International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD)

Volume 9 Issue 5, Sep-Oct 2025 Available Online: [Link] e-ISSN: 2456 – 6470

Legal Issues and Countermeasures in Autonomous Driving

Dong Yu Han, Su Yu Hua, Lu Jun Cheng, Shun Yu Hang
Faculty of Law, Beijing Wuzi University, Beijing, China

ABSTRACT How to cite this paper: Dong Yu Han |

The article presents an in-depth analysis of some important problems Su Yu Hua | Lu Jun Cheng | Shun Yu
regarding civil tort liability for autonomous vehicles in terms of Hang "Legal Issues and
China's regulatory system, where particular emphasis is placed on the Countermeasures in Autonomous
rapid advancement from Level 3 to Level 5 in automotive driving Driving" Published
in International
technology, which clearly shows that the traditional theory focused Journal of Trend in
on human factors cannot keep up with the new changes brought by Scientific Research
intelligent technology. China, as the main market of L2 automations, and Development
has the largest number of vehicles equipped with ADAS (Advanced (ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456-
Driver Assistance Systems) on its roadways, and needs to have 6470, Volume-9 | IJTSRD97492
policies applicable to such types of automotive driving functions Issue-5, October
soon. From analyses of famous cases overseas such as Uber fatality 2025, pp.416-422, URL:
in 2018, the German Mercedes-Benz 2023 level 3 vehicle issue, etc., [Link]/papers/[Link]
it is found that most of these incidents happen due to insufficient
understanding about issues like the identity of the actor in accidental Copyright © 2025 by author (s) and
International Journal of Trend in
situations, principle(s) of accountabilities, how the existing product Scientific Research and Development
liability rules need to be updated or strengthened in some key aspects Journal. This is an
and how insurance should function in regards to the changing Open Access article
landscape of automotive accidents. Therefore, understanding the distributed under the
concepts above-mentioned is the prerequisite to establishing a terms of the Creative Commons
corresponding duty-based determination and apportionment Attribution License (CC BY 4.0)
mechanism. And what’s more, our study brings references based on ([Link]
different foreign theories and doctrines, combining all elements
above-mentioned and our own situation in China, targeting at finally KEYWORDS: Autonomous driving;
offering feasible and plausible constructive suggestions of building civil tort; liability attribution;
an inclusive solution with domestic legislation revision and other product responsibility; legal
relevant institutional adaptations plus safety standards improvement framework; regulatory adaptation;
on industrial level, so as to incorporate advanced technology into technological risk; insurance
legislative measures as fast as possible but never become innovation.
overpowered or overthrown as such right vindications lag.

INTRODUCTION
The ongoing migration of L3 and above autonomy care' ideas fail to interpret decisions made by
to public roads will impact on existing traffic algorithms, machine learning results, or sensor
accident liability systems that have taken years to interpretation); and a significantly higher degree of
evolve. These liability systems are underpinned by causal chain determination complexity because of
the presumption of human operation control, direct the black box nature of systems, because of the
driver error and simple cause effect relationship, componend interdependence, and the remote
and after vehicle driving authority—and for that causation involved.
matter, vehicle driving cognition – is transferred to
Major, high-profile accidents and deployments such
autonomous systems, there are essentially three as the Mercedes-Benz L3 event thoroughly
significant yet interdependent complications:
investigated on the German Autobahn in 2023 and
significant increase in potential liable parties the tragic Uber pedestrian fatality in the U. S. in
ranging from end users, manufacturers, software 2018 indicate urgent demands on China’s part to
developers, sensor makers, data providers and build transparent, clear, strict, and solid legal
infrastructure operators, the insufficiency of systems that can advance justly alongside
traditional fault-based evaluative criteria (the development and progress. The incidents illustrate
previously established behaviors and 'reasonable

@ IJTSRD | Unique Paper ID – IJTSRD97492 | Volume – 9 | Issue – 5 | Sep-Oct 2025 Page 416
 International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development @ [Link] eISSN: 2456-6470
the vulnerability and increasing obsolescence of accommodate the AVs initially entering the
traditional liability rules in their inability to provide marketplace – is based on the two pillars embodied
an expedient, substantial response to the rights of in the Road Traffic Safety Law and relevant
those victimized by emerging technology and portions of the Civil Code: the former being a
innovation, while also fueling greater uncertainty highly detailed legislative work used to specify
for the proper and safe regulation of future artificial traffic rules, license requirements, vehicle
intelligence innovation endeavors within China. specifications, and accident emergency measures;
Different nations, being products of their respective and the latter giving the scope and foundations of
legal traditions, took different measures, like legal civil compensation based on tortious laws
Germany was able to address this by having its aimed at allowing recourse for personal injury,
legislations be active and targeted at creating property damage, and limited privacy breaches.
precise protocols of stringent technical state These apply to pre-existing norms of presumed
supervision and a key aspect of this was the driver behaviors, anticipated control mechanisms
advanced technical standards provided by state for automobiles, and situations that are thought
requirement which actually materialize specific law likely to give rise to accidents based on past
scenarios, so they effectively prohibited and experience.
penalized the violation of technical standards with
The principle of fault liability constitutes the
time-limited deadlines to fix identified issues; on
undeniable cornerstone of this system. It is a
the other hand, the United States has relied mainly
principle centered on moral blameworthiness and
on progressively refining procedural-based product
personal responsibility. Subsequent to an accident,
liability litigation during trial with significant
legal responsibility is determined by judicial or
reliance on market forces and newly-built judicial
administrative authorities according to a binary
case precedents; In stark contrast, whereas the
assessment: whether an actor operated intentionally
Chinese regulatory, research, and scholarly work is
knowingly causing or consciously disregarding the
beginning to grow, it remains fragmented, nascent,
substantial probability of an accident or negligently
and divided along strict silos and competing
failing to exercise the standard of care expected of a
factions, lacking a cohesive, coherent, and
reasonable and prudent person under similar
systematically and unifying logic trajectory over
circumstances, encompassing both acts of omission
any determined period of time.
and commission. Evidence to establish this fault is
This study focuses on an in-depth case analysis and derived from a combination of comprehensive on-
utilizes a comparative law method and policy site investigation by traffic police, credible witness
evaluation focusing on China’s specific legal, testimony, traffic camera recordings, vehicle
technical, and industrial setting to explore three damage patterns, and increasingly, data from basic
important, mutually dependent dimensions: First, vehicle Event Data Recorders (EDRs). This
the construction of appropriate technology-neutral evidence is utilized not merely to identify the
adaptive liability rules for ever-more autonomous responsible party but to measure their precise
systems and dynamic human roles; Second, degree of fault, which in turn influences the
improvement of evidence collection, data access, apportionment of damages.
forensic analysis and fair burden-shifting of proof;
Within this established system, the human driver is
Third, establishment of an equitable and sustainable
unequivocally the central, and most often the sole,
multi-stakeholder risk sharing system with possible
liable agent. The driver is legally obliged to
wider insurance pools and no fault damage fund.
maintain continuous, conscious, and effective
The primary aim is to develop an advanced, robust,
control over the vehicle's trajectory and speed while
principled legal system to accommodate the need to
adhering to all applicable traffic regulations and
innovate while ensuring public safety, consumer
adapting to road conditions. This is a high standard
protection, and accountability, and set up China as a
of care. Should an accident arise from unambiguous
leader in responsible autonomous driving
infractions such as red-light violations, excessive
technology within the global environment.
speeding, illegal maneuvers, or driving under the
1. Comprehensive Analysis of the Impact of influence, the driver bears primary civil liability for
Autonomous Driving Technology on resulting losses; furthermore, concurrent criminal
Traditional Liability Systems liability may also apply under the Criminal Law
(1)The Established Framework of the Traditional when specific offenses such as causing serious
Liability System:China’s existing road traffic injury or death through traffic violations are
liability system – serving as a starting point to constituted, introducing the potential for severe

@ IJTSRD | Unique Paper ID – IJTSRD97492 | Volume – 9 | Issue – 5 | Sep-Oct 2025 Page 417
 International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development @ [Link] eISSN: 2456-6470
penalties including imprisonment. (2). The certification protocols, independent auditing
Multifaceted Challenges Introduced by mechanisms, and forensic investigation
Technological Advancement Profound Ambiguity in methodologies leads to frequent, and often
Identifying Liable Entities:The advent of irreconcilable, expert disagreement regarding
conditional and highly automated driving scenarios whether a system acted negligently, defectively, or
essentially breaks up the existing human driver simply encountered a statistically inevitable edge
dominated traditional paradigm where the case. This lack of consensus compounds uncertainty
responsibility and liability is weighed upon the in judicial rulings, insurance claims, and liability
human operator who is driven from active driver to outcomes, creating a legal quagmire Profound
passive user or even an ordinary passenger; whereas Exponentially Increased Complexity of Causation
when incidents do happen, transferring the entire Analysis
burden to an operator by attributing legal
In contrast to traditional incidents where the cause-
responsibility solely is destined to run into a
effect chain is usually simple—such as being clearly
tremendous amount of tortious hassle involved in
and closely linked to some particular driver mistake,
these delicate financial dealings. Furthermore,
vehicle mechanical failure or external hazard; with
assigning fault or liability would become
autonomous vehicles, multiple interfacing elements
increasingly complex as one factor may act upon
make up a robust network—i. e., hardware
another by multiple parties. As shown above, the
reliability, algorithmic correctness, software
participants in potential fault include, but are not
robustness, data transmission accuracy, and cyber-
limited to: Vehicle manufacturers (liable due to
physical security—meaning that an even tiny glitch
hardware defects, production flaws, or the
or worse yet, a poor algorithmic decision may lead
shortcomings of overall system integration),
to a crash when anything goes wrong within any of
software developers (those liable for bugs in the
these factors (like an off-model object that the
algorithm, logic failures, insufficient machine
algorithm recognized, combined with the lack of an
learning training, and failures in object recognition),
accurate fuse with the sensor signal caused by a
suppliers of sensors (toxic for malfunctions of lidar,
small delay of processing in the system or a point
radar or cameras), data providers (liable for
with a detailed map dated too far back). The
inaccuracy or outdatedness of the map, errors in
cascaded failures or unpredictable interactions
traffic maps that were not updated or tampered real-
within this complex system cause the inability of the
time data), telecom companies (liable for network
exacting forensic determination of the causal
latency or failure affecting V2X communication),
contributions and responsibility proportions. It is
and users themselves (if improperly maintained,
extremely difficult to prove that an improper
ignored takeover requests, or made unauthorized
conduct constituting the near cause of damage
changes).More difficult still, this multiplication of
rather than the non-negligent intervening act or
agents working in concert and step means that few
purely fortuitous happening or natural course
points of reach or access are available for pinpoint
requires extraordinary expertise.
responsibility determination or evaluation,
contributing to convoluted and cumbersome 3. In-Depth Analysis of Core Issues in Civil Tort
negotiations during accident attribution. Liability for Autonomous Driving
(1)Multifaceted Challenges in Identifying Liable
2. Technical and Conceptual Difficulty in
Entities:(SAE)the Society of Automotive Engineers
Establishing Fault
(SAE) International’s J3016 standard offers a
Autonomous driving systems depend on immensely
valuable and widely referenced classification
sophisticated algorithms, extensive and diverse
scheme (Levels 0-5) that defines the extent to which
sensor arrays, and continuous, high-speed data
the driver or the system is engaged in automated
processing. Their real-time decision-making
driving, thereby forming the basis for a structured
processes involve technical complexities,
discussion around liability. At levels 3 and above,
probabilistic calculations, and non-transparent deep
the parties who may be held liable differ
learning models that render conventional fault
substantially from previously identified parties. This
assessment—based on observable human behavior
requires parties involved in creating this type of
and established driving norms—entirely obsolete.
automation to deeply reassess each other’s roles,
The very concept of "fault" becomes blurred when
responsibilities, and reasonableness, all viewed
applied to a system that has no "intention" and
through the lens of the SAE levels. Under L3
operates on programmed rules and statistical
conditional automation, the human driver is legally
inferences. Furthermore, the current absence of
designated the “fallback user” or “dynamic driving
universally accepted technical evaluation standards,

@ IJTSRD | Unique Paper ID – IJTSRD97492 | Volume – 9 | Issue – 5 | Sep-Oct 2025 Page 418
 International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development @ [Link] eISSN: 2456-6470

task后备使用者” – a role that is paradoxically both (2) Critical Evaluation and Adaptation of Liability
Principles: The application of traditional fault-based
passive and critically active. The user is not
liability principles faces significant and perhaps
continuously driving but must maintain sufficient
insurmountable limitations in autonomous driving
situational awareness to resume control within a
contexts. First, as noted, there is no legally or
stipulated period (typically 10–15 seconds)
technically applicable standard for determining
following a system request. This creates a legally
“fault” in a system's behavior. Algorithmic “error”
nebulous zone. Failure to respond in a timely and
is fundamentally distinct from human negligence; it
appropriate manner, or engagement in improper
may stem from a training data gap, an unforeseen
intervention that subsequently causes an accident,
scenario (a "corner case"), a sensor
may incur significant liability. However,
misinterpretation, or a software bug, none of which
determining whether the user was reasonably
map neatly onto concepts of "carelessness" or
attentive and whether the takeover request was itself
"recklessness." Second, the inherent “black box”
issued adequately and timely are complex questions.
nature of complex neural networks and deep
In L4–L5 high to full automation scenarios, the
learning algorithms obstructs transparent causal
human occupant's role transforms more completely
demonstration. Even developers cannot always
into that of a “passenger.” In principle, this
precisely explain why a system made a particular
passenger is not liable for system failures or
decision in a specific micro-second, making it
operational errors. However, exceptions would exist
nearly impossible for a court to adjudicate "fault."
for clearly demonstrable instances of intentional
Third, the evidentiary asymmetry is staggering.
interference (e.g., hacking), fraudulent
Individual victims face prohibitive difficulties in
manipulation, or unauthorized physical
procuring the essential technical evidence,
modifications that directly contribute to the
expertise, and financial resources required to prove
accident. The burden of proof for such misuse
a system defect against a multinational corporation,
would likely fall on the producer or insurer.
substantially undermining their rights protection and
From conventional automobile makers (OEMs) who access to justice.
had at one time dominated auto production to
Consequently, a structured no-fault liability
today’s larger pool of tech contributors, automobile
framework, or a strict liability regime for producers,
accident liability claims’ chain has grown very long
offers a more suitable, efficient, and socially
and intricate. At present, it includes not only
equitable alternative. This approach is rooted in
algorithm developers like AI technology firms but
established risk-control theory and enterprise
also sensor providers such as LiDAR, radar,
liability principles: those who create, benefit from,
cameras; high-precision map service providers who
and are best positioned to manage and insure against
must provide ongoing updates with a tremendous
a novel risk should bear the financial responsibility
degree of accuracy, telecommunications module
for the realization of that risk. This justifies holding
providers for connectivity, and cybersecurity
producers (broadly defined to include key system
businesses to name but a few, all of which run the
integrators and component makers) liable for
risk of shouldering partial or full liability from
accidents caused by system defects, without the
defect causes related to the said parts or service. It
victim needing to prove fault. A reversed burden of
raises the huge question on how the liable party
proof is a logical corollary: the producer should be
should split up in this long chain of stakeholders—
obligated to demonstrate that the product was free
should it be fully borne by the lone OEM as a
from defects, complied with prevailing state-of-the-
system integrator? Or should the liability be decided
art safety standards, and that the accident was solely
based on its contribution and proportionally
due to an unforeseeable external factor or gross user
distributed? While this second option seems fairer
misuse. This creates powerful incentives for safety-
theoretically, it will require an exact technical
by-design and rigorous testing. Users, in turn, would
evaluation of the degree of fault on the part of each
incur liability only under the conventional “he who
participant, and determine where to assign the
asserts must prove” rule when clear and provable
corresponding parts of the product liability among
misuse or intentional harm is evident. This structure
the many players—which entails huge practical,
collectively forms a balanced and adaptive “dual
evidentiary, and commercial challenges due to the
attribution system” that is responsive to the new
current forensics state of affairs and the highly
technological realities, protecting victims while
proprietary nature of products.
clarifying the primary responsibilities of developers.

@ IJTSRD | Unique Paper ID – IJTSRD97492 | Volume – 9 | Issue – 5 | Sep-Oct 2025 Page 419
 International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development @ [Link] eISSN: 2456-6470
4. Comprehensive Comparison and Synthesis of tradition. In the absence of comprehensive federal
International Regulatory Experience legislation specifically for AV liability (though
(1) The German Model: Legislative Precision and safety standards are set by NHTSA), regulatory and
Technical Oversight: Germany has strategically liability standards vary significantly by state. This
positioned itself as a regulatory pioneer in the was starkly highlighted in the consequential 2018
governance of automated vehicles, reflecting its Uber fatality in Arizona. The accident's legal
automotive industrial leadership and its tradition of aftermath involved complex questions of criminal
precise, comprehensive legislation. Its approach is and civil liability for the safety driver, Uber as the
characterized by proactive, detailed legal operator, and the vehicle technology providers, with
frameworks designed to provide certainty. The 2017 outcomes heavily influenced by Arizona's specific
Eighth Amendment to the Road Traffic Act laws and regulatory posture at the time.
(Straßenverkehrsgesetz-StVG) was a landmark
This resulted in legal frameworks bringing more
move, formally creating a legal personality for
changes and challenges to others’ solutions. Major
highly automated driving systems under specific
insurance companies have thus had to roll out new
conditions, allowing the vehicle itself(and its
kinds of products and formulas matching
insurer)to be the primary liable entity when the
automation level, usage pattern, and data-driven risk
system is active, effectively decoupling liability
assessments. They weave system performance
from the human driver's conduct during automated
metrics from manufacturers, cybersecurity
operation. This was followed by the even more
assessments, and real-time telematics data into their
ambitious 2021 Autonomous Driving Act (Gesetz
dynamism premium calculation formulas. However,
zum Autonomen Fahren), which provided a
large interstate discrepancies are still present which
framework for the deployment of L4 autonomous
add complexity to determining the amount of
vehicles in specified operational design
compensation and create a confusing hodgepodge of
domains(e.g., shuttle services, people movers),
different standards for automakers nationwide.
introducing concepts like technical supervision.
Product liability litigation is still used as a major
(L3)in 2023, an illustration of the situation mechanism to measure both safety and
happened with Mercedes-Benz's DRIVE PILOT accountability standards; courts frequently need to
(L3) crash on a German Autobahn putting this be asked if automakers and/or software developers
system to test. It took German law extra efforts to acted reasonably – a matter repeatedly explored via
investigate about the system itself, whether it had lawsuits involving shortcomings with Tesla’s
engaged in the places designated beforehand in Autopilot/FSD systems concerning insufficient
general, as well as the weather states matched with driver monitoring or unfavorable operational
specified restrictions and even the way that drivers warnings. Technology is technically introduced
responded to the system’s need for human piece-meal and this is furthered by tech companies
intervention. Meanwhile, it worked out an essential claiming unreasonable benchmarks so there’s also
prototype for those intending to implement on- cause to go to court on these matters. Current
demand autonomous mobility. This defined model methods of providing such standards may define
sets up so-called technical supervision which means what constitutes "reasonable care", but this has yet
having a person that is in charge of overseeing the to happen in full and due form; it takes long periods
company fleet for proper functioning, monitoring and repeated lawsuit to get full insight into case-
fleet movement and securing safety that can control specific do’s and don’ts. (3) Derived Lessons and
from the cloud, placing strong demands on high- Policy Implications for China: First, proactive and
limit compulsory insurance for ensuring access of precise legislation is important for stable industry
any claimants of victimizes to compensation and development and consumer confidence. To wait for
concurrently transferring any supervision-related the occurence of accidents and then set standards by
liabilities from these masters to insurers. Such judicial determination is to prolong their
working model underwrites technical mandate as uncertainties. With coherent laws, regulations will
well as financial assurance, whereby turning be more straightforward, objectives can be set ahead
obscurity into clarity. of time and liability distribution will be foreseeable
(2) The American Model: Litigation-Driven which is vital to acquire capital inflows and to
Adaptation and Insurance Innovation: The United design sound business models. Secondly, the
States, in contrast, exemplifies a decentralized, availability of a more inclusive, innovative
litigation-driven, and common law approach, insurance regime needs to be aligned with the
reflecting its federalist structure and strong tort law emerging technological landscape from the
beginning. The insurance industry cannot simply be

@ IJTSRD | Unique Paper ID – IJTSRD97492 | Volume – 9 | Issue – 5 | Sep-Oct 2025 Page 420
 International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development @ [Link] eISSN: 2456-6470
a one-off tail end fix after any systems have been order. After 5-10 years (long term), pass specialized
developed, it needs to be part of the process which and omnibus legislation—referred to herein as the
adequately compensates all affected stakeholders "Autonomous Vehicle Act"—as a comprehensive,
across the chain and provide no-fault timely overarching regulatory framework that includes
responses for victims through forms of operation vehicle type certification/approval, market entry
which do not need costly court litigation. Possible requirements for operators, operational
forms might be new product liability insurance protocols/guidance, liability distribution rules, data
regimes, mandate fleets of operators, broader management and ownership, ethical standards for
compensation funds etc. Thirdly, China needs to algorithmic design, and the role of national/local
work towards developing harmonized technical regulators. (2) Institutional and Systemic
standards and certification procedures. This would Development: To establish effective institutions
help overcome regional legislative disparity risks, supports making laws work well. LTL
minimize fragmentation of markets for foreign determination on cause: The system should focus on
global manufactures, enhance compatibility and the forensic analysis. Producers and suppliers
most important of all lift the public’s confidence should be strictly liable for technical failures and
regarding the objectivity of automated transport design defects which can be validated with data,
systems’safety and reliability. Given the weight of while for accidents mainly caused by factors such as
China’s huge home market size and technological extreme weather conditions, infrastructure failure,
enthusiasm, China can actively participate in and or other parties’ violation of traffic rules, the
shape international standards as well. traditional principle should apply on a case-by-case
5. Development Recommendations and Strategic basis. Operators such as ride-hailing fleets who use
Outlook for China AVs shall bear the responsibility for inadequate
(1) Phased Legislative and Regulatory maintenance, negligent operational planning and
Recommendations: A phased approach allows for failure to properly respond to events. Apportioning
learning, adaptation, and building institutional Responsibility by Operational Mode: The law must
capacity. Short-term(1-2 years):Utilize existing clearly distinguish between modes. During
legal instruments to provide immediate clarity. The mandatory safety operator-controlled phases (e.g.,
Supreme People's Court could issue authoritative during testing or in certain L4 deployments), the
judicial interpretations to establish clear liability operator bears primary liability for operational
presumptions for L3+accidents(e.g., presuming errors, with potential enterprise liability for
manufacturer responsibility for system failures deficient training, fatigue, or management pressure.
during automated operation, and user accountability During dedicated full automation phases (true
driverless operation), producers or operators must
for provable improper 接管 or misuse).
shoulder primary liability for system-related
Simultaneously, administrative agencies like the
accidents, with very limited exceptions for gross,
MIIT and MOT should strengthen and issue detailed
demonstrable user misconduct (e.g., sabotage).cing
regulations concerning data privacy, cybersecurity,
the Insurance System: A Transformed NeedThe
event data recorder (EDR) standards for AVs, and
compulsory traffic insurance premium structure
data accessibility for investigators.
should change to reflect the immense risk shifting
For the medium term (3-5 years), take targeted from humans to manufacturers/operators. The
amendments to foundational laws into account, such industry needs incentives to drive the creation of
as the aforementioned Road Traffic Safety Law tailored commercial insurance products for different
needing to have a designated chapter dedicated to levels of automation, operational context (such as
autonomous driving: stating the prerequisites geofenced vs. full navigation), and mileage
required for every level (from L3 to L5), periodic exposure. Above all, it’s crucial to establish a
safety assessment requirements for eligible vehicles, secure information-sharing mechanism among
requirements to report data, and specifying a clear insurers, manufacturers, and regulators so that the
level of liability assigned based on the degree of insurers can price risk based on the performance
automation and driving mode. In terms of the data, allowing manufacturers to improve safety
Product Quality Law, clarify that the manufacturers performance and ensuring a fair level of
as well as key system integrators should bear compensation to provide efficient risk-distribution
liabilities for system-level issues and that all across the whole new mobility eco-system.
conditions around continuous monitoring, over-the-
Conclusion
air update protocols, and safety recalls throughout
The advent of autonomous driving forces civil tort
the entire lifespan of sold products need to be in
responsibility from a driver-centered one to a fault

@ IJTSRD | Unique Paper ID – IJTSRD97492 | Volume – 9 | Issue – 5 | Sep-Oct 2025 Page 421
 International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development @ [Link] eISSN: 2456-6470
model for each entity in a distributed system. It structured support is crucial to progressing
marks a completely new development direction. As transportation infrastructure towards intelligent and
China’s national interests include its tech lead but equitable transportation systems.
also society at large, this shift offers opportunities References
to set civil tort rules for autonomous driving. In [1] Liang, C. (2023). Research on the Allocation
other words, in order to set optimal and effective
of Legal Liabil- ity for Unmanned Logistics
rules of civil tort liability for autonomous driving, Delivery [Master’s Thesis]. Yangzhou
the Chinese authorities need a deep rooted University.
consideration into traditional person-centered
responsibility and entity-based fault evaluation. The [2] Peng, Y. (2020). Research on the Subject of
article states that there should be a carefully Tort Liability for Traffic Accidents of
designed “tiered liability+entity adaptational Autonomous Driving Vehicles [Master’s The-
regulatory architecture” for ensuring civil tort sis]. Beijing Jiaotong University.
liability, elaborately setting up different attributions [3] Tang, L. Y. (2019). Research on the Legal
based on SAE automation levels, and on level 3 Liability for Traf- fic Accidents of Unmanned
providing clear user supervision obligation Intelligent Vehicles [Master’s Thesis].
stipulations; whereas on levels 4 & 5 providing Southwest University of Political Science and
substantial producer responsibility, giving due Law.
considerations of producer’s no-fault liability while
there is a reversed burden of proof due to the system [4] Chen, X. L. (2016). The Challenges of
failure, thus leaving huge room of financial Unmanned Vehicles to the Current Law and
incentive because the harm is irreversible; whilst on the Countermeasures [J]. Theoretical Journal,
user side, any proven intended interference of (Issue).
traditional fault-based attribution could remain [5] Li, Y. N. (2019). Local Practice and Legal
unchanged. Regulation of Un- manned Vehicles in China
In tandem, there must be a regime which responds [Master’s Thesis]. Northeast Agricul- tural
effectively, morally, and equipped with knowledge University.
of technological innovation. The technology [6] Feng, Y. (2018). Civil Tort Liability for
regulations will need to balance rapidly evolving Damages Caused by Autonomous Driving
innovations with required standards of safety, Vehicles [J]. China Legal Science, (Issue).
ethics, and oversight, all the while taking into
account concerns of protection of consumer welfare. [7] Niu, Z. Y. (2022). Research on Tort Liability
Future efforts should encourage continuous, for Traffic Acci- dents of Unmanned Vehicles
structured dialogues amongst legislators, [Master’s Thesis]. Wuhan Institute of
technologists, engineers, insurers, ethicists, and Technology.
regulators. Efforts directed towards communication, [8] Global Network. Follow - up to the Uber
collaboration, and co-creation across disciplines Unmanned Vehicle Traffic Accident Fatal
would lead to increased support for the industry Case in the United States: The Safety Officer
transitioning from smaller-scale and experimental Charged with Criminally Negligent
ventures to safely large-scale commercial Homicide.
applications of this new transportation. This

@ IJTSRD | Unique Paper ID – IJTSRD97492 | Volume – 9 | Issue – 5 | Sep-Oct 2025 Page 422