Skip to main content

The Implications of Automated Trucking

In 1903, an adventurous pair of young men set out from San Francisco to New York City in a used Winton automobile, powered by a 20 horsepower, two-cylinder engine. A little over two months later, having traveled primarily on dirt trails through regions of the country where filling stations and repair facilities were virtually non-existent,  Horatio Jackson and Seward Crocker arrived in New York City.

112 years later,  a vehicle engineered by U.K. - based Delphi Automotive, traveled from San Francisco to New York City – a total of  3400 miles on modern interstate freeways – in nine days. Normally, there would not be anything remarkable about this, except for the fact that it took so long; normally, the San Francisco – NYC run can be accomplished in about 5 days.

What is remarkable is that 99% of the trip was automated. The vehicle virtually drove itself, navigating through heavy traffic, careless drivers, road construction, bridges and tunnels and a range of weather. According to CTO Jeff Owens, the entire journey came off without a hitch. He told the media that the vehicle “performed remarkably well during this drive, exceeding our expectations.” Features  such radar and camera systems, GPS, collision avoidance and lane drift alerts are already available on most new vehicles. However, this is the first time such technology has been put to this kind of test.

In a recent letter to the editor of the Times of Trenton (New Jersey), one reader speculated on the implications for the long-haul trucking industry. The author of the letter points out – quite accurately – that “driver fatigue leads to many accidents, partly because, in order to make money, the driver has to be on the road many hours.” Recent shenanigans in Congress on behalf of Corporate America – which demonstrate time and again that worker and public health and safety is not a concern – indicate that this state of affairs is not likely to improve.

Human operators will still be necessary to keep an eye on automated systems and take control in the event of a system failure as well as navigating through terminals and loading docks. Nonetheless, it appears that  Delphi's recent automated cross-country automobile trip holds great promise for future safety and avoiding accidents due to driver fatigue or distraction.  If the past few weeks are any indication, the implementation of automated technology cannot come too soon. Recently, there has been a significant increase in the number of trucking accidents; March was a bad month for trucking and highway safety. Automation may also mitigate the effects of higher insurance requirements that have been proposed recently, which, if implemented, would raise premiums by as much 25% - with the burden falling heavily on small firms and independent operators.

As hopeful as the new automated technology may seem, it also brings up the issue of liability. No technology is perfect; while automated long-haul trucking may go a long way in reducing the number of truck-related injuries and fatalities, it will not eliminate them altogether. When these accidents occur, who will be held responsible?

Since such cases have yet to come up, it's difficult to know.  There are some precedents that may guide future court decisions, however. For example, the Ohio Supreme Court recently ruled that equipment failure at a manufacturing plant was insufficient to prove an employer's “deliberate intent” to cause injury to a worker.  In this particular case (Pixley v. Pro-Pak Industries,Inc.), inspectors of the Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OHSA) examined and tested the equipment alleged to have caused the plaintiff's injury. They determined that it had been well-maintained and was working properly.

On the other hand, in a lawsuit involving construction accident resulting in the death of a backhoe operator, it was found that warning and instructional signs that had been placed in the machine had been removed. The dealer in this case was ordered to pay the family of the deceased $1.2 million. Similarly, a property management company was found liable when gym equipment malfunctioned due to poor maintenance, injuring the user.

These precedents indicate that, as long as the owner/operator of an automated, self-driving truck has taken every step to insure that all equipment is working properly, made certain regular maintenance (such as software and hardware upgrades) is performed regularly and on schedule, and the equipment was monitored as necessary, there would be limited – if any – liability on that score. If the equipment itself contained defects (such as a software bug), and the manufacturer failed to warn the trucking company, that manufacturer could be held liable.

Litigation in these matters is highly complex, and in the case of trucking accidents involving automated, self-driving vehicles, little will be known until such a case comes before a judge and jury. In the meantime, if you or a loved one has suffered injury in an accident, contact one of our experienced trucking accidents attorneys for a free, no-obligation case evaluation.

For more information regarding the law of Trucking Accidents, visit our dedicated web page. Levin Papantonio Trucking Accidents.

Customize This