Human Liability in Semi-Autonomous Vehicles

The promise of fully autonomous vehicles has faced repeated delays, with widespread availability now projected to be limited to specific routes or geographic areas in the near future. Instead, conditional or semi-autonomous systems (SAE Level 3) are being introduced, where the vehicle can drive autonomously under limited conditions but still requires a human driver to take control when necessary. This paper examines the regulatory and liability challenges posed by these semi-autonomous vehicles. Existing laws have gaps in addressing the ambiguous responsibility of the human driver in the shared control environment of Level 3 autonomy. Factors like fatigue, lack of situational information, and over-reliance on the autonomous system diminish a human driver’s ability to intervene effectively. Current negligence and product liability tort doctrines struggle to allocate liability in semi-autonomous scenarios due to issues of foreseeability, the unpredictability of AI decision-making, and shared human-machine control. No-fault insurance schemes also face hurdles in determining coverage and premiums for semi-autonomous risks. To address these gaps, this paper proposes defining a new legal “supervisor” role for human drivers of semi-autonomous vehicles, with liability dependent on providing adequate alerts and road/system status data from the autonomous driving system. Delineating human and machine responsibilities through regulation can align legal frameworks with the realities of human-AI interaction, while simultaneously promoting the benefits of vehicle autonomy technology

KANDIAH v. SMITH

Landlord sought to evict the tenant on a month-to-month basis, claiming the unit was not rent-stabilized. Tenant moved to dismiss, providing DHCR records proving rent stabilization. The landlord failed to address this in opposition and even submitted a 2009 rent-stabilized lease. The court dismissed the case under RPAPL 741 for failure to state accurate facts, emphasizing that predicate notices cannot be amended

Evans v. Nfojoh

The landlord commenced a no-grounds holdover proceeding against the tenant after the expiration of the lease. The tenant moved to dismiss based on ambiguous language in the 90-day termination notice, arguing it was contradictory. The court denied the motion to dismiss, granted the landlord’s motion for summary judgment, and awarded a judgment of possession. The tenant\u27s retaliatory eviction defense was rejected as the tenant had not made any formal complaints to a government agency

1334 B LLC. v. PRITCHARD

In this holdover proceeding, the landlord erroneously alleged that the tenant, a rent-stabilized tenant, was a licensee. After sanctions were imposed against landlord\u27s counsel, the landlord moved to discontinue the proceeding. The court granted the motion but also issued an Order to Correct outstanding housing code violations and permitted the tenant to amend their answer to include counterclaims, a significant victory for the tenant given the initial flawed legal position of the landlord

West 144 Cluster LLC v. Victorino

In this nonpayment case, the tenant\u27s motion to dismiss based on defective service was denied. The court found the tenant waived the defense by not raising it in the original answer and rejected the motion to amend to include the defense. Additionally, the tenant\u27s summary judgment motion based on a laches defense was denied for lack of sufficient proof of unreasonable delay or prejudice. The tenant\u27s motion to amend the answer to add other defenses was granted except for the personal jurisdiction defense, which was stricken