Canada: The Sensor: Legal Insights Into Autonomous Vehicles - August 2018

In litigation, aviation defendants often face an uphill battle in persuasively educating the Judge, Jury and (on occasion) opposing counsel as to how aircraft fly given the complexity of their systems. This battle could be expected to intensify as Artificial Intelligence ("AI") and automation become more fully imbedded within aircraft and UAVs, losses occur and court cases commence. What is expected to continue, however, is the traditional trend of litigating against manufacturers of aviation autonomous technology based on the product liability allegations of negligent design, manufacture and installation. But as the systems become more complex together with their interface with human interaction, questions arise as to whether manufacturers and end users will be targeted following alleged failures in their "duty to warn" and/or "duty to train" on autonomous technology.

Development of Automation in Aviation and Public Perception

Autonomous technology in aviation is not new. The Hewitt-Sperry Automatic Airplane first flew in 1917 and was designed as a pilotless aircraft to deliver explosives during World War I. In 1933 Winnie Mae circumnavigated the globe in seven days with her pilot assisted by inaugural autopilot technology. From those early flights the aviation industry has propelled itself further and faster in that traditional auto flight systems, including autopilot and autothrottle, are the norm and cockpit automation is now a realistic discussion ranging from completely autonomous UAV systems to pilotless commercial aircraft. The developing "deep learning" or "machine learning" technology may not be holding the industry back, but the public's perception of aviation automation and discomfort levels with robotic aircraft may be – factors to consider if faced with litigating an autonomous aviation case before a jury. Arguably there is legitimacy to the public's concern about rapid advancement in aviation automation. The interface between technology, human factors, and meteorology – all important components in flying – lends itself to a dynamic matrix that is rife with risk. Autonomous technology only increases the perceived uncertainty as how to assess that risk.

An extreme example of how aviation risk and automation intersect occurred one morning in heavy rain when a twin-engine aircraft steadily descended towards the ground until it impacted a farmer's field, exploded, and killed all 21 people on board. Rain and turbulence were factors, but not necessarily the primary causes of the accident. The aircraft, a C-23B+ Sherpa, was outfitted with autopilot technology and its alleged failure contributing to the crash was the subject of contentious litigation against the designer and manufacturer of the autopilot system (Ferguson v. Bombardier Service Corp., 244 F. App'x 944 (11th Cir. 2007). Another example of aviation risk and automation, albeit an older one, was when an autopilot system was alleged to malfunction during flight leading to quick pitch adjustments and passenger injuries (Nelson v. American Airlines, Inc. 70 Cal. Rptr. 33 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968). However, the passengers injured onboard this American Airlines flight were lucky, because about one year later on March 1, 1962, American Airlines 707-123B Astrojet Flight One crashed into Jamaica Bay Queens two minutes after takeoff due to a problem with the autopilot rudder servo. As a result of the failure of that autonomous technology, 95 lives were lost.

However, the autopilot accidents described above occurred well before the advent of new processing power and technology that is available today. AI in aviation may soon eclipse software development, and this change has opened the possibility for flight control machine learning based on video feeds, GPS, sonar, and gyros. This machine learning, in turn, lends itself to autonomously controlled altitude, attitude, heading, engine performance (and many other aspects of flight) with minimal to no pilot input. Flying autonomous taxis and electric vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) vehicles are no longer vague concepts as a result of the innovative steps taken by pioneering manufacturers and operators. As well, newly available tracking algorithms and image recognition algorithms can adapt in real-time allowing for UAVs and drones to fly and hold on target even if winds aloft impact their position or obstacles below obstruct their view. Just as humans adapt their decision-making in response to learning, new AI systems in aircraft and UAVs can learn and grow within their host mode of transportation to the point that the system can operate without pilot input at all. Parallel to the exciting adoption and development of aviation AI is the increasing sophistication of natural language processing allowing for more continuous communication between human and system whether the human is on board or on the ground providing remote control.

Auto Flight Technology Failures & Traditional Product Liability Litigation

Although the technology development is new and impressive, the older auto flight systems for manned aircraft were designed in such a way that if the autopilot or autothrottle system failed, a pilot would not be prevented from manually shutting it down. But if the system is completely unmanned, or deep learning AI interferes with the traditional override ability, what happens next? Lessons from past autopilot litigation, particularly in the United States, can provide valuable guidance for those introducing new aviation autonomous technology as to how courts could assess culpability if something goes terribly wrong.

In Ferguson v. Bombardier Services Corp., described briefly above, representatives of the deceased passengers on board the C-23 Sherpa that crashed in a field one rainy morning brought a claim against the autopilot designer and manufacturer for its purported role in the fatal accident. The plaintiffs believed that, among other contributing factors, the autopilot system improperly went into "torque limiting mode" (restricting the effectiveness of any pilot input) and there was no annunciator installed to warn the pilot when torque limiting mode started. There was also the allegation that the autopilot system was incorrectly installed and this led to a cable jam that prevented recovery once the aircraft's dive towards the ground began. However, the plaintiffs' expert testimony about autopilot defects was excluded at trial. As well, the evidence before the court suggested that primary causal factors for the aircraft's loss of control included the pilot's decision to leave the cockpit and go to the bathroom, which shifted the weight of an aircraft that was already improperly loaded outside of its Centre of Gravity, and at a time when the aircraft was flying in turbulence and wind shear.

In Nelson v. American Airlines, Inc., also described above, plaintiffs pursued damages against American Airlines when a passenger was thrown about following a sudden and unexpected movement when the autopilot overcompensated causing the aircraft to nose down rather than stay level. Although the autopilot was disengaged and manual control resumed after the error, the sudden pitch change was linked to the horizontal stabilizer trim and therefore the passengers in the rear of the aircraft experienced a more severe porpoise motion. The aircraft logbooks indicated that there were altitude control issues identified the previous day; and although not serious, the cause of that problem was not known. As a result, a component part of the autopilot was replaced and the equipment tested as a precaution, but there was no flight test in between the equipment replacement and the subject flight. At trial the airline was found not liable for the autopilot malfunctioning but that decision was overturned on appeal. The appeal court determined that there were possible errors made in the installation of a replacement autopilot component part and earlier routine maintenance on the autopilot was either incomplete or improper. Of note, the failure to conduct a test flight in these circumstances was not considered negligent based on the governing regulatory requirements at the time.

Both of these court cases focused on allegations of negligent design, manufacture, installation and maintenance of the auto flight systems. These should remain live issues for component part manufacturers, suppliers and integrators of autonomous aviation technology for both manned and unmanned flight. Aircraft maintenance records and logbooks will continue to be scrutinized as will any autonomous developer's foresight into how their technology will react to human input and how override systems are incorporated. But as aviation is multi-facetted, even if the design or manufacture of autonomous technology could be construed as a contributing factor to an accident, elements such as human factors, weather, and weight and balance will remain important considerations for the court.

Additionally, manufacturers could face court criticism if they fail to provide adequate guidance on the maintenance of their autonomous technology, or if they fail in their duty to warn of its inherent risks.

"Duty to Warn" and "Duty to Train" on Autonomous Technology

A heightened concern for those developing and adopting autonomous aviation technology may be in their common law "duty to warn" on the risks of autonomous technology. Recent investigations of aircraft accidents involving autonomous technology and court cases so far have been focused on whether there is a subset "duty to train" pilots and end users.

Courts can determine that a product is defective if a manufacturer fails to include appropriate warnings and instructions for its safe use, maintenance, or upkeep. Aligned with a manufacturer's duty to warn is the doctrine of educational malpractice, which are claims founded on an unreasonable or poor quality of education leading to a loss. "Duty to Train" as a separate common-law duty has not yet received widespread acceptance. However, the "Duty to Train" concept may be accepted and broadened by our court system with the development of AI and complex autonomous technology in aviation given the end-purposes of both training and autonomous technology are aligned: promoting humans and machines to act independently.

One recent product liability case where the training of pilot technology interface was challenged involved a crash of a Cirrus SR22 aircraft in Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corporation 816, N.W.2d 572, 583 (Minn. 2012). This fatal aircraft accident involved a four-seater single-engine private aircraft flying in marginal VFR weather conditions. A post-crash investigation showed no aircraft or engine problems. Pilot error and spatial disorientation were significant factors, but the plaintiffs also pursued the manufacturer of the SR22 for its alleged failure to fulfill its duty to warn by failing to provide adequate training on the use of the autopilot (despite the regulations not requiring the manufacturer to offer this type of training). The theory was that if the manufacturer had provided sufficient training for new SR22 owners, including how the autopilot can assist in getting out of poor weather conditions, then the spatial disorientation and accident would not have occurred. The manufacturer agreed that it did have a duty to warn of dangers associated with its SR22, but successfully argued at appeal that its duty did not extend to training pilots to proficiently fly the aircraft. Of note, educational-malpractice claims are barred in the State where the case was brought. In other jurisdictions, a claim involving a manufacturer's duty to warn could successfully include allegations of improper training on autonomous technology if an aircraft accident is preceded by problems involving the pilot and technology interface.

Perhaps a more globally well-known allegation of a failure to train follows the July 2013 failed landing of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 at San Francisco International Airport. That morning in San Francisco, as a result of an improper descent, a Boeing 777-200ER collided with the runway resulting in many injuries and three fatalities. In addition to claims against the airline, claims were commenced against Boeing on the basis that they failed to properly train the pilots on the auto flight systems of the Boeing 777. One of the primary concerns for this accident was that the attempted landing of Flight 214 was conducted by a pilot who had flown a limited amount of training flights on the subject aircraft, the supervising pilot was observing his first flight, and the cockpit set up may have added to the confusion as to how to use and/or interpret the auto flight system during descent. This accident litigation has not yet resulted in a court decision promoting the notion that there is a positive "duty to train" on autonomous technology.

The Current Forecast on Autonomous Technology Litigation in Aviation's Future

Claims against manufacturers for improper design, manufacture, and installation are expected; albeit, such aviation claims could be more complex and cumbersome to litigate given the sophistication of their design. With the increasing development and adoption of autonomous technology in aircraft systems, governing regulators may face pressure to ensure that operators are properly trained to monitor, diagnose and maintain the new systems. When the autonomous technology requires human interface, there will still be the expectation that pilots are to keep their manual flying skills up to standard should the auto flight systems fail or be misinterpreted. Further the governing regulations requiring pilots to keep a proper and constant lookout despite reliance on autonomous technology will likely stand. With increasing sophistication of autonomous technology still demanding apt flying skills and appropriate pilot vigilance thus heightening the intricacies of human interaction, manufacturers should expect significant scrutiny in how they discharge their duty to warn of the inherent dangers of their technology and whether they appropriately trained the end user on the use of their autonomous aviation technology.

About BLG

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions