2nd ICAI 2022

International Conference on Automotive Industry 2022

Mladá Boleslav, Czech Republic

in favor of the risk of development as an exclusion of supplier liability; (2) in favor of supplier liability. Thus, it is still debated whether the unpredictable defect is an illicit act that violates a legal norm. Similar to software bugs, which to some extent are unavoidable, autonomous decisions have an inherent risk that cannot be completely extinguished. In this sense, one cannot “legitimately expect” that they will never cause harm. A self-driving car is naturally expected not to actively cause accidents; what cannot be demanded is that it should be entirely exempt from them. The current law does not make it clear who will be liable for damages caused in the accident of self-driving cars. Would there be an answer if the car was, for example, over the speed limit? Or if the collision was between two autonomous cars? There appears to be, in several cases, a loophole in the law. However, the Consumer Protection Code was designed to recognize the vulnerability of the consumer in addition to ensuring that safe products are available on the market for use. The Consumer Law Code of Brazil, when referring to the prohibition of making products available on the market that in some way may bring risks. Such mandatory safety compliance is further detailed in Chapter, Section I “Health and Safety Protection”. Thus, it is understood that all tests and operational situations to which autonomous systems will be submitted must be foreseen in their algorithms to meet the requirements for placing the product on the market. Article 8 Products and services placed on the consumer market will not pose risks to the health or safety of consumers, except for those considered normal and predictable because of their nature and enjoyment, with suppliers being obliged, in any event, to provide the information necessary and appropriate for you. § 1 In the case of an industrial product, the manufacturer is responsible for providing the information referred to in this article, through appropriate forms that must accompany the product. Thus, to manage the risk inherent to autonomous cars, some authors have advocated, for example, a new type of strict liability based primarily on the notion of “danger creation”. It will be up to the academy and the courts to determine the limits of such a notion of responsibility, as well as the extent to which it would in fact be legally necessary or socially relevant. Finally, it is worth highlighting the study carried out by the department of the Federal Senate that discusses the “Considerations on Autonomous Vehicles – possible economic, urban and legal impacts”: Current legal tools are only partially prepared to face this situation. It is that, according to the theory of custody of the thing, whoever holds the power to direct that thing must answer for the damages resulting from its use. This is a consequence of the theory of risk-created: whoever securitizes an object potentially generating harm to third parties must assume the burden of this risk that it created itself. It follows that, in these cases, it is irrelevant to investigate the existence of fault on the part of the owner of the thing, since liability is objective (Oliveira, C. E. E. and Leal, T. A. C. B., 2016). The duty to ensure safety belongs to all those who help to introduce a product on the market, but there will only be a violation of this duty, giving rise to the responsibility

184