Gun companies sell weapons. The main purpose of a weapon is to kill. You hold a gun company responsible because their weapon has killed. That only means they did their job correctly.
A car company makes cars. Cars’ main purpose is to transport its owner. You can hold a car company responsible for a killing.
That’s in a sensible country though. In the US murder is legal as long as you do it with a car.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act shields federally licensed firearm manufacturers, distributors, and dealers from civil liability lawsuits when crimes are committed by third parties using their lawfully sold products.
If there was a gun on the market that sometimes malfunctioned and discharged without anyone touching it we wouldnt hold the person who loaded it responsible. We would demand a recall or outright ban them.
We definitely would hold the owner responsible. Why the fuck have they left a loaded gun unattended? Sure do a recall as well but the owner of the stall is defintely responsible for ensuring the guns on display are not a danger.
Not touching is not unattended, where do you jump to that? The analogy presented could literally have you be next to it, have it secured, and then it going off alone through some defect you weren’t expecting. Sounds far fetched unless we’re talking about some kind of weapon system and not just a handgun.
The real takeaway here is this is a bad example and you shouldn’t have brought it up because guns aren’t cars.
Both are capable of killing people if used improperly.
If the gun was to go off and kill someone, you would be held responsible. One of the most basic rules of gun safety is don’t point it at anything you don’t intend to shoot.
If you lie a loaded gun on a table and it discharges and hits someone it’s your fault for being so careless.
You must always expect a gun to go off if it’s loaded. I cannot stress this enough. This is basic gun safety.
Now for cars, yes tesla could be done for false advertising and reckless endangerment. But the driver still retains fault. They could not control the vehicle properly and killed someone.
Shouldered you have full control of the gun. If it was to go off while pointed at someone, even with the saftey on, you would be responsible.
Holstered, bit of both, typically it would be pointed at the ground which minimises danger but of it goes off and hits your foot it’s still your fault for choosing to carry a loaded gun.
You purchased a product, used the product as intended and the product malfunctioned and killed someone. If it is so critically important that a person needs to be paying 100% attention to it at all times incase it goes wrong while simultaniously being prepared to react instantly and kills someone then the product is bad, not the person using it.
You also include Tesla in the suit to make it harder for the driver to weasel out of it by blaming Tesla. Best case, jointly and severally liable and you can execute the judgement against the party with money or assets to seize. More likely case, Tesla actively helps your attempt to get a judgement against the driver.
Thats exactly my point, if you’re going to call it “Self Driving” it needs to be able to “Drive Itself”. If it cant, its pointless. Most people cant focus on driving when they actually have to do the driving.
Nothing wrong with that, they are still responsible for the movement of rhe car.
However, Tesla still needs to be responsiblw for false advertising
Sure, and gun companies are responsible for gun deaths.
Gun companies sell weapons. The main purpose of a weapon is to kill. You hold a gun company responsible because their weapon has killed. That only means they did their job correctly.
A car company makes cars. Cars’ main purpose is to transport its owner. You can hold a car company responsible for a killing.
That’s in a sensible country though. In the US murder is legal as long as you do it with a car.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act shields federally licensed firearm manufacturers, distributors, and dealers from civil liability lawsuits when crimes are committed by third parties using their lawfully sold products.
Tesla hasn’t bought a law like that yet.
False analogy.
If there was a gun on the market that sometimes malfunctioned and discharged without anyone touching it we wouldnt hold the person who loaded it responsible. We would demand a recall or outright ban them.
We definitely would hold the owner responsible. Why the fuck have they left a loaded gun unattended? Sure do a recall as well but the owner of the stall is defintely responsible for ensuring the guns on display are not a danger.
Who said it was unattended?
You did.
That would mean a loaded gun was left unattended. The owner/operator would be held liable. They have ignored core gun safety rules.
Yes the manufacturer could be held liable as well but the primary respinsiblility lies with the owner.
The same is true for the driver of the tesla.
Not touching is not unattended, where do you jump to that? The analogy presented could literally have you be next to it, have it secured, and then it going off alone through some defect you weren’t expecting. Sounds far fetched unless we’re talking about some kind of weapon system and not just a handgun.
The real takeaway here is this is a bad example and you shouldn’t have brought it up because guns aren’t cars.
Both are capable of killing people if used improperly.
If the gun was to go off and kill someone, you would be held responsible. One of the most basic rules of gun safety is don’t point it at anything you don’t intend to shoot.
If you lie a loaded gun on a table and it discharges and hits someone it’s your fault for being so careless.
You must always expect a gun to go off if it’s loaded. I cannot stress this enough. This is basic gun safety.
Now for cars, yes tesla could be done for false advertising and reckless endangerment. But the driver still retains fault. They could not control the vehicle properly and killed someone.
You’ve got blinders on at this point lol. Peace.
So a holstered or shouldered weapon without a finger on the trigger and the safety active is unattended?
Shouldered you have full control of the gun. If it was to go off while pointed at someone, even with the saftey on, you would be responsible.
Holstered, bit of both, typically it would be pointed at the ground which minimises danger but of it goes off and hits your foot it’s still your fault for choosing to carry a loaded gun.
The Sig Sauer P320 entered the chat…
###BANG###
Oh no everyone I am SO SO sorry I messed up again didn’t I - SigP320
Depends on the jurisdiction. If there are local laws against leaving a weapon loaded, we might.
The driver shouldnt be held responsible.
You purchased a product, used the product as intended and the product malfunctioned and killed someone. If it is so critically important that a person needs to be paying 100% attention to it at all times incase it goes wrong while simultaniously being prepared to react instantly and kills someone then the product is bad, not the person using it.
Nope, as a driver you are responsible for moving the vehicle safely.
If you can’t do that, you can’t move the vehicle.
This is an extremely well established principle, one of the few globally universal legal rules.
If you are driving a car, you are resonsible for the movement of the car.
Blaming self driving is not a defence, you activated the system, you may have delegated the action, but you can’t delegate the responsibillity.
At most Tesla should be prosecuted for false advertising and reckless endangerment.
But, look at it from the lawyer’s point of view: Tesla has more money. If you include Tesla in the suit, they may pay you to go away.
You also include Tesla in the suit to make it harder for the driver to weasel out of it by blaming Tesla. Best case, jointly and severally liable and you can execute the judgement against the party with money or assets to seize. More likely case, Tesla actively helps your attempt to get a judgement against the driver.
And the point is that the person sat in the car is not driving the car. The GPU is the driver in autonomous vehicles.
Do we have to wait for the first empty robotaxi killing someone on the way to a pickup to assign obvious responsibility?
Thats exactly my point, if you’re going to call it “Self Driving” it needs to be able to “Drive Itself”. If it cant, its pointless. Most people cant focus on driving when they actually have to do the driving.
‘Emergency accident avoidance’ could have been a marketable and representative name. But it wouldn’t make Tesla stock skyrocket.
Consumerist thinking, just because you paid money for something doesn’t absolve you of shit. Dont use your paid dogshit product to kill other people.
You bought the gun, you pulled the trigger.
correction: you purchased a product while knowing it did not absolve you of responsibility, and then you chose to believe that anyway