Arizona Prosecutor Says Uber Not Criminally Liable In Fatal Self-Driving Crash (reuters.com)

Uber is not criminally liable in a March 2018 crash in Tempe, Arizona, in which one of the company's self-driving cars struck and killed a pedestrian, prosecutors said on Tuesday. "The Yavapai County Attorney said in a letter made public that there was 'no basis for criminal liability' for Uber, but that the back-up driver, Rafaela Vasquez, should be referred to the Tempe police for additional investigation," reports Reuters. From the report: Vasquez, the Uber back-up driver, could face charges of vehicular manslaughter, according to a police report in June. Vasquez has not previously commented and could not immediately be reached on Tuesday. Based on a video taken inside the car, records collected from online entertainment streaming service Hulu and other evidence, police said last year that Vasquez was looking down and streaming an episode of the television show "The Voice" on a phone until about the time of the crash. The driver looked up a half-second before hitting Elaine Herzberg, 49, who died from her injuries. Police called the incident "entirely avoidable."

Yavapai County Attorney's Office, which examined the case at the request of Maricopa County where the accident occurred, did not explain the reasoning for not finding criminal liability against Uber. Yavapai sent the case back to Maricopa, calling for further expert analysis of the video to determine what the driver should have seen that night. The National Transportation Safety Board and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are still investigating.

Comments

Corporate Collectivism

[nickmalthus]

Arizona wants Uber investment dollars so they would gladly scape goat an Uber employee while giving the company a mulligan. Reminds me of the Arab Bank Supreme Court decision last year where the court dismissed a lawsuit against a foreign company that funded terrorism because the precedent would be bad for business. The legal partiality for the corporate person over the individual is becoming more and more apparent.

Scapegoat?

[virtig01]

Human drivers are liable for breaking traffic laws when using company-owned vehicles. This isn't new. Just because this vehicle was testing autonomous driving doesn't mean the human sitting inside is exempt from liability. She had one job while sitting in that car, and it wasn't watching videos on her phone.

Secondly, it was found that Uber isn't criminally liable; they could still be hit with a civil suit.

airline pilot's errors do not have Criminal procee

[Joe_Dragon]

airline pilot's errors do not have Criminal proceedings most of the time. So sticking this on a under trained backup driver with poor systems in place + really bad video that looks like was made to make uber look good is very bad.

Re: Guess who's getting a big contribution

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen the video, she crossed multiple Lanes of traffic in a predictable way before being creamed by a driver not paying attention in a car with auto braking disabled.

The area itself wasn't very dark either.

Liabilty

[stealth_finger]

You programmed it, you built it, you set it up, you put it on the roads. Not your fault though.

Re:back-up driver needs to get source code and log

[stealth_finger]

if they try any of the NDA / EULA BS then YOU MUST ACQUIT!

But what if Chewbacca lives on Endor?

Re:Very convenient for Uber

[AmiMoJo]

Uber's liability stems from not monitoring their test drivers. It's unlikely that this was the first time she wasn't paying attention, and they have a camera pointed at her but apparently no-one was bothering to review it.

They could even use a hands-on-wheel detection or gaze detection system like level 2 cars do.

Re: airline pilot's errors do not have Criminal pr

[c6gunner]

When airline pilots make an error worth prosecuting, there is generally not enough left of them to identify, let alone prosecute.

Also there is a fucking world of difference between "made an error" and "decided to watch a TV show instead of working".