situation. Various studies on this
subject have argued that current laws need significant
revision before the mass adoption of AVs.
The question of who is liable and responsible when AVs
fail is a topic widely discussed in the literature (Cohen
et al. 2017). The literature also identifies stakeholders,
including automobile companies, software manufacturers,
owners of AVs, insurance companies, occupants, policy-
makers and lawmakers. However, for a crash involving a
driverless vehicle, it is unclear how liability would be
apportioned among these parties and whether drivers would
liable if there were manual steps they could have taken to
avoid the accident.
Taeihagh and Lim (2018) studied the steps in the law-
making process in countries around the world and con-
cluded that governments are currently amending laws and
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (December 2020) 11(6):1227–1249
making new rules to govern the liability of AVs. The
authors confirmed that in the US laws have been introduced
to address privacy and cybersecurity, whereas the UK and
Germany have addressed liability issues related to AVs.
These governments has taken two steps: amending current
laws and creating new laws. These steps involve the cre-
ation of working groups that address legal issues and make
new regulations.
Geistfeld (2017) studied tort laws in the US and how
these should be revised with the adoption of AVs. The
author recommended that the US government formulate
two principal regulations on adequate premarket testing
and disclosure of safety risks by manufacturers, including
automobile and software companies (Aleksandrovskaya
et al. 2019). A manufacturer should be apportioned liability
for a crash only if fault is found in the design or in the
company’s compliance with the regulations. Lohmann
(2016) argued that with the adoption of AVs on the streets,
humans should no longer be liable for any crash, and only
the manufacturers should be blamed for any damages
caused; this would represent a significant shift in current
tort laws.
Genziuk (2015) discussed the vehicle owner’s respon-
sibilities in different scenarios in which the liability for a
crash is difficult to apportion. Whether occupants should be
blamed in cases where they could have taken steps to avoid
the accident is another topic to consider. The human ability
to make prompt decisions cannot be ignored even with the
advent of modern technology, and this aspect must be
considered when revising current tort laws across the
world. Moreover, most governments make manufacturers
liable when there is a critical fault found in an AV, as these
require repair and maintenance time (James et al. 2018);
however, the liability of the driver remains undetermined.
The way liability is assigned affects insurance costs
(Abdullah 2016) and changes the overall dynamics of
automobile insurance. While the insurance industry con-
templates the impact of the adoption of AVs, revised laws
are needed to cope with possible increased costs, as the
liability for accidents will be assigned differently.
The key problem faced by AVs is that the laws used by
most countries address only conventional traffic, in which
the car is considered an object under human control, thus
putting the liability on the driver only. Since driving is
considered a dangerous activity that puts others’ life at risk,
there are strict laws governing conventional traffic. The
legal framework for conventional vehicles includes man-
ufacturing requirements, administrative requirements for
car ownership (e.g. license and car registration), insurance
requirements, liability principles, and driving rules and
regulations (Bartolini et al. 2017).
There is no definite regulatory framework that defines
how liability is placed on third parties involved in the
1231
design and manufacture of AVs, including the vehicle
manufacturer and the software company that produced a
malfunctioning AV component (Taeihagh and Lim 2018).
There is currently no clear legislation that governs AV
liability generally. Nonetheless, Fagnant and Kockelman
(2015) recommended that liability regulations should cre-
ate a balance among all parties involved without hindering
technology adoption or the mass adoption of AVs. They
also, added that the absence of a legal framework makes
the assignment of liability uncertain in the event of an
accident.
Bartolini et al. (2017) provided another recommenda-
tion. Since AVs are still in the testing stage, they argued, a
possible solution is to focus on the occupant’s role in
avoiding an accident. They recommended that future laws
governing AVs should limit liability or impose no liability
for human occupants even if those occupants did not act to
avoid a crash. Possible interventions include adding an
alarm to warn the driver about traffic conditions so that he
or she can take control of the vehicle. The driver can still
be free from liability since the idea behind an AV is that it
is driverless, and the vehicle takes control in all situations.
Nonetheless, failure to warn may be a fault on the part of
the AV, making manufacturers liable.
Sun et al. (2016) recommended that liability be removed
completely from the driver and shifted to the vehicle
manufacturers. This can make certain decisions challeng-
ing, particularly as to whose safety should be prioritized:
the AV occupants or others using the road (e.g. pedestri-
ans). Moreover, since drivers can override the AV controls
(e.g. in a heavy traffic situation), the issue of shared lia-
bility arises. Additionally, for fully automated vehicles,
there are situations when the car is made to follow the
passengers’ instructions (e.g. picking the passenger up
from a location despite the presence of weather conditions
under which it is recommended the AV not be driven). Sun
et al. (2016) concluded that there are currently no legal
frameworks regarding AVs and that huge changes are
expected in the fundamental components of liability in new
legislation.
AVs should be tested for millions or billions of kilo-
meters to confirm their reliability and safety. Even after
aggressive testing, AVs would need hundreds of years of
driving over many kilometers to ensure reliability. Satis-
factory testing of AVs is not currently possible, and inno-
vative methods to gauge safety must be developed
(Baglietto et al. 2018). The reliability of AVs has been
questioned by Kalra and Paddock (2016) through the fol-
lowing three questions:
1. For how many kilometers should AVs be tested
without fail to compare their failure rate against given
benchmarks?
123
1232 Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (December 2020) 11(6):1227–1249

2. For how many kilometers should AVs be tested can help determine who is at fault. Despite issues of pri-
without fail to compare their failure rate against given vacy, the black box is expected to be used to identify the
precision degrees? causes of crashes (Dhar 2016).
3. For how many kilometers should AVs be tested In accidents involving conventional vehicles, the driver
without fail to compare their failure rate against that is in full control of the vehicle and is thus held liable; in
of human drivers? AVs, by contrast, humans are not in control and cannot be
held liable (Douma and Palodichuk 2012; Collingwood
According to Kalra and Paddock (2016), the answers to
2017). As such, all or some of the liability will be shifted to
these questions require statistical approaches. The
AVs. Accordingly, road accidents can present issues
researchers provided formulas to answer these questions
relating to product safety such that third parties involved in
that can be used as references to test the reliability of AVs
the design and manufacture of AVs will be held liable and
statistically, as shown in the Table 1 below.
will face lawsuits (Marchant and Lindor 2012). The divi-
Table 1 presents the results of Kalra and Paddock’s
sion of liability between humans and technology is still
(2016) analysis. The table lists the three questions and the
unclear. The questions of whether humans should be held
corresponding results (i.e. fatality rates, reported injury
responsible for an accident when there is a chance of taking
rates and reported crash rates). The results show the
control of the vehicle to avoid an accident also remains
number of kilometers and number of years (or months)
(Collingwood 2017). Additionally, there is no clear regu-
needed to test AVs to reach the given failure rates in the
latory framework on how liability should be apportioned
first column. It is clear that AVs must be driven for billions
among third parties involved in the manufacture of AVs
of kilometers to reach these benchmarks, distances which
(Collingwood 2017).
are impossible to achieve in public road tests. Additionally,
Given the above points, there will be higher risks for
improvements in AVs will also need to be tested for mil-
manufacturers of AVs involved in a crash, and these can
lions of years and kilometers to ensure performance and
affect their brand and reputation (Hevelke and Nida-
reliability. These results have implications for liability and
Rumelin 2015; Tien 2017). The current regulatory frame-
regulatory laws, policymakers and the public (Baglietto
work does not identify the moral responsibility of pro-
et al. 2018).
grammers in their designs of life-and-death decisions
(Fleetwood 2017). Policymakers have yet to standardize
1.3 Liability issues and regulatory framework
decision-making criteria for algorithms—for example,
for autonomous vehicles in selected countries
whether decisions should be made based on priority,
severity, type of injury or number of injured victims
In their research, McChristian and Corbett (2016)
(Fleetwood 2017). Only the UK has revised its regulatory
explained that the driving in an semi-autonomous vehicles
framework to include these issues related to the liability of
is shared between the vehicle and the human occupant, and
drivers and third parties (Duffy and Hopkins 2013; HC 143
this complicates liability. The transition from conventional
2017).
traffic to automated driving will mean insurance companies
There is currently very limited knowledge on the effects
must depend on ‘‘black boxes’’ to monitor the driving.
of shifting liability on insurance costs (Baumann et al.
Similar to those used in airplanes, the black box in an AV
2019). In case of an injury, parties can sue the AV

Table 1 Kilometers and years needed to establish the reliability of autonomous vehicles (AVs)
For how many kilometers or years should AVs Benchmarks for failure rate
be tested?
A. Fatality rate: 1.09 B. Reported injury rate: 77 C. Reported crash rate: 190
fatalities per 160 million reported injuries per 160 reported crashes per 160
kilometers million kilometers million kilometers

To have 95% confidence in their failure rate 275 million kilometers 3.9 million kilometers 1.6 million kilometers
(12.5 years) (2 months) (1 month)
To have 95% confidence in their failure rate 8.8 billion kilometers 125 million kilometers 51 million kilometers
being within 20% of the true rate (400 years) (5.7 million years) (2.3 years)
To have 95% confidence and 80% power that 11 billion kilometers 161 million kilometers 65 million kilometers
their failure rate is 20% better than the failure (500 years) (7.3 years) (3 years)
rate of humans
The time is assessed with a fleet of 100 AVs driving 24 h a day at a speed of 40 kph

123
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (December 2020) 11(6):1227–1249
manufacturer, especially if there is system fault. This
increased liability can affect the motivation of manufac-
turers to innovate, which can slow the rate of safety
improvement of AVs (Hevelke and Nida-Rumelin 2015).
The US government has delegated the responsibility for
identifying liability to state governments (NHTSA 2017).
The US Department of Transportation has not shown any
interest in formulating laws for liability and insurance. The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
encourages states to allocate liability and formulate insur-
ance policies. Most states in the US have started addressing
the liability aspects of AVs (NHTSA 2017).
The UK is the only country that has implemented a
toleration-oriented strategy to handle liability and insur-
ance risks, in which policy-makers act to confirm that the
system or organization’s performance is robust to risks
under a wide range of conditions. Whereas no-response is
when policy-makers do not take steps to address risks and
may delay decisions due to their uncertain nature or con-
trol-oriented strategies. A control-oriented is defined as
policy-makers accept for the existence of threats, however
take steps to control them by executing official policies and
regulations and are implemented by other countries
(Taeihagh and Lim 2018). The Center for Connected and
Autonomous Vehicles identified the gaps in liability- and
insurance-related laws and proposed amendments to the
UK Department of Transport in 2016 (CCAV 2016). A bill
(HC 143 2017) was passed in response which clarified the
liability of insurers and AV owners in cases of accidents
and other circumstances. Insurers are made liable for death
or damages caused by insured AVs (HC 143 2017).
Insurers are, however, only partly liable in cases when the
AV owners are found at fault. The bill thus has ambiguities
regarding the appropriation of liability to the parties
involved. The bill follows existing motor insurance
schemes but ensures faster compensation for injured parties
(CCAV 2016). The Consumer Protection Act protects
manufacturers if they are able to prove that an AV was not
defective when it was delivered to the owner and that the
fault was identified later because of technological
advancement.
Singapore and Australia recognize the need to revise
liability laws governing AVs. The Singaporean govern-
ment revised the Road Traffic Amendment (RTA) in 2017,
which exempted AVs and parties involved in AV testing
from existing clauses of the RTA, which hold humans
liable (CNA 2017). Singapore clearly acknowledged that
human control is diminished in AVs and that the use of
AVs requires changes in the existing road and criminal
laws (MOT 2017). The Australian government set deadli-
nes to revise its liability and insurance laws by November
2017. The government also committed to evaluate current
laws, identify liability aspects and revise injury systems to
1233
identify the eligibility of crash victims (NTC 2017). The
governments of both Singapore and Australia have made
gradual but consistent efforts toward formulating a set of
regulations based on light control-oriented strategy.
The Chinese and South Korean governments have yet to
identify their regulatory stance toward liability and insur-
ance, which puts them in the no-response strategy category.
Dai (2018) urged the Chinese government to formulate
laws for AV testing. The South Korean government rec-
ognizes that the absence of international standards is a
barrier to formulating local laws on AVs, and since the
country imports and exports cars, it is imperative that
manufactures comply with international standards
(Ramirez 2017).
The EU has still not revised its laws on AV liability and
insurance risks and is still in the process of exploring
options. The European Commission launched GEAR 2030
in 2016 to evaluate options for AV-related laws and made
recommendations in 2017. European Parliament members
suggested that the EC should introduce an insurance
scheme, along with a fund, to ensure compensation for AV
crash victims and identify the liability for all the parties
involved (EPCLA 2016; European Parliament 2017).
Taeihagh and Lim (2018) stated that, similar to the UK,
Germany formulated permanent legislation in 2017 to
address the liability and insurance aspects of AVs.
According to these laws, AVs are required to install a black
box that is programmed to record the car’s journey, and it
should be used as reference in cases of crashes (JDSUPRA
2017; Wacket et al. 2017). The laws ensure a balanced
apportioning of liability between the manufacturer and the
driver, with the former taking liability when AV technol-
ogy is at fault and when there is a system failure (Wacket
et al. 2017). However, the laws do not clarify the maximum
amount of time drivers are given to take control in case of
an impending crash nor do they explain issues related to the
ownership of black box data (JDSUPRA 2017). For this
reason, Germany’s Ethics Commission formulated and
published guidelines for AVs, which recommend that it be
made clear who is considered the driver and who should be
authenticated for determining liability. The commission
also considered it unethical for algorithms to use individ-
uals’ data (e.g. age and gender) when making decisions to
avoid an accident (Di Fabio et al. 2017). Although not
mandatory, these guidelines can be considered a first step
toward an ethical framework for issues related to AVs.
Further discussions are needed to determine the responsi-
bility of persons designing algorithms.
Japan’s strategy in formulating laws regarding liability
and risk is categorized light control-oriented (Taeihagh and
Lim 2018). The National Police Agency has recommended
actions to reduce risks, but these are not mandatory. For
instance, manufacturers are recommended to install black
123
1234
boxes in AVs that are being tested (Nikkei 2018). More-
over, AV testers should submit documents regarding the
AV’s structure and risks to help authorities make plans for
responding to accidents. Meanwhile, AV operators should
have a driver’s license and should take over responsibility
for the vehicle in the event of operational failure (Jiji 2017;
Japan Bullet 2017). Liability is placed on manufacturers in
cases of errors and system defects, but programmers or any
other third party involved in the AV design are excluded
from liability (Japan Bullet 2017).
McChristian and Corbett (2016) stated that policymak-
ers around the world confront issues related to liability.
The UK’s Department of Transport reviewed existing laws
for AVs and found that these do not hinder AV testing on
public roads. Similar reviews have been done in Germany
and Sweden.
According to Alessandrini et al. (2015), many countries
around the world want to be a leader in the AV industry.
Google has received permission to conduct testing for its
driverless cars in many US states. Similarly, Volvo has
received permission to test its AVs in Sweden. AVs are
also tested in Germany and France—both countries have a
10-year roadmap to becoming a leader in AVs. In the UK,
huge investments in infrastructure development were made
in 2013 to support AVs, with the aim of making the country
a leader in the driverless car industry. The UK also plans to
review its laws to make the country a place where manu-
facturers can implement, develop and test AVs. Honda,
Mercedes, Audi, BMW and other manufacturers plan pilot
projects, whereas Google is already in the testing phase.
Both IBM and Cisco aim to be suppliers of AV software.
Tire producers, such as Michelin, have been supportive of
the development of AVs. Renault and Tesla have also been
part of AV development.
Stocker and Shaheen (2017) stated that in the US, both
the federal government and state governments are in the
process of formulating laws governing AVs. The NHTSA
has released the Federal AV Policy, which forms the basis
of the regulatory framework for AVs in the US, proposing
checklists on safety, privacy, ethics, cybersecurity and
other issues. The document serves as a guideline for federal
and state governments when formulating laws. The policy
suggests that state governments should split the responsi-
bilities that should be managed by federal and state gov-
ernments. The NHSTA suggests that states should register
AVs and regulate roads and safety measures, while the
federal government should regulate AV performance.
Some states, including California, Michigan and Wash-
ington, have formulated their own AV guidelines, while
others have passed executive orders (National Conference
of State Legislatures 2016).
In Europe, the European Commission proposed the
Declaration of Amsterdam in 2016 (Patti 2019), which
123
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (December 2020) 11(6):1227–1249
mandated member countries and industry players identify
joint goals to encourage the operation of AVs (European
Union 2016). The future regulatory framework is generic in
nature, stating that laws should support the use of AVs by
ensuring flexibility. It identifies steps to facilitate AV
introduction and implementation. The EC believes that
existing laws and regulations are sufficient to enable the
AV evolution in transportation (European Union 2009).
In his research, West (2016) explained that each country
must address specific issues (e.g. policy, budget and ethics)
to enable the progress and development of AVs. In China,
for instance, there is a need to formulate a national policy
on AVs. China has multiple ministries responsible for the
regulation and supervision of AV driving, and greater
clarity is needed regarding who is responsible for what
aspect to establish a definitive framework. The government
also needs to invest more in infrastructure, relax regula-
tions on AV testing and limit restrictions on AV
manufacturers.
Meanwhile, in Europe, companies work to strengthen
the artificial intelligence capabilities of AVs. Firms such as
Google have entered the transportation industry to diver-
sify and develop programming skills in the sector. Auto-
mobile manufacturers such as BMW and Audi compete in
a fiercely competitive market that requires their AVs to
have strong artificial intelligence and computing features,
since vehicle performance is based not only on the design
but also on the software. The European Union also
encourages data protection and privacy regulations,
because information about people’s movement and loca-
tion are made available to third parties.
In Japan and Korea, governments and manufacturers are
more cautious (West 2016). Firms such as Toyota and
Honda invest hugely in the development of AVs even
though they are still unsure whether AVs should be a pri-
ority and whether they should invest in new technology to
be a part of this advancement. If they fail to keep up with
advancements in AVs, they will be left behind when AVs
are mass produced in the future. In the US, the major
challenge lies in the integration of efforts among the 50
states, since they all have their own preferences on
licensing and regulations. Car manufacturers, such as Ford
and General Motors, encounter confusing rules in different
states, which hinders their progress. Firms are unable to
innovate because of unclear and conflicting laws in the US,
and greater clarity is required on liability and other issues
related to AVs.
1.4 Liability issues with autonomous systems
in other sectors
According to Barfield (2018), robots have become
increasingly independent from human control, particularly
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (December 2020) 11(6):1227–1249
amid advancements in artificial intelligence that allow
robots to do algorithm-based problem-solving. Autono-
mous robots are capable of undertaking high-level goals
and can identify ways to achieve those goals with little or
no human control. Nowadays current laws do not hold
robots liable for any damage they cause with existing
technology, regardless of how autonomous the robots are.
When determining liability for any accident caused by a
robot sold after completing tests and trials, courts try to
determine whether there was any defect in the robot that
caused the accident. Product liability is determined under
tort law, which identifies the liability for any damage
caused by products sold to customers commercially, such
as vacuum cleaners (Abraham 2017).
On the other hand, under tort law, liability is placed on
manufacturers of robots involved in any accident causing
damage even though robots are not directly causing it. This
clause is known as strict liability, and this tort law aims to
regulate manufacturers’ activities that can cause risks to
society through their products (Abraham 2017). Product
liability refers to manufacturers being held liable for pro-
ducing and distributing a dangerous or defective product
that can cause damage when used (Barfield 2018). It is yet
to be determined whether an autonomous robot can be
considered a dangerous product, since such a robot incor-
porates significant technological advancements. When
customer injury results from a defective product, strict
liability is placed on manufacturers, and they must pay
compensation to victims. Laws require manufacturers to
guarantee that their products are safe for public consump-
tion and that they do not pose risks to consumers. These
clauses of the tort law put all the liability on manufacturers,
so they engage in extensive research and development and
make sure that their products undergo tests and trials before
market launch. The law holds manufacturers liable without
considering the amount of effort the manufacturer devoted
to developing and testing a product and regardless of
whether the customer had a contract with the manufacturer
(Abraham 2017).
Consilvio et al. (2019a; b) stated that faults related to
circuits can occur suddenly, and there is no way to monitor
the condition of a circuit; nevertheless, board and relay
faults are included under tort liability. Perc et al. (2019)
affirmed that although manufacturers engage in extensive
attempts to perfect their products and ensure 100% relia-
bility to avoid any liability issue (Kirkpatrick 2013), failure
in robot technology may occur and cause damage or injury.
In such cases, tort liability is applied, and manufacturers
are held liable. Some difficulties in tort liability are
expected in the case of AVs: for example, a situation in
which a driver thinks that the AV is engaged in an unsafe
action and takes control of the vehicle when in fact the AV
is operating in a safe manner. In this situation, it is difficult
1235
to determine whether liability should be assigned to the
manufacturer or the driver (Schellekens 2015).
Moreover, Perc et al. (2019) argued that since tort law
aims to reduce the number of accidents, policymakers
should adopt tort liability standards in determining liability
for accidents caused by intelligent objects, as this would
encourage more investments in research and development
to improve human safety. Most injuries are caused by
negligence—a situation in which a party is liable for its
own unreasonable conduct (Ahmed 2019). If no miscon-
duct has been identified and the standard has been fol-
lowed, the incident can be declared as ‘‘a matter of
chance’’, and no one can be made liable for it. In cases
involving computers, a strict liability standard is applied,
which means that liability is assigned to the manufacturer
regardless of whether someone is at fault. Such strictness
causes barriers for automation manufacturers, since
machine-controlled products causes greater liability for
manufacturers Additionally, existing laws negatively
impact technology advancements aimed at improving
safety (Ebnali et al. 2019).
1.5 Liability of different AV automation levels
and consumer adoption timeline
In 2017, European, American and Australian authorities
formulated a common language called the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) International Standard J3016
(SAE International 2018) for identifying AV capabilities.
The SAE identified six levels of automation from Level 0
to Level 5, with Level 0 indicating no automation at all and
Level 5 signifying full automation. The categorization
depends on the way in which steering and braking are
controlled—the extent to which human control is needed
when driving and whether the AV can operate without
human control in all possible situations. The six levels
identified by the SAE are as follows:
– Level 0—No Automation: The human driver controls
all the driving.
– Level 1—Driver Assistance: The system provides
assistance in one task, such as steering or braking,
while the human driver performs all the remaining
tasks.
– Level 2—Partial Automation: The system provides
assistance in both steering and speed control, while the
human driver is required to monitor the environment
and act accordingly.
– Level 3—Conditional Automation: This is Level 2
automation with the additional feature that the human
driver is not required to monitor the environment when
the car is in automated mode. The driver, however,
needs to respond to requests from the AV.
123
1236 Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (December 2020) 11(6):1227–1249

– Level 4—Highly Automated: This is Level 3 with the It is expected to take several decades before AVs totally
additional feature that no human intervention is needed replace conventional vehicles and become the only type of
when the car is in automated mode. vehicles allowed on public roads. During the transition,
– Level 5—Fully Automated: The car is fully automated accidents involving conventional cars will continue, in
and in control in all conditions and environments. addition to accidents involving motorcycles, pedestrians
and/or third parties. According to Abraham and Rabin
AV manufacturers decide which options to provide for
(2019b), some accidents involve conventional vehicles are
human drivers so they can take back control from the
caused by defects in the automated features. But even
system in Levels 4 and 5 of automation. Table 2 summa-
though these vehicles have certain automated features,
rizes the six levels.
current regulations on driver liability and product liability
The extent of automation, the requirements for the
will remain unchanged.
human driver in terms of controlling the vehicle and
Shavell (2019) opined that since the level of automation
monitoring the driving environment, and the ability to
is increasing, drivers will become less liable for crashes.
control the automated system can all impact society and the
The major tort rule is determining the fault of the driver,
regulations it imposes. The degree of automation defines
and this will become irrelevant when drivers are no longer
the tort duties of individuals operating the AVs, since the
in control of the vehicles. The faults of AVs will shift the
SAE categorization considers the extent of human inter-
liability away from the human driver; hence, policymakers
vention in the AV operations (Walpert 2016).
and the society will focus more on the liability of vehicle
Future tort law will develop from the current system of
manufacturers. Manufacturers will be required to pay
apportioning liability for car crashes (Abraham and Rabin
compensation for damages caused by AVs, especially
2019b). When Level 2 and Level 3 vehicles are involved in
damages caused by defective components. Nevertheless,
accidents, they are considered under accident laws for
liability can also be placed on vehicle owners for their
conventional vehicles, since significant human control is
inattention to these defects or for their failure to upgrade a
involved. As these levels become more automated due to
system.
advancements in technology, tort laws must be revised and
Current tort liability laws will continue in effect for
amended to address issues involving Level 4 and Level 5
some time, since conventional vehicles are still the major
vehicles. In Levels 2 and 3, driver control depends on the
type of vehicle on public roads. As a result, the liability of
need for safe operations; drivers therefore need to be aware
human drivers will also remain as part of the current
of the environmental situation so that they can take control
practice of considering human error in determining
when necessary (Merat et al. 2014).

Table 2 Different levels of vehicle autonomy according to the SAE standard

SAE Description Execution of Monitoring of Fallback System
level steering and driving performance of capability
acceleration/ environment dynamic driving (driving
Deceleration task modes)

Human driver monitors the driving environment

0 Only the human driver controls all the driving Human driver Human driver Human driver n/a
1 The system provides assistance in one task (e.g. steering Human driver and Human driver Human driver Some driving
or braking), while all remaining tasks are performed by system modes
the human driver
2 The system provides assistance in both steering and speed System Human driver Human driver Some driving
control, while the human is required to monitor the modes
environment and act accordingly
Automated driving system monitors the driving environment
3 Level 2 automation with the addition that the human System System Human driver Some driving
driver is not required to monitor the environment when modes
the car is in automated mode. The driver, however,
needs to respond to AV requests
4 Level 3 with the addition that no human intervention is System System System Some driving
needed when the car is in automated mode modes
5 The car is fully automated and in control in all conditions System System System All driving
and environments modes

123
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (December 2020) 11(6):1227–1249
responsibility for an accident. Nevertheless, technological
advancements in conventional vehicles can significantly
reduce accident rates (Woods 2019). Existing liability
regulations focus on drivers, since human errors cause the
majority of accidents. Negligence liability is applied to car
crashes involving conventional vehicles. Third-party
insurance protects drivers, whereas underwriting focuses
on both owners and drivers (Chatzipanagiotis and Leloudas
2020).
The main concept in Level 5 automation is noninter-
vention and noninvolvement of the human driver, which
means that AVs cannot count on the human driver to
provide inputs related to vehicle operation (Koopman and
Wagner 2016). Boeglin (2015) opined that the parties who
should be held liable for a crash involving AVs are as
follows: the AV owner, the AV user, the AV manufacturer,
the manufacturers of AV components and government
bodies (Ryan 2017). Since these parties act interdepen-
dently to ensure the effective operation of AVs, it will be
difficult to ascertain individual levels of responsibility.
Boeglin (2015) added that privacy tools like the black box
can shift the liability from owners and users to third parties
(e.g. manufacturers or government bodies).
A reasonable timeframe for the adoption of AVs
remains unclear. However, Stone et al. (2020) affirmed that
with the mass adoption of AVs, questions related to con-
sumer adoption and policy changes must be addressed. If
technological advancement continues at the current pace,
15 to 20 years will be needed before higher-level AVs
appear on public roads (Beiker 2016). The Netherlands
Institute for Transport Policy Analysis (KiM 2015) pre-
dicted that a complete transition to high-level automation
will occur approximately between 2060 and 2100 and that
Level 5 automation will not be achieved in the near future.
1.6 Fatalities involving autonomous vehicles
According to Ackerman (2019), 2018 saw an increase in
the number of car crashes involving AVs causing fatalities.
For example, an Uber self-driving car in Arizona killed a
pedestrian (Daisuke 2018), and a Tesla on autopilot cra-
shed into a barrier, killing its driver (National Trans-
portation Safety Board 2018a). Soo (2018) also reported
another Tesla on autopilot crashing into a fire truck in
Utah; the driver survived the incident. Meanwhile, the
Californian government received 129 AV collision reports,
which included AVs hitting barriers and pedestrians and
AVs stopping in traffic; these reports increased safety
concerns (State of California 2020) and instilled greater
awareness regarding AV-related issues.
In Arizona, a Volvo Uber self-driving car killed a person
(Kerr 2018). The video footage showed that the driver was
on her phone and was not handling the steering (Daisuke
1237
2018). However, further investigation revealed that Uber
disabled the emergency braking system to avoid erratic car
behavior (National Transportation Safety Board 2018b).
Uber switched off the safety feature when the driver was
not in control; the feature was kept on when the driver was
in control (Laris 2018). This disabled emergency braking
function caused the crash. If it had been kept on, the sen-
sors could have detected the collision object, and the crash
could have been avoided (Hawkins 2018). Moreover, the
car should have applied the brakes when it was 20 m from
the individual (Krisher 2018). The driver was not impaired,
and weather conditions were also ruled out as the cause of
the crash (Daisuke 2018).
In another incident in 2018, a Tesla Model X crashed
into a barrier in California and killed the driver. The
investigation found that the driver was kept alert during the
drive with visual and auditory alert systems, but he was not
alerted for 15 min before the accident occurred. The driver
also did not handle the steering for the 6 min leading up to
the accident (Bomey 2018). Moreover, the speed increased
from 100 to 112 kph just 3 s before the crash with no
braking or steering movement detected (National Trans-
portation Safety Board 2018c). The crash was considered
partially the fault of the driver and partially the fault of
Tesla. Tesla was considered responsible for the driver’s
inattentiveness, since he relied solely on the autopilot
system (National Transportation Safety Board 2017). In
this example, the system caused the driver’s inattention,
increasing his risk for crashes. Drivers are thus advised to
remain attentive even when the vehicle is on autopilot.
This paper presents a systematic review of the literature
on liability with AVs. Section 2 explains the methodology
used for the systematic literature review, and Sect. 3 dis-
cusses the results and findings of the review. Section 4, the
last section, presents the conclusions.
2 Methodology and data collection procedure
The research presents a systematic review of existing lit-
erature on liability with AVs. A systematic literature
review involves the search, review and analysis of relevant
articles on a topic to reach conclusions. Bacca et al. (2014)
identified the three main phases of a systematic review:
planning, conducting the review and reporting the findings.
This method was used in the present paper to systemati-
cally derive and analyze the data to formulate conclusions.
Figure 1 presents the methodology used in this paper.
Planning involved clearly formulating the research
questions and determining how they can be answered
through a systematic review. The research question of this
paper aims to answer is as follows: How has past literature
addressed the topic of liability with AVs? The objective is
123
1238
Formulating research questions
Identifying keywords and databases
Identifying inclusion and exclusion
criteria
Analyzing the articles
Reporting results and reaching
conclusions
Fig. 1 Methodology used in the present research
to analyze previous studies and their conclusions regarding
liability issues related to AVs.
The keyword method was used to search the databases
for relevant articles. Since ‘‘autonomous’’ is synonymous
with ‘‘driverless’’ and ‘‘self-driving’’ when describing AVs,
these terms were identified as keywords. Notably, the term
‘‘liability’’ was used with each of these three terms. The
following search terms were thus used to search the data-
bases for relevant article titles, abstracts and keywords:
– Liability autonomous vehicles,
– Liability driverless vehicles, and
– Liability self-driving vehicles.
When conducting a systematic literature review, Bramer
et al. (2017) advise using multiple databases. The present
study used three databases—SCOPUS, EBSCO and PRO-
QUEST—to gather articles using the above keywords. The
articles were then sorted based on the inclusion and
exclusion criteria. Lam and Kennedy (2005) state that the
success of an analysis depends on the quality of data
gathered; hence, it is critical to identify the proper inclu-
sion and exclusion criteria. According to Mallet et al.
(2012), the inclusion and exclusion criteria for data
screening are used to achieve objectivity and to screen the
data in a uniform way.
123
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (December 2020) 11(6):1227–1249
The inclusion and exclusion criteria were established
and used to sort the articles, identify common character-
istics and choose the most relevant data. An article that is
25 years old cannot be compared with an article published
a year ago, as this can create discrepancies in the results.
Well-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria can help sort
the data on a uniform scale, which makes the analysis
easier since the background and context of the articles are
the same. Table 3 presents the inclusion and exclusion
criteria for the present research.
The inclusion and exclusion criteria enabled the sorting
of articles according to relevance, ensuring that the final
articles selected provided dependable findings. A total of
150 articles were identified using the keyword search of the
EBSCO, SCOPUS and PROQUEST databases. Only
English-language articles were chosen, since it is the lan-
guage easily understood by the researcher, and it is widely
used around the world.
To select the most credible research, only peer-reviewed
articles were chosen for review. An article that has been
peer reviewed is more credible, since it has already been
evaluated by one or more competent individuals who have
given their opinions. Of the 150 articles, 134 were peer
reviewed; the rest were thus excluded from the review. All
articles in EBSCO and SCOPUS are peer reviewed. In
contrast, PROQUEST has some non-peer-reviewed arti-
cles. Of the 71 articles identified, 16 were excluded
because they were not peer reviewed also, there was no any
time constraints for the articles collected. But the articles
collected was till the third quarter of the year 2019. Table 4
summarizes the process of identifying the included articles.
Out of 134 articles, duplicates were removed, resulting
in 74 articles. Of these 74 articles, three were written in a
language other than English (i.e. Polish and Portuguese
languages); these were excluded because the researcher can
only read and understand the English language. The final
article count was thus 71. The article list is presented in
Appendix A. The relevant data from the articles were
recorded in nine Excel spreadsheets, using three search
terms in three databases. The Excel sheets present a sum-
mary of the search by tabulating the article titles, author
names, journal titles, publication years, volume numbers,
issue numbers, publishers, subjects, keywords, abstracts
and page links. The results of the analyses are presented in
charts, graphs and percentages. The final 71 articles were
analyzed to explore the themes, subject areas, publication
years, journal names and keywords found in their titles and
abstracts.
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (December 2020) 11(6):1227–1249 1239

Table 3 Inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the research

No. Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria

1 Peer reviewed Not peer reviewed

2 Non-duplicate articles Duplicate articles
3 English language Non-English language
4 Having one or more search terms in the title, abstract or keywords Not having any of the search terms

Table 4 Synthesis of the identification and inclusion of articles

Database Search terms Identified After deleting After deleting After deleting
Papers non-peer-reviewed duplicate papers non-english
Papers papers

EBSCO Liability autonomous vehicles 23 23 9 9

Liability self-driving vehicles 2 2 2 2
Liability driverless vehicles 2 2 2 2
SCOPUS Liability autonomous vehicles 35 35 21 20
Liability self-driving vehicles 12 12 8 8
Liability driverless vehicles 5 5 3 3
PROQUEST Liability autonomous vehicles 53 42 21 19
Liability self-driving vehicles 10 8 4 4
Liability driverless vehicles 8 5 4 4
TOTAL 150 134 74 71

3 Findings Also, it shows from the number of the articles published

3.1 Publications over time
The analysis of data shown in Fig. 2 reveals that 45% of
the articles were published in 2018 and 2019, while 21%
were published in 2017. It is clear from this analysis that
the quantity of literature on liability with AVs started
growing at a faster pace in 2015, after the successful
introduction and testing of fully autonomous vehicles and
the announcements by automobile companies that they
would introduce their own AVs into the market by 2020.
18
16
14
12
No. of Arcles
that researchers, governments and policymakers started to
consider and place attention to laws and regulations
regarding liability. Moreover, liability needs to be appor-
tioned before the mass adoption of AVs; nonetheless, the
literature on AVs in recent years seems to understand the
importance of the issue.
3.2 Journal subject areas
Regarding the subject area, 35.2% of the articles (i.e. 25
out of 71 articles) were found to be in the social sciences,
while 19.7% (i.e. 14 articles) were under computer sciences
and engineering. Business management and decision sci-
16 16 ence articles comprised 5.6% (i.e. 4 articles) of the total.
15
Based on this analysis, it can be said that research on lia-
bility with AVs has been conducted under a wide range of

subject areas and that researchers from multiple fields take

10 9
an interest in the topic (see Fig. 3).
8 7
6
3.3 Article title keywords
4
2 2
2 1 1 1 1
Analyzing the titles of the 71 articles (see Table 5) revealed
0 that 30 articles mentioned ‘‘autonomous vehicles’’ in their
2000 2006 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
title, whereas 23 had ‘‘liability’’ or ‘‘liable’’ in their title.
Year
Moreover, 15 articles had one or more law-related key-
Fig. 2 Number of articles per year words, in their title such as ‘‘law’’, ‘‘legal’’, ‘‘policy’’ or

123
1240 Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (December 2020) 11(6):1227–1249

Fig. 3 Distribution of articles

by subject area

Table 5 Keywords in the titles of articles reviewed published articles. Figure 4 also includes six journals with
two published articles. The other 47 journals published
Article title keywords No. of articles
only one article each; these journals are not listed in Fig. 4.
Autonomous vehicles 30
Liability or liable 23 3.5 Citation analysis
Law, legal, policy or regulations 15
Self-driving 7 Citation analysis is a method used to judge the performance
Ethics, ethical or ethico 6 of a previous research publication by determining the
Risk 5 number of later studies that cited the said research. When
Accidents 3 research is published, other researchers can refer to it in
their work. Citations in other studies indicate that the
previous research is reliable and has contributed positively
to the field. The 10 articles with the greatest numbers of
‘‘regulations’’. Seven articles had the keyword ‘‘self-driv- citations were selected for this analysis. Table 6 summa-
ing’’ in the title; six articles had ‘‘ethics,’’ ‘‘ethical’’ or rizes the citation analysis.
‘‘ethico’’; five mentioned ‘‘risk’’; and three mentioned Articles from 2013 and later were the most cited in later
‘‘accidents’’. research, indicating that current studies give more attention
Notably, researchers mostly discuss the legal aspect of to research conducted after 2013. Conversely, studies
the liability issue to help policymakers formulate suit- conducted before 2013 were not cited extensively in later
able laws and regulations to enable the smooth mass articles.
adoption of AVs and reduce any negative impact.
Researchers also discussed how liability would shift from 3.6 Papers content analysis
the drivers to other parties in the case of AVs. The Law-
related terms were found to be present in the titles of all A thorough analysis of the articles, including content,
articles that discussed the liability aspects of AVs. methodology, approach and findings, shows that most of
them are qualitative in nature, and their content mainly
3.4 Journal count analysis discusses different types of liability like tort liability,
product liability and strict liability in addition to, sustain-
As shown in Fig. 4, the journal count analysis indicates able transportation, cost-effective, data privacy, licensing
that the journal with the greatest number of articles configurations for AVs, travel time reduction, crash sav-
reviewed was published in Transport Research Part A: ings, parking benefits, fuel efficiency accountability and
Policy and Practice (i.e. five published articles). The the laws that need to be updated to encourage the public to
European Journal of Risk Regulation had four published adopt AVs. In addition, designing tort liability for vehicle
articles, whereas Transport Research Part C had three manufacturers in a way that will support the development

123
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (December 2020) 11(6):1227–1249 1241

Fig. 4 Journal count

Transportaon Research Part A

European Journal of Risk Regulaon : EJRR

Transportaon Research Part C

Northwestern Uni Law Review

Berkeley Technology Law Journal

Computer Law and Security

Science and Engineer Ethics

Transport Reviews

Journal of Muldisciplinary Research

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
No. of Arcles

Table 6 Most cited articles

No. of Article title Author(s) Year Journal
citations

1,322 Preparing a Nation for Autonomous Vehicles: Fagnant, D.J. and Kockelman, K 2015 Transportation Research
Opportunities, Barriers and Policy Recommendations Part A: Policy and
Practice
143 Responsibility for Crashes of Autonomous Vehicles: An Hevelke, A. and Nida-Rümelin, J 2015 Science and Engineering
Ethical Analysis Ethics
69 A Roadmap for Autonomous Vehicles: State Tort Liability, Geistfeld, M. A 2017 California Law Review
Automobile Insurance, and Federal Safety Regulation
58 Self-driving Cars and the Chilling Effect of Liability Law Schellekens, M 2015 Computer Law & Security
Review
51 Governing Autonomous Vehicles: Emerging Responses for Taeihagh, A., Lim, H. and Si, M 2018 Transport Reviews
Safety, Liability, Privacy, Cybersecurity, and Industry
Risks
47 Autonomous Vehicle Regulation: How an Uncertain Legal Brodsky, J. S 2016 Berkeley Technology Law
Landscape May Hit the Brakes on Self-Driving Cars Journal
40 Development of a Test Track for Driverless Cars: Vehicle Szalay, Z., Tettamanti, T., 2018 Periodica Polytechnica
Design, Track Configuration, and Liability Considerations Esztergár K. D., Varga, I. and Transportation
Bartolini, C Engineering
40 Splitting the Bill: Creating a National Car Insurance Fund Schroll, C 2015 Northwestern University
to Pay for Accidents in Autonomous Vehicles Law Review
36 The Ethical Knob: Ethically-Customisable Automated Contissa, G., Lagioia, F. and 2017 Artificial Intelligence and
Vehicles and the Law Sartor, G Law
35 Driving Miss Daisy: An Autonomous Chauffeur System Goodrich, J 2013 Houston Law Review

and improvement of AVs. In addition, some manufacturers
of AVs technology expect that personal ownership of AVs
will be replaced by sharing AVs system, where companies
own the AVs and they rent them to consumers who pay per
trip in these cases in case of an accident who hold liable
and how insurance should be regulated to pay for those
accidents (i.e. drivers, car-sharing companies, or manu-
facturers).These articles used the following methodologies:
case studies (i.e. survey or questionnaire), literature review
and content review (i.e. collecting, analyzing and com-
paring existing knowledge to take advantage of new
requirements, laws and recommendations). Meanwhile, the
articles provided recommendations to modify laws and
regulations on liability and accountability issues. More-
over, how the public will react with the new law and

123
1242
liability. Also, these articles suggest a framework for which
courts could use when regulating liability in AV accidents.
Only a minority of articles used experimental testing and
analysis for critical AV systems, such as programing,
sensing devices, data analysis, statistical risks and how
liability will affect AV manufacturers. Also, these articles
about decision informatics and contains the processing (i.e.
real-time analytics), advanced technologies of sensing (i.e.
Big Data), learning (i.e. deep learning) and reacting (i.e.
real-time decision-making) which are qualitative in nature.
These works mainly tested technical components of AVs
that are related to technology manufacturers rather than
government entities and how liability will affect those
manufacturers. Also, how should AVs be equipped with
pre-programmed in case of unavoidable accident scenarios
and the liability issues in these cases. These articles rec-
ommended that manufacturers modify their systems to
make autonomous driving safe, secure, reliable and
affordable.
4 Conclusions
The present research conducted a systematic literature
review on liability with AVs. AVs are the latest trend in the
transportation industry, and they are changing the dynam-
ics of the industry, including the liability of drivers when
there is a crash.
A detailed methodology was formulated to select the
most relevant articles based on the inclusion and exclusion
criteria. Seventy-one articles were selected from three
databases: EBSCO, SCOPUS and PROQUEST. All articles
selected were peer reviewed and included the keywords
identified for this paper. The articles were then analyzed,
and the results were presented in this report.
Based on the findings, it can be concluded that research
on liability related to AVs increased after 2015. Accord-
ingly, the last five years have seen great achievements in
the field of AVs, which in turn have encouraged
researchers to study liability issues in recent years. Most
automobile companies have plans to launch fully auto-
mated vehicles by late 2020, which will change the liability
aspect of driving.
The majority of the articles were published in law
journals, and most researchers discussed the legal compo-
nents of the issue. These articles investigate how the mass
adoption of AVs will change the legal environment of the
countries involved and how the industry is taking a keen
interest in facilitating that change. Researchers affirm that
current laws and regulations will not be applicable after the
introduction of AVs. Current laws need to be amended, and
new laws need to be implemented to ensure a regulatory
framework appropriate for automated driving.
123
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (December 2020) 11(6):1227–1249
Developed countries such as the US, the UK and Ger-
many are already moving in this direction, with working
groups established to revise current laws and formulate
new ones. Policymakers are collaborating with other
stakeholders to ensure a fair legal system before AVs are
adopted on a larger scale.
The articles selected also discussed how the introduction
of AVs will shift liability from drivers to other stake-
holders. With driverless vehicles, occupants will no longer
be responsible for crashes: instead, the vehicle and its
systems will be responsible. Accordingly, automobile
companies and software companies that manufacture the
vehicles, systems, devices and software for AVs will be
liable for any accident. This shift will, in turn, change the
insurance industry and associated costs. Some researchers
discussed the role of the insurance industry in ensuring an
accident-free world.
Whether the occupant will be completely spared from
all liabilities is also a topic of great interest. The occupants
and their ability to take any action to prevent an accident
are not ignored, indicating that despite the fascinating
features of AVs, the importance of the human brain and its
efficiency in making timely decisions cannot be dismissed.
Researchers thus concluded that liability will depend on the
situation; no general judgment is made regarding the lia-
bility of AVs.
Despite the highly advanced technology involved in
AVs, risks and failures associated with safety and security
remain. In situations when humans can take over the
machine to make a timely decision to avoid an accident, the
former should be made liable. This will keep vehicle
occupants motivated to avoid crashes (Pourgol-Mohammad
et al. 2017). Researchers insist that liability should be
collective, because putting the responsibility on only one
stakeholder will make other stakeholders lax. To ensure
fair treatment, occupants, automobile companies and soft-
ware companies are made liable, depending on the
situation.
Researchers also discussed the ethical aspects of AVs.
Researchers claim that the ethical responsibility of auto-
mobile and software companies should be identified by the
government and by policymakers, and clear and open
disclosure of information should be mandatory. Manufac-
turers should be transparent in the testing of AVs before
market launch.
Since the successful implementation of AVs involves all
stakeholders working closely with automobile and software
companies should act ethically and ensure the free flow of
information. Hiding sensitive information for profit and
monetary gain should be strictly prohibited, since any
failure can lead to accidents, chaos and loss of human lives.
Similarly, third-party evaluators should be encouraged to
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (December 2020) 11(6):1227–1249 1243

give honest reviews of AVs and their testing and should
avoid bias and monetary incentives from companies.
From the critical evaluation of the selected articles, it
can be concluded that most articles on liability with AVs
concentrate on qualitative approaches and recommend
changes to laws and regulations for autonomous driving. A
minority of articles deal with technological experiments on
autonomous systems and recommend amendments for
manufacturers and technology companies. This paper
affirms that AV-related liability is an ongoing topic in
research. Further research is needed to study particular
countries and users with various profiles and to examine
how users’ perceptions of liability will change and how
users will react to newly formulated laws.
Appendix
See Table 7.

Table 7 List of articles reviewed

No. Authors Title Year Journal

1 Markham, T. R., & Chernoguzov, A A Balanced Approach For Securing The OBD-II Port 2017 SAE International Journal
of Passenger Cars
2 Murphy, R., Shell, D., Guerin, A., A Midsummer Night’s Dream (With Flying Robots) 2011 Autonomous Robots
Duncan, B., Fine, B., Pratt, K., &
Zourntos, T
3 Martinesco, A., Netto, M., Neto, A. M., A Note On Accidents Involving Autonomous Vehicles: 2019 IFAC-PapersOnLine
& Etgens, V. H Interdependence Of Event Data Recorder, Human-
Vehicle Cooperation And Legal Aspects
4 Geistfeld, M. A A Roadmap For Autonomous Vehicles: State Tort 2017 California Law Review
Liability, Automobile Insurance, And Federal Safety
Regulation
5 McCall, R., McGee, F., Mirnig, A., A Taxonomy Of Autonomous Vehicle Handover 2019 Transportation Research
Meschtscherjakov, A., Louveton, N., Situations Part A: Policy and
Engel, T., & Tscheligi, M Practice
6 Casey, B Amoral Machines, Or: How Roboticists Can Learn To 2017 Northwestern University
Stop Worrying And Love The Law Law Review
7 Mat, A. R., How, L. M., Ariff, O. K., Autonomous Aerial Hard Docking Of Fixed And Rotary 2014 Applied Mechanics and
Zhahir, M. A. M., & Ajir, R. M. Wing Uavs: Task Assessment And Solution Architecture Materials
8 de Bruin, R Autonomous Intelligent Cars On The European 2016 European Journal of Risk
Intersection Of Liability And Privacy Regulation: EJRR
9 Brodsky, J. S Autonomous Vehicle Regulation: How An Uncertain 2016 Berkeley Technology Law
Legal Landscape May Hit The Brakes On Self-Driving Journal
Cars
10 Olalekan, O. S Autonomous Vehicles And Tortious Liability: An Islamic 2018 Jurnal Syariah
Perspective
11 Zhang, Z., Singh, J., Gadiraju U., & Dissonance Between Human And Machine Understanding 2019 Proceedings Of The ACM
Anand, A On Human–Computer
Interaction
12 Lemann, A. B Autonomous Vehicles, Technological Progress, And The 2019 Journal Of Tort Law
Scope Problem In Products Liability
13 Gandia, R. M., Antonialli, F., Cavazza, Autonomous Vehicles: Scientometric And Bibliometric 2019 Transport Reviews
B. H., Neto, A. M., Lima, D. A. D., Review
Sugano, J. Y.,
& Zambalde, A. L
14 Sinclair J., Schafer B Autonomous Vehicles: The Path To Liability Is Still 2017 Jusletter IT
Unclear
15 Hammond, D. N Autonomous Weapons And The Problem Of State 2015 Chicago Journal of
Accountability International Law
16 Hopkins, J., & Hawking, P Big Data Analytics And Iot In Logistics: A Case Study 2018 International Journal of
Logistics Management
17 Calo, R Commuting To Mars: A Response To Professors Abraham 2019 Virginia Law Review
And Rabin

123
1244 Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (December 2020) 11(6):1227–1249

Table 7 continued
No. Authors Title Year Journal

18 Correa, O., Khan, A. M. R., Tanin, E., Congestion-Aware Ride-Sharing 2019 ACM Transactions on
Kulik, L., & Ramamohanarao, K Spatial Algorithms and
Systems (TSAS)
19 Sheehan, B., Murphy, F., Mullins, M., & Connected And Autonomous Vehicles: A Cyber-Risk 2019 Transportation Research
Ryan, C Classification Framework Part A: Policy and
Practice
20 Mrcela, M., & Vuletic, I Criminal Law Facing Challenges Of Robotics: Who Is 2018 Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta
Liable For Traffic Accident Caused By Autonomous u Zagrebu
Vehicle? [Kazneno Pravo Pred Izazovima Robotike:
Tko Je Odgovoran Za Prometnu Nesreću Koju Je
Prouzročilo Neovisno Vozilo?]
21 Liivak, T., & Lahe, J Delictual Liability For Damage Caused By Fully 2018 Masaryk University
Autonomous Vehicles: The Estonian Perspective Journal of Law and
Technology
22 Szalay, Z., Tettamanti, T., Esztergár- Development Of A Test Track For Driverless Cars: 2018 Periodica Polytechnica.
Kiss, D., Varga, I., & Bartolini, C Vehicle Design, Track Configuration, And Liability Transportation
Considerations Engineering
23 Danas, A. M Disruptive Technologies And Business Models: Emerging 2018 Journal of
Regulatory Issues From The Sharing Economy Multidisciplinary
Research
24 Genziuk, Shane Don’t Blame Me—Blame The Car 2015 General Insurance
25 Jones L Driverless Cars: When And Where? 2017 Engineering and
Technology
26 Goodrich, J Driving Miss Daisy: An Autonomous Chauffeur System 2013 Houston Law Review
27 Aguilar, A. B Eco-Taxes In Spain 2000 European Energy and
Environmental Law
Review
28 Murphy, F., & Mullins, M Editorial For The Special Issue – Liability And Insurance 2019 Transportation Research
For Semi-Autonomous Vehicles Part A: Policy and
Practice
29 Shabanpour, R., Golshani, N., Eliciting Preferences For Adoption Of Fully Automated 2019 Transportation research
Shamshiripour, A., & Mohammadian, Vehicles Using Best–Worst Analysis part C: emerging
A. K technologies
30 Dhar, V Equity, Safety, And Privacy In The Autonomous Vehicle 2016 IEEE Computer Society
Era
31 Shadrin, S. S., Varlamov, O. O., & Experimental Autonomous Road Vehicle With Logical 2017 Journal of Advanced
Ivanov, A. M Artificial Intelligence Transportation
32 Lederman, J., Garrett, M., & Taylor, B. Faulty Reasoning: Navigating The Liability Terrain In 2016 Public Works
D Intelligent Transportation Systems Management and Policy
33 Humaidi, A. J., Hassan, S., & Fadhel, M. FPGA-Based Lane-Detection Architecture For 2018 Asia Life Sciences
A Autonomous Vehicles: A Real-Time Design And
Development
34 Bellet, T., Cunneen, M., Mullins, M., From Semi To Fully Autonomous Vehicles: New 2019 Transportation research
Murphy, F., Pütz, F., Spickermann, F., Emerging Risks And Ethico-Legal Challenges For part F: traffic
& Baumann, M. F Human–Machine Interactions psychology and
behaviour
35 Taeihagh, A., & Lim, H. S. M Governing Autonomous Vehicles: Emerging Responses 2018 Transport Reviews
For Safety, Liability, Privacy, Cybersecurity, And
Industry Risks
36 Lucas Jr, G. R Industrial Challenges Of Military Robotics 2012 Journal of Military Ethica
37 Fan, C. K., & Xu, X Influences Of Autonomous Cars On The Insurance Market 2019 Journal of Applied
From The Perspectives Of Insurance Companies And Finance and Banking
Auto Insurance Agencies
38 Thomas, Mike INSURANCE: Challenges To The Business Model: The 2017 JASSA
Australasian Journal Of Applied Finance

123
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (December 2020) 11(6):1227–1249 1245

Table 7 continued
No. Authors Title Year Journal

39 Burri, T., & Wildhaber, I Introduction To The Special Issue On The Man And The 2016 European Journal of Risk
Machine Regulation: EJRR
40 Gauci, G. M Is It A Vessel, A Ship Or A Boat, Is It Just A Craft, Or Is It 2016 Journal of Maritime Law
Merely A Contrivance? & Commerce
41 Juhász, Á., & Pusztahelyi, R Legal Questions On The Appearance Of Self-Driving Cars 2016 European Integration
In The Road Traffic With Special Regard On The Civil Studies
Law Liability
42 O’Sullivan, S., Nevejans, N., Allen, C., Legal, Regulatory, And Ethical Frameworks For 2019 International Journal of
Blyth, A., Leonard, S., Pagallo, U., & Development Of Standards In Artificial Intelligence (AI) Medical Robots
Ashrafian, H And Autonomous Robotic Surgery
43 De Bruyne, J., & Tanghe, J Liability For Damage Caused By Autonomous Vehicles: 2018 Journal of European Tort
A Belgian Perspective Law
44 Pinter, K., Szalay, Z., & Vida, G Liability In Autonomous Vehicle Accidents 2017 Komunikácie
45 Lohmann, M. F Liability Issues Concerning Self-Driving Vehicles 2016 European Journal of Risk
Regulation: EJRR
46 De Bruyne, J., & Werbrouck, J Merging Self-Driving Cars With The Law 2018 Computer Law and
Security Review
47 Schellekens, M No-Fault Compensation Schemes For Self-Driving 2018 Law, Innovation and
Vehicles Technology
48 Hoffmann, T., & Prause, G On The Regulatory Framework For Last-Mile Delivery 2018 Machines
Robots
49 Determann, L., & Perens, B Open Cars 2017 Berkeley Technology law
Journal
50 Hall, S P-71 Evaluation Of A Rapid Discharge Pathway For 2017 BMJ Journals
Dying Patients
51 Tscharaktschiew, S., & Evangelinos, C Pigouvian Road Congestion Pricing Under Autonomous 2019 Transportation Research
Driving Mode Choice Part C: Emerging
Technologies
52 Fagnant, D. J., & Kockelman, K Preparing A Nation For Autonomous Vehicles: 2015 Transportation Research
Opportunities, Barriers And Policy Recommendations Part A: Policy and
Practice
53 Collingwood, L Privacy Implications And Liability Issues Of Autonomous 2017 Information and
Vehicles Communications
Technology Law
54 Fabian, P. Ü. T. Z., Murphy, F., Mullins, Reasonable, Adequate And Efficient Allocation Of 2018 European Journal of Risk
M., Maier, K., Friel, R., & Rohlfs, T Liability Costs For Automated Vehicles: A Case Study Regulation: EJRR
Of The German Liability And Insurance Framework
55 Hevelke, A., & Nida-Rümelin, J Responsibility For Crashes Of Autonomous Vehicles: An 2015 Science and Engineering
Ethical Analysis Ethics
56 Wang, S., & Zhao, J Risk Preference And Adoption Of Autonomous Vehicles 2019 Transportation Research
Part A: Policy and
Practice
57 Bogue R Robot Ethics And Law 2014 Industrial Robot
58 Schellekens, M Self-Driving Cars And The Chilling Effect Of Liability 2015 Computer Law and
Law Security Review
59 Sheehan, B., Murphy, F., Ryan, C., Semi-Autonomous Vehicle Motor Insurance: A Bayesian 2017 Transportation Research
Mullins, M., & Liu, H. Y Network Risk Transfer Approach Part C: Emerging
Technologies
60 Boothby, W Some Legal Challenges Posed By Remote Attack 2012 International Review of
the Red Cross
61 Schroll, C Splitting The Bill: Creating A National Car Insurance 2015 Northwestern University
Fund To Pay For Accidents In Autonomous Vehicles Law Review
62 Rosenberg, A Strict Liability: Imagining A Legal Framework For 2015 Tulane Journal of
Autonomous Vehicles Technology &
Intellectual Property

123
1246 Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (December 2020) 11(6):1227–1249

Table 7 continued
No. Authors Title Year Journal

63 Brock, L., & Tropnas, L Survey On The Regulations Of Autonomous Vehicles 2018 Journal of
Multidisciplinary
Research
64 Contissa, G., Lagioia, F., & Sartor, G The Ethical Knob: Ethically-Customisable Automated 2017 Artificial Intelligence and
Vehicles And The Law Law
65 Ryan, M The Future Of Transportation: Ethical, Legal, Social And 2019 Science and Engineering
Economic Impacts Of Self-Driving Vehicles In The Ethics
Year 2025
66 Showalter, S The Growing Use Of Auvs And Liability: Should 2006 International Ocean
Operators Be Concerned? Systems
67 Churilov, A. Y The Legal Basis Of Liability For The Damage Caused 2018 Legal Concept
During The Operation Of An Autonomous Vehicle
68 Zipp, J. W The Road Will Never Be The Same: A Reexamination Of 2016 Transportation Law
Tort Liability For Autonomous Vehicles Journal
69 Tien, J. M The Sputnik Of Servgoods: Autonomous Vehicles 2017 Journal of Systems
Science and Systems
Engineering
70 Mangan, M The Value Of Vanpooling As A Strategic, Cost-Effective, 2018 ITE Journal
And Sustainable Transportation Option
71 Beale, A. F Who’s Coffers Spill When Autonomous Cars Kill? A New 2018 Widener Law Journal
Tort Theory For The Computer Code Road

References Baglietto E, Consilvio A, Di Febbraro A, Papa F, Sacco N (2018) A

Abbott R (2018) The reasonable computer: disrupting the paradigm of
tort liability. Geo Wash L Rev 86:1
Abdullah Z (2016) Driverless vehicles could change laws, insurance
policies. The straits times. Retrieved from https://www.strait
stimes.com/singapore/transport/driverless-vehicles-could-
change-laws-insurance-policies
Abraham K (2017) The forms and functions of tort law. West
Academic, Saint Paul
Abraham KS, Rabin RL (2019a) Automated vehicles and manufac-
turer responsibility for accidents: a new legal regime for a new
era. Va L Rev 105:127
Abraham KS, Rabin RL (2019b) The future is almost here: inaction is
actually mistaken action. Va L Rev Online 105:91
Ackerman RP (2019) Regulating autonomous vehicles in the United
States.
Ahmed R (2019) The influence of ’reasonableness’ on the element of
conduct in delictual or tort liability-comparative conclusions.
Potchefstroom Electron Law J 22
Aleksandrovskaya LN, Ardalionova AE, Papic L (2019) Application
of probability distributions mixture of safety indicator in risk
assessment problems. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 10(1):3–11
Alessandrini A, Campagna A, Delle Site P, Filippi F, Persia L (2015)
Automated vehicles and the rethinking of mobility and cities.
Transport Res Proc 5(2015):145–160
Attias, D. (2017). The autonomous car, a disruptive business model?.
In The Automobile Revolution (pp. 99–113). Springer, Cham.
Australian Government (2017) Social Impacts of Automation in
Transport, Department of Infrastructure and Regional
Development
Bacca J, Baldiris S, Fabregat R, Graf S, Kinshuk. (2014) Augmented
reality trends in education: a systematic review of research and
applications. J Educ Technol Soc 17(4):133
Bayesian network approach for the reliability analysis of
complex railway systems. In: 2018 International Conference on
Intelligent Rail Transportation (ICIRT), pp. 1–6
Barfield W (2018) Liability for autonomous and artificially intelligent
robots. Paladyn J Behav Robot 9(1):193–203
Bartolini C, Tettamanti T, Varga I (2017) Critical features of
autonomous road transport from the perspective of technological
regulation and law. Transport Res Proc 27:791–798
Baumann MF, Brändle C, Coenen C, Zimmer-Merkle S (2019)
Taking responsibility: a responsible research and innovation
(RRI) perspective on insurance issues of semi-autonomous
driving. Transport Res Part A Policy Pract 124:557–572
Beiker S (2016) Deployment scenarios for vehicles with higher-order
automation. Autonomous driving. Springer, Berlin, pp 193–211
Boeglin J (2015) The costs of self-driving cars: reconciling freedom
and privacy with tort liability in autonomous vehicle regulation.
Yale JL Tech 17:171
Bomey N (2018) Tesla model X driver killed in California Crash
wasn’t Holding Steering Wheel, NTSB says.’’ USA Today. June
7th, 2018. Accessed January 22nd, 2019. https://www.usatoday.
com/story/money/cars/2018/06/07/tesla-model-x-autopilot-
crash-ntsb-report/681148002/
Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Kleijnen J, Franco OH (2017) Optimal
database combinations for literature searches in systematic
reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Syst Rev 6:245
Browning JG (2014) Emerging technology and its impact on
automotive litigation. Defense Counsel J 81(1):83–90
Casey B (2016) A loophole large enough to drive an autonomous
vehicle through: the ADA’s new van provision and the future of
access to transportation. Stan L Rev Online 69:73
CCAV (2016) Pathway to driverless cars: proposals to support
advanced driver assistance systems and automated vehicle
technologies, Centre for connected and autonomous vehicles.
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/

123
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (December 2020) 11(6):1227–1249
uploads/attachment_data/file/536365/driverless-cars-proposals-
for-adas-and_avts.pdf
Chatzipanagiotis MP, Leloudas G (2020) Automated vehicles and
third-party liability: A European perspective. University of
Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy, Forthcoming.
Choi BH (2019) Crashworthy code. Wash L Rev 94:39
CNA (2017) Regulations in place to ramp up driverless vehicle trials
in Singapore. Channel News Asia.
Cohen T, Jones P, Cavoli C (2017) Social and behavioural questions
associated with automated vehicles. Scoping study by UCL
Transport Institute. Final report, London: Department for
Transport.
Collingwood L (2017) Privacy implications and liability issues of
autonomous vehicles. Inform Commun Technol Law
26(1):32–45
Consilvio A, Di Febbraro A, Sacco N, Torre A (2019) On exploring
the potentialities of autonomous vehicles in urban spatial
planning. In: 2019 6th International Conference on models and
technologies for intelligent transportation systems (MT-
ITS) (pp. 1–7). IEEE
Consilvio A, Sanetti P, Anguı̀ta D, Crovetto C, Dambra C, Oneto L,
Sacco N (2019) Prescriptive maintenance of railway infrastruc-
ture: from data analytics to decision support. In :2019 6th
International Conference on Models and Technologies for
Intelligent Transportation Systems (MT-ITS) (pp. 1–10). IEEE.
Cowger AR Jr (2018) Liability considerations when autonomous
vehicles choose the accident victim. J High Tech L 19:1
Dai S (2018) China’s Google’’ says government support and
population size matters in global AI race. South China Morning
Post.
Daisuke W (2018) Self-driving uber kills pedestrian in Arizona,
Where Robots Roam. The New York Times. March 19th, 2018.
Accessed January 31st, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/
03/19/technology/uber-driverless-fatality.html
Di Fabio U, Broy M, Brüngger RJ (2017) Ethics commission
automated and connected driving. Federal Ministry of Transport
and Digital Infrastructure of the Federal Republic of Germany
Dhar V (2016) Equity, safety, and privacy in the autonomous vehicle
era. Computer 49(11):80–83
Douma F, Palodichuk SA (2012) Criminal liability issues created by
autonomous vehicles. Santa Clara L Rev 52:1157
Duarte F, Ratti C (2018) The impact of autonomous vehicles on
cities: a review. J Urban Technol 25(4):3–18
Duffy SH, Hopkins JP (2013) Sit, stay, drive: the future of
autonomous car liability. SMU Sci Tech L Rev 16:453
Eastman AD (2016) Is no-fault auto insurance the answer to liability
concerns of autonomous vehicles. Am J Bus Manag 5(3):85–90
Ebnali M, Hulme K, Ebnali-Heidari A, Mazloumi A (2019) How does
training effect users’ attitudes and skills needed for highly
automated driving? Transport Res Part F 66:184–195
European Parliament (2017) Robots and artificial intelligence: MEPs
call for EU-wide liability rules. European Parliament. Available
at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/
20170210IPR61808/robots-and-artificial-intelligence-meps-call-
for-eu-wide-liability-rules
EPCLA (2016) Draft report with recommendations to the Commis-
sion on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL), Euro-
pean Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs
European Parliament (2016) Policy department B: structural and
cohesion policies. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/
etudes/STUD/2016/573434/IPOL_STU(2016)573434_EN.pdf
European Union (2009) ‘DIRECTIVE 2009/103/EC OF THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 16
September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in
respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the
1247
obligation to insure against such liability’, Official Journal of the
European Union, pp. 11–31.
European Union (2016) Declaration of Amsterdam: cooperation in the
field of connected and automated driving, The Netherlands EU
Presidency. Available at: https://english.eu2016.nl/binaries/
eu2016-en/documents/publications/2016/04/14/declaration-of-
amsterdam/2016-04-08-declaration-of-amsterdam-final-format-
3.pdf
Faisal A, Yigitcanlar T, Kamruzzaman M, Currie G (2019) Under-
standing autonomous vehicles: a systematic literature re-view on
capability, impact, planning and policy. J Transp Land Use
12:45–72
Fagnant DJ, Kockelman K (2015) Preparing a nation for autonomous
vehicles: opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations.
Transport Res Part A Policy Pract 77:167–181
Fleetwood J (2017) Public health, ethics, and autonomous vehicles.
Am J Public Health 107(4):532–537
Freemark Y, Hudson A, Zhao J (2019) Are cities prepared for
autonomous vehicles? Planning for technological change by US
local governments. J Am Plann Assoc 85(2):133–151
Geistfeld MA (2017) A roadmap for autonomous vehicles: State tort
liability, automobile insurance, and federal safety regulation.
Calif L Rev 105:1611
Genziuk S (2015) Don’t blame me—blame the car. J the Aust N Zeal
Inst Insur Financ 38(2):1–3
Gurney J (2016) Imputing driverhood: applying a reasonable driver
standard to accidents caused by autonomous vehicles. Forth-
coming, Robot Ethics, 2
Gurney JK (2013) Sue my car not me: Products liability and accidents
involving autonomous vehicles. U. Ill. JL Tech. & Pol’y, 247
Hamidi S, Ewing R, Preuss I, Dodds A (2015) Measuring sprawl and
its impacts: an update. J Plan Educ Res 35(1):35–50
Hawkins A (2018) Uber Self-Driving car saw pedestrian but didn’t
brake before fatal crash, feds say. The Verge. May 24th, 2018.
Accessed February 7th, 2018. https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/
24/17388696/uber-self-driving-crash-ntsb-report
HC143 (2017) Vehicle technology and aviation bill HC Bill 143.
Hevelke A, Nida-Rümelin J (2015) Responsibility for crashes of
autonomous vehicles: an ethical analysis. Sci Eng Ethics
21(3):619–630
James AT, Gandhi OP, Deshmukh SG (2018) Fault diagnosis of
automobile systems using fault tree based on digraph modeling.
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 9(2):494–508
Japan Bullet (2017) New guidelines to allow driverless vehicle tests
on public roads. x: Japan Bullet
JDSUPRA (2017) Germany permits automated vehicles. Available at:
https://www.whitecase.com/publications/article/germany-per
mits-automated-vehicles
Jiji (2017) Japan sets approval criteria for driverless vehicle road
tests. The Japan Times
Johnson MP (2001) Environmental impacts of urban sprawl: a survey
of the literature and proposed research agenda. Environ Plann A
33(4):717–735
Kalra N, Paddock SM (2016) Driving to safety: How many miles of
driving would it take to demonstrate autonomous vehicle
reliability? Transport Res Part A Policy Pract 94:182–193
Kang N, Feinberg FM, Papalambros PY (2017) Autonomous electric
vehicle sharing system design. J Mech Design 139(1)
Kerr D (2018) Are driverless cars safe? Uber fatality raises questions.
C|Net. March, 21st, 2018. Accessed February 3rd, 2019. https://
www.cnet.com/news/uber-self-driving-car-fatality-in-arizona-
has-people-asking-how-safe-are-driverless-cars/
Ki M (2015) Driver at the wheel? Self-driving vehicles and the traffic
and transport system of the future. Ministry of Infrastructure and
the Environment, Hague
Kirkpatrick K (2013) Legal issues with robots
123
1248
Kohn LT, Corrigan J, Donaldson MS (2000) To err is human:
building a safer health system, vol 6. National academy press,
Washington
Koopman P, Wagner M (2016) Challenges in autonomous vehicle
testing and validation. SAE Int J Transport Saf 4(1):15–24
Krisher T (2018) Uber Self-driving SUV saw pedestrian but did not
brake, federal report finds. Chicago Tribune. May 24th, 2018.
Accessed February 7th, 2019. https://www.chicagotribune.com/
business/ct-biz-uber-self-driving-uber-car-report-20180524-
story.html
Kyriakidis M, Happee R, Winter JC (2015) Public opinion on
automated driving: results of an international questionnaire
among 5000 respondents transport. Res Part F Traffic Psychol
Behav 32(2015):127–140
Lam RW, Kennedy SH (2005) Using metaanalysis to evaluate
evidence: practical tips and traps. Can J Psychiat 50:167–174
Laris M (2018) Self-driving uber did not have emergency braking
turned on when it hit pedestrian, NTSB says. The Washington
Post. May 24th, 2018. Accessed January 14th, 2019. https://
www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2018/05/24/
ntsb-self-driving-uber-did-not-have-emergency-braking-turned-
on/?
Lederman J, Garrett M, Taylor BD (2016) Fault-y reasoning:
navigating the liability terrain in intelligent transportation
systems. Public Works Manag Policy 21(1):5–27
Lohmann M (2016) Liability issues concerning self-driving vehicles.
Eur J Risk Regul 7(2):335–340
Madadi B, van Nes R, Snelder M, van Arem B (2020) A bi-level
model to optimize road networks for a mixture of manual and
automated driving: an evolutionary local search algorithm.
Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 35(1):80–96
Mallett R, Hagen-Zanker J, Duvendack M, Slater R (2012) The
benefits and challenges of using systematic reviews in interna-
tional development research. J Dev Effect 4(3):445–455
Marçal R, Braga R, Antonialli F, Cavazza BH, Sugano JY, Castro C,
Nicolaı̈ I (2017) The quintuple helix model and the future of
mobility: the case of autonomous vehicles. In: 25th International
Colloquium of Gerpisa-R/Evolutions. New Technologies and
Services in the Automotive Industry, June, Paris, France
Marchant GE, Lindor RA (2012) The coming collision between
autonomous vehicles and the liability system. Santa Clara L Rev
52:1321
Marsden G, Reardon L (2017) Questions of governance: rethinking
the study of transportation policy. Transport Res Part A Policy
Pract 101:238–251
McChristian L, Corbett R (2016) Regulatory issues related to
autonomous vehicles. J Insur Regul 35(7)
Merat N, Jamson AH, Lai FC, Daly M, Carsten OM (2014) Transition
to manual: driver behaviour when resuming control from a
highly automated vehicle. Transport Res Part F 27:274–282
Mladenovic MN, McPherson T (2016) Engineering social justice into
traffic control for self-driving vehicles? Sci Eng Ethics
22(4):1131–1149
MOT (2017) Opening speech by second minister for transport Ng
Chee Meng for the road traffic (amendment) bill second reading.
Ministry of Transport, Singapore
National Conference of State Legislatures (2016) Autonomous self-
driving vehicles legislation. https://www.ncsl.org/research/trans
portation/autonomous-vehicles-legislation.aspx. Accessed 02
Nov 2016
National Transportation Safety Board (2018a) Preliminary report
highway HWI18FH011. National Transportation Safety Board,
1–4. March 23rd, 2018. Accessed January 28th, 2019. https://
ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/
HWY18FH011-preliminary.pdf
123
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (December 2020) 11(6):1227–1249
National Transportation Safety Board (2018b) Preliminary Report
Highway: HWY18MH010’’. May 24th, 2018. Accessed January
23rd, 2019. https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/accidentreports/
pages/hwy18mh010-prelim.aspx
National Transportation Safety Board (2018c) Preliminary Report
Highway: HWY18FH0111. June 7th, 2018. Accessed January
23rd, 2019. https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/pages/
nr20180607.aspx
National Transportation Safety Board (2017) Driver errors, overre-
liance on automation, lack of safeguards, led to fatal tesla crash.
September 12, 2017. Accessed January 25th, 2019. https://www.
ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/PR20170912.aspx
NHTSA (2017) Automated Driving Systems 2.0 a vision for safety,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Depart-
ment of Transportation
Nikitas A, Njoya ET, Dani S (2019) Examining the myths of
connected and autonomous vehicles: analysing the pathway to a
driverless mobility paradigm. Int J Automot Technol Manage
19(1–2):10–30
Nikkei (2018) Japan eyes black boxes for automated vehicles. Nikkei
Asian Rev
Niles J (2019) Full potential of future robotaxis achievable with trip-
based subsidies and fees applied to the for-hire vehicles of today.
Mineta Transportation Institute Publications
NTC (2017) Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science
and Resources’ Inquiry into the Social Issues Relating to Land-
Based Driverless Vehicles in Australia. Available at: https://
www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=10e60133-f61e-44e5-
9365-2d2928b3a129&subId=509089
Patti FP (2019) The European road to autonomous vehicles. Fordham
Int’l LJ 43:125
Pendleton SD, Andersen H, Du X, Shen X, Meghjani M, Eng YH,
Ang MH (2017) Perception, planning, control, and coordination
for autonomous vehicles. Machines 5:6
Perc M, Ozer M, Hojnik J (2019) Social and juristic challenges of
artificial intelligence. Palgrave Commun 5(1):1–7
Porter L, Stone J, Legacy C, Curtis C, Harris J, Fishman E, Stilgoe J
(2018) The autonomous vehicle revolution: implications for
planning/the driverless city?/Autonomous vehicles–a planner’s
response/autonomous vehicles: opportunities, challenges and the
need for government action/three signs autonomous vehicles will
not lead to less car ownership and less car use in car dependent
cities–a case study of Sydney, Australia/Planning for Autono-
mous Vehicles? Questions of purpose, place and pace/ensuring
good governance: the role of planners in the development of
autonomous vehicles. Plann Theory Pract 19(5):753–778
Pourgol-Mohammad M, Hejazi A, Soleimani M, Ghasemi P, Ahmadi
A, Jalali-Vahid D (2017) Design for reliability of automotive
systems; case study of dry friction clutch. Int J Syst Assur Eng
Manag 8(3):572–583
Powell JP, Fraszczyk A, Cheong CN, Yeung HK (2016) Potential
benefits and obstacles of implementing driverless train operation
on the Tyne and Wear Metro: a simulation exercise. Urban Rail
Transit 2(3–4):114–127
Ramirez E (2017) How South Korea plans to put driverless cars on
the road by 2020. Forbes.
Riehl DA (2018) Car minus driver: autonomous vehicles driving
regulation, liability, and policy. Comput Internet Lawyer
35(5):1–18
Ross PE (2014) Robot, you can drive my car; autonomous driving
will push humans into the passenger seat. IEEE Spectr
51(6):60–90
Ryan C (2017) Driverless cars: preparing for the impact on the
automobile insurance industry
SAE On-Road Automated Vehicle Standards Committee (2018)
Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (December 2020) 11(6):1227–1249
automation systems for on-road motor vehicles. SAE Interna-
tional, Warrendale
Schellekens M (2015) Self-driving cars and the chilling effect of
liability law. Comput Law Secur Rev 31(4):506–517
Schoitsch E (2016) Autonomous vehicles and automated driving
status, perspectives and societal impact. Information technology,
society and economy strategic cross-influences (IDIMT-2016).
24th Interdisciplinary Information Management Talks, 45(1):
405–424.
Schreurs MA, Steuwer SD (2015) Autonomous driving-political,
legal, social, and sustainability dimensions. In: Autonomes
Fahren. Springer Vieweg, Berlin, pp. 151–173
Selbst AD (2019) Negligence and AI’s human users. Boston
University Law Review, Forthcoming.
Shladover SE (2018) Connected and automated vehicle systems.
J Intell Transport Syst 22:190–200
Shaheen SA, Mallery MA, Kingsley KJ (2012) Personal vehicle
sharing services in North America. Res Transport Bus Manag
3:71–81
Shavell S (2019) On the redesign of accident liability for the world of
autonomous vehicles (No. w26220). National Bureau of Eco-
nomic Research
Singh S (2015) Critical reasons for crashes investigated in the
national motor vehicle crash causation survey (No. DOT HS 812
115)
Smith BW (2016) Automated driving and product liability’. Detroit
College Law Michigan State Univ Law Rev 1:1
Soo Y (2018) Utah driver who slammed her Tesla into a fire truck
sues the carmaker over Autopilot feature. ABC News, September
6th, 2018. Accessed January 31st, 2019. https://abcnews.go.com/
beta-story-container/Technology/utah-driver-slammed-tesla-fire
truck-sues-carmaker-autopilot/story
Sparrow R, Howard M (2017) When human beings are like drunk
robots: driverless vehicles, ethics, and the future of transport.
Transport Res Part C Emerg Technol 80:206–215
State of California (2020) Report of traffic collison involving an
autonomous vehicle (OL 316). State of California, Department
of Motor Vehicles. Accessed January 31st, 2020. https://www.
dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/autonomousveh_
ol316?
Stocker A, Shaheen S (2017) Shared automated vehicles: review of
business models. International Transport Forum Discussion
Paper
1249
Stone T, de Sio FS, Vermaas PE (2020) Driving in the dark: designing
autonomous vehicles for reducing light pollution. Sci Eng Ethics
26(1):387–403
Sun Y, Olaru D, Smith B, Greaves S, Collins A (2016) Road to
autonomous vehicles in Australia: a comparative literature
review. In: Australasian transport research forum, pp. 16–18
Suresh P, Manivannan PV (2014) Reduction of vehicular pollution
through fuel economy improvement with the use of autonomous
self-driving passenger cars. J Environ Res Dev 8(3A):705
Taeihagh A, Lim HSM (2018) Governing autonomous vehicles:
emerging responses for safety, liability, privacy, cybersecurity,
and industry risks. Transp Rev 39(1):103–128
Tien JM (2017) The Sputnik of servgoods: autonomous vehicles.
J Syst Sci Syst Eng 26(2):133–162
UNECE (2012) Design principles for control systems of ADAS.
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2011/wp29/
ITS-19-07e.pdf
Urmson C (2016) Google self-driving car project, paper presented at
the South by 31 Southwest (SXSW) 2016. Austin, Texas
Urooj S, Feroz I, Ahmad N (2018) Systematic literature review on
user interfaces of autonomous cars: liabilities and responsibil-
ities. In: 2018 International Conference on Advancements in
Computational Sciences (ICACS) (pp. 1–10). IEEE
Vleugel JM, Bal F (2018) More space and improved living conditions
in cities with autonomous vehicles. Int J Des Nat Ecodyn
12(4):505–515
Wacket M, Escritt T, Davis T (2017) Germany adopts self-driving
vehicles law. Reuters.
Walpert JD (2016) Carpooling liability: applying tort law principles
to the joint emergence of self-driving automobiles and trans-
portation network companies. Fordham L Rev 85:1863
Webb KC (2016) Products liability and autonomous vehicles: who’s
driving whom. Rich JL & Tech 23:1
West DM (2016) Moving forward: self-driving vehicles in China,
Europe, Japan, Korea, and the United States. Washington, DC,
USA, Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings
Woods, J. B. (2019). Autonomous Vehicles and Police De-Escalation.
Zakharenko R (2016) Self-driving cars will change cities. Region Sci
Urban Econ 61:26–37
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
123