Closed gaites closed 7 years ago
We also need to clarify what counts as "interference" which would sever the liability shift, specify that the type of "interference" means the owner or user of the car has tampered with the software or hardware of the AV apparatus in such a way that it no longer performed as the manufacturer designed.
We also need to change the "Prior to commencing suit" so that the procedural mechanism allows for the party who did NOT own/use the AV can also raise that issue after adequate discovery (just in case and for fairness).
technical edits: "Party to the suit and assum[es] any liabilit[y]..." "require the moving [ ] party to show..."
Michigan Liabiliy This liability section leaves it substantially unclear what happens when there's a software defect. At the very least I'm concerned that it doesn't give clear guidance to the judiciary.
Changes made under aeb67d600f89291c04e192426b7e8729c5404776
The rebuttable presumption creates a good burden shifting strategy. We need to think through the different scenarios and create a more comprehensive mechanism for covering unanticipated scenarios.