No. SB 1616
Filed under Legal.
Liability of Advanced Driving System Manufacturers and Developers; Defining the term “advanced driving system”; providing a limitation on the liability of a manufacturer or developer of an advanced driving system for certain damages, injuries, claims, or losses; authorizing punitive damages only under certain circumstances, etc.
Plain English Summary
AI-GENERATEDA new law shields the maker of an 'advanced driving system' from nearly all lawsuits over its design, warnings, or performance, unless the injured person proves one of four narrow exceptions by clear and convincing evidence, a higher bar than ordinary lawsuits require.
'Advanced driving system' is defined broadly enough to include today's driver-assist features, not just future self-driving cars: it explicitly covers any SAE Level 2 or higher vehicle system, which includes common lane-centering and adaptive-cruise technology already on the road.
One exception, that the system was operating outside its intended design conditions, is unavailable for Level 1 and 2 systems by the bill's own terms, so a Level 2 driver-assist claim has fewer paths past the shield than a claim against a fully self-driving system.
Punitive damages are barred entirely unless the maker committed fraud or hid a known defect, and even then, showing the design matched the scientific state of the art at the time can block punitive damages outright.
AIA manufacturer or developer of an advanced driving system, or its affiliates, subsidiaries, or employees, cannot be held liable for harm tied to the system's design, warnings, or performance under strict liability, negligence, misrepresentation, warranty, or contract theories.
AIInstead of the ordinary civil standard, a plaintiff can only defeat the immunity by proving one of four narrow exceptions by clear and convincing evidence, a markedly harder standard to meet than a simple preponderance of the evidence.
AIThe definition covers any system that performs driving tasks without human intervention for at least part of its operation, and explicitly includes any vehicle system rated Level 2 or higher under SAE International's J3016 standard, not just fully self-driving vehicles.
AIOne of the four exceptions, that the system was operating outside its intended operational design domain, does not apply at all to Level 1 or 2 systems, leaving fewer ways to overcome the immunity for the driver-assist technology already on the road.
AIPunitive damages against an advanced driving system's manufacturer or developer are permitted only on evidence of fraud or intentional concealment of a known, unreasonably dangerous defect.
AIEven where fraud or concealment might otherwise support punitive damages, a plaintiff cannot recover them if the manufacturer or developer proves its design complied with the scientific and technical state of the art that existed when the system was manufactured.
AIWhere the state's existing product-liability statute at s. 768.1256 conflicts with this new section on advanced driving systems, this new section controls instead.