自駕車肇致人身損害之賠償責任

Abstract

近年來，自駕車發展熱絡。然而，隨著多起車禍造成之安全性疑慮，法律責任之釐清漸受關注。自駕車訓練與使用階段之黑盒子，造成之不可控與不可預見性，乃其風險分配議題之特殊性所在。本文區分民事責任法下，客觀與主觀歸責要件，探討不同主體間，適用規範之可能挑戰。 客觀歸責要件層面，人身損害結果推定之違法性，不因人工智慧之固有風險被阻卻。電車難題中，若使用者將決策權交予自駕系統，即涉及系統設計者之義務衝突。商品責任方面，關於當時科技或專業水準、合理期待、企業經營者指示義務、消費者合理使用等安全性欠缺之判斷因子，應依不同自駕性能等級，而異其具體內涵。此外，企業經營者之後續義務，於攸關人身安全之自駕車領域中，亦顯重要。 主觀歸責要件層面，過失責任下，過失推定之設計與消保法無過失責任，將成為商品製造人責任中，被害人救濟之關鍵；自駕車使用者與遠距駕駛主體，則基於對車輛之抽象監控權限，而有成為過失侵權責任主體之可能。無過失責任方面，以運送契約為例，人工智慧之特殊性，應不得為不可抗力之免責事由。 綜上，除民事實體法之相關要件解釋外，透過與其他法領域之協力，應得共同維護自駕車時代下，合理之風險分配與正義。

The development of autonomous vehicles has really taken off in recent years. However, with several accidents raising safety concerns, there has been growing attention to clarification about legal liability and compensation for personal injuries. The existence of 'black box' in AI products brings out unique issues of autonomous vehicles when it comes to risk allocation. Regarding elements of objective accountability, with illegality presumed under circumstances of personal damage, legal justification will be a main focus, concretized in ‘the trolley problem’. In terms of product liability, the determining factors of ‘defect’ under Consumer Protection Law, including the state-of-the-art, reasonable expectations, adequate instructions and warnings, and reasonable use, have their various content based on the level of automation. Post-sales obligations of manufacturers are crucial as well in the field. In the aspect of elements of subjective accountability, the presumption of negligence is critical for compensation in the relation between the manufactures and the victims. As for the users and the remote drivers, their capability of intervening in driving tasks may give rise to potential claims of negligence. Lastly, the characteristic of AI should not be classified as a force majeure. In conclusion, together with interpretation of relevant elements within civil law, collaborative effort with other areas of law should ensure reasonable risk allocation and justice in the age of autonomous vehicles.