Uber didn’t focus its attention on products liability… they were all about innovation first.

Should we ride in a self-driving Uber or perhaps wait for some human hands on the steering wheel?

Maybe we should be asking, is Uber’s autonomous vehicle technology sufficiently flawless for safe road use?  

An unmanned Uber entered a yellow light and struck a Honda CR-V last spring in Arizona. Six months later, a Californian rear-ended a self-driving Uber at a stoplight, and a Nissan in Pittsburg visited Mr. Repairman after colliding with an autonomous Uber SUV, only a few weeks after the California accident.

Uber suspended its unmanned driver program after each car crash to determine if its autonomous computer software contained flaws. So far, the company affirms nothing.

On the flip side, San Franciscans noticed Uber’s unmanned vehicles committing petty traffic offenses throughout the city. That’s not all. Public records documented Ubers running red lights in the Bay Area due to mapping problems in autonomous operating software.

New Waves in Transportation Personal Injury Lawsuits

Products liability simplifies autonomous car accident claims.

Whether Uber’s unmanned automobile technology is flawless enough to deal with complex driving scenarios may be questioned for triers of fact to determine in courtrooms.

But consider for a second… which is easier to do: proving duty, breach causation and damages or showing the product was defective and damages resulted?

Lawyers know products liability and personal injury legal issues overlap. Why don’t we just simplify these claims?

An unmanned Uber’s defective mapping software causes serious injury to a person after running a red light. If we adopt the legal doctrine of strict liability, our arguments will affirm:

  • Uber’s software company used substandard components and workmanship in its mapping system’s hardware and architecture.
  • The car’s navigating defect places an inherently dangerous product into the marketplace, which makes Uber’s autonomous vehicles defective.
  • Uber’s non-obvious software flaw further places consumers at dangerous risk without warning.

Disentangle Negligent Causation Arguments

Proving proximate causation in negligence personal injury lawsuits for autonomous vehicles is problematical.

Companies like Uber load their automobiles with cameras and recording devices to document evidence that can prove non-foreseeable causes intervened.

This technology will most surely replace human testimony and police traffic investigation for determining causation.

Smart attorneys evade causation defense contentions by simply asserting the Uber vehicle was unsafe by design.

More Time To File Complaints 

Statutes of limitations on products liability claims are longer than ones covering personal injury.

Imagine this. An accident victim feels fine after an Uber unmanned vehicle runs a red light and strikes her. Four years pass, and doctors discover the mishap produced a slight vertebrae fracture that aggravated and worsened over time. Now, she requires expensive surgery.

Accident victims who file negligence claims generally must do so within one to two years.

Now, if litigants file their cause of action under products liability theory, the courts may grant a six-to-twelve year filing period from the time unmanned cars like Uber reached the marketplace.

Two Lawyers are Better Than One

Advocates can partner up on autonomous vehicle products liability claims instead of flying solo.

One is a lonely number sometimes. Suppose a products liability case covering a defective unmanned Uber drops on your lap. You know this major lawsuit can refine your professional image tenfold.  

But you’re a young organization, and you realize the case will put pressure on your resources. Worse off, you learn that the largest law firm in the nation handles all of Uber’s legal issues.

Sound like a David vs. Goliath pomp? Collaborating with law firms identical to Sanders Phillips Grossman, which lead in litigating autonomous auto products liability claims, maybe the death stone that can bring down companies like Uber.

Products liability authorities carry the commanding knowledge required for winning strict liability lawsuits.

Let’s glance at how these specialists tackle products liability complaints against the autonomous automobile industry:

Win Cases by Understanding Liability Issues

Knowledge is the key.

Sanders Phillips Grossman knows where to find unmanned automobile design defects.

Did Uber’s software provider issue mapping updates? Where is Uber’s automated accident log published?

An experienced strict liability specialist has critical eyes when collecting and discovering evidence to prove self-driving vehicles were flawed and dangerous after a collision.

Force Companies to Contest Defect Claims

Sanders Phillips Grossman sets the burden on autonomous vehicle companies to prove their automobiles are safe.

The unmanned Uber ran a red light, and that “speaks for itself.”  This imputes of manufacturing negligence supports more efficient recovery for driverless car accident victims in situations where typical personal injury claims cannot reach. 

Make Ready for “Not Unreasonably Dangerous” Defenses

Companies can constantly improve their self-driving automobile software.

Technology evolves; period! Say Uber tries to claim that no software update or new technology would have made its unmanned vehicle safer. Ergo, marked autonomous Uber cars are not unreasonably unsafe.

Baloney! Pedestrians, passengers or drivers should never have to mitigate risk while dealing with self-driving products because making informed decisions on use becomes impractical; technology flaws in unmanned vehicle navigation are well hidden and hardly evident.

If carmakers claim their self-driving vehicles are unavoidably unsafe, they must back up this contention by showing they offered the public proper warnings on the uncertainties and risks linked to autonomous automobiles accidents. Until now, these disclosures have never happened.

Assemble Brilliant Teams To Win Big

Substantive legal issues in products liability cases require legal authority.

Sanders Phillips Grossman leads in strict liability litigation, and its legal team tackles products liability questions every day.

For example, SPG’s IT investigators gather technical evidence and study navigation technology.

Paralegals help in answering the downpour of motions and discovery disputes huge corporations like Uber file.

Uber may further refuse mediation or may use tough negotiation approaches. SPG’s partners set up a rapport with defendants as well get parties talking to each other to make settlements happen.

Shift in Litigation on the Horizon

Self-driving cars will radically change transportation personal injury claims as we know it.

That’s why solo or small personal injury practices may find rising autonomous auto injury lawsuits too complex to work alone.

Remember, unmanned vehicle computers are constantly alert, never consume alcohol, and take prompt action when confronting snow, rain or fog.

We can expect less human failure on the road and more defective product flaws in driverless vehicle hardware or software in the future.

Not only that, technology itself carries imperfections. Anyone with a computer can tell you that software crashes; computers find viruses, and systems get hacked.

The advocates at Sanders Phillips Grossman excel in litigating autonomous car products liability claims.

They possess factual knowledge of state and federal statutes that regulate unmanned vehicle technology and are properly positioned to team up with other lawyers to support them in winning lawsuits.