quote:Originally posted by winetarelli:quote:Originally posted by PurpleHaze:quote:Originally posted by jburman82:
According to reports she was crossing not at a crosswalk. If that's true, she will be found at fault.
I'll defer to the lawyers on this, but if a human driver hit a pedestrian who was not in a crosswalk, I'm pretty certain that this wouldn't absolve him of responsibility if he could have avoided the pedestrian.
It depends upon the laws of the state; but if it is a self-driving car in self-driving mode and there is no indication of malice, it is difficult to see a path towards criminal court. The facts of the case may also spare a civil trial, but not being in the crosswalk definitely would not be enough information to say without gathering other information.
Winetarelli is correct that the laws of different states are different. Arizona (I think this is where this took place) is a comparative fault jurisdiction. Thus, if the case went to a civil jury, the jury would be asked to determine what percentage responsibility the pedestrian had vs. what percentage responsibility the vehicle operator had (if it had an operator).
Then, there are two kinds of comparative fault states, and I don't know what Arizona is.
Depending on the factual finding, the pedestrian might recover and might not.
Suppose the vehicle was only 3 feet away when the pedestrian leapt out in front of it, and the vehicle was going 30 miles per hour. You can't stop instantly. At 30 miles per hour, you are going 44 feet per second. But, suppose the pedestrian walked out into the street and stood in the middle of the lane facing the oncoming car, and got there when the car was 500 feet away. Well, one would think the car would stop, whether operated by a human or a computer.
one thing I've learned in my 40 years as a lawyer. The facts of the cases are often important.