A lawsuit has been filed against General Motors by a California motorcyclist who is accusing one of the company's robot-operated vehicles of "negligent driving." Last month, Oscar Willhelm Nilsson was traveling on a San Francisco street when a Cruise AV botched a lane change and swerved into his lane. According to the lawsuit, Nilsson was knocked to ground in the crash and has since been unable to work.At the time of the crash, the Cruise AV was operating in self-driving mode, although another driver was sitting in the front of the vehicle with his hands off the wheel. However, a San Francisco Police Department report places blame for the accident on Nilsson because he allegedly tried to pass the vehicle before it was safe to do so.Nilsson's lawsuit is one of the first to involve an autonomous vehicle and has raised many questions about responsibility and restitution for this type of accident. Experts are already warning that there will likely be many more accidents involving robot-operated cars, despite claims from manufacturers that self-driving vehicles will dramatically reduce traffic accidents and motor vehicle fatalities.The California Department of Motor Vehicles already lists 54 autonomous vehicle accident reports dating back to 2014. Just last week, two Teslas were involved in separate crashes in California. The two drivers claimed that their vehicles were on autopilot, a feature that gives the vehicles semi-autonomy but still requires the driver to be responsible for the car. According to one federal report, a Model S driver was killed in an accident in 2016 after ignoring numerous warnings from inside his Tesla.However, experts say that future wrecks involving automated vehicles could see manufacturer responsibility increase. As Bryant Walker Smith, a law professor at the University of South Carolina says, "When crashes occur it's much less likely that there'll be a human to blame in a lot of instances and it'll be much more likely that it can be argued that the automated system can do better."According to Smith, investigators will likely determine fault in these cases by asking how humans would have performed in a similar circumstance and whether the automated system performed in a similar or comparable capacity. Smith notes, "Investigations will increasingly turn on digital data stored locally or remotely - from the vehicles involved, other vehicles, personal devices, and surrounding infrastructure. Sometimes these data will provide certainty [allowing investigators to "replay" a crash] and sometimes they will actually introduce new uncertainty."General Motors has since disputed Nilsson's account of the crash. According to a report they filed with the California DMV, "As the Cruise AV was re-centering itself in the lane, a motorcycle that had just lane-split between two vehicles in the center and right lanes moved into the center lane, glanced the side of the Cruise AV, wobbled and fell over." GM's report specifically mentions that the Cruise AV was traveling with the flow of traffic at 12 mph and the motorcycle was traveling at approximately 17 mph.Nilsson's is seeking unspecified damages, as well as the cost of attorney's fees and punitive damages. Nilsson's lawyer, Sergei Lemberg, says that the police report actually supports his client's claim. According to him, the police report states that the AV driver saw Nilsson before the crash but didn't have enough time to control the wheel and swerve.Referring to GM's side of the story, Nilsson's lawyer claims, "As far as the technology is concerned, I'm troubled that GM shifted the blame to my client. The maneuver by the autonomous car was unpredictable and dangerous."Have you or a loved one recently been involved in a car accident? Contact our Orlando team of accident attorneys to schedule a free consultation today.
