Issue 1

Automated Vehicles and Manufacturer Responsibility for Accidents: A New Legal Regime for a New Era

Over a century ago, industrialization and its accompanying increase in workplace injuries were placing substantial pressures on the tort system and its ability to compensate the victims of these injuries. Eventually, the interests of labor and management came together, giving rise to a new administrative compensation system. Unlike tort remedies, this new scheme imposed strict financial responsibility on employers for work-related injuries to their employees. This system of workers’ compensation is still the most far-reaching tort reform ever adopted—promoting safety and compensating for injuries more effectively than tort did both at the time and today. Workers’ compensation has its flaws, but there is no significant desire on anyone’s part to go back to tort.

We are on the verge of another new era, requiring yet another revision to the legal regime. This time, it is our system of transportation that will be revolutionized. Over time, manually driven cars are going to be replaced by automated vehicles. The new era of automated vehicles will eventually require a legal regime that properly fits the radically new world of auto accidents. The new regime should promote safety and provide compensation both more sensibly and more effectively than what could be done under existing tort doctrines governing driver liability for negligence and manufacturer liability for product defects. Like labor and management a century ago, auto manufacturers, consumers, and the public at large—often currently at odds about the tort system—will need to have their interests come together if the new era of automated transportation is to be governed by an adequate legal regime.

Any new approach will have to deal with the long and uneven transition to automated technology, impose substantial but appropriate financial responsibility for accidents on the manufacturers of highly automated vehicles, and provide satisfactory compensation to the victims of auto accidents in the new era. This Article develops and details our proposal for an approach that would accomplish these goals.

Abstention at the Border

The lower federal courts have been invoking “international comity abstention” to solve a range of problems in cross-border cases, using a wide array of tests that vary not just across the circuits, but within them as well. That confusion will only grow, as both scholars and the Supreme Court have yet to clarify what exactly “international comity abstention” entails. Meanwhile, the breadth of “international comity abstention” stands in tension with the Supreme Court’s recent reemphasis on the federal judiciary’s obligation to exercise congressionally granted jurisdiction. Indeed, loose applications of “international comity abstention” risk undermining not only the expressed preferences of Congress, but the interests of the states as well.

This Article argues against “international comity abstention” both as a label and as a generic doctrine. As a label, it leads courts to conflate abstention with other comity doctrines that are not about abstention at all. And as a generic doctrine, it encourages judges to decline their jurisdiction too readily, in contrast to the presumption of jurisdictional obligation. In lieu of a single broad doctrine of “international comity abstention,” then, this Article urges federal judges to specify more narrow grounds for abstention in transnational cases—grounds that can be separately justified, candidly addressed, and analyzed through judicially manageable frameworks. For example, a primary basis for “international comity abstention” has been deference to parallel proceedings in foreign courts, a common problem that deserves its own dedicated analytical framework. A separate doctrine for deferring to integrated foreign remedial schemes may also be appropriate. Perhaps other limited bases for transnational abstention could be identified as well. The goal should not be a strict formalism that insists that judges’ hands are tied, but rather a channeling of judicial discretion so as to promote—rather than displace—interbranch dialogue about the proper role of comity in the courts.

The Government-Could-Not-Work Doctrine

The Supreme Court has recently declared that it is presumptively unconstitutional for the government to compel individuals to do or pay for things to which they have religious or political objections. Last Term, the Court applied this declaration to uphold the First Amendment arguments made by public-sector employees, and it appears poised to vindicate similar claims by religious objectors to antidiscrimination laws in the future. But this declaration is wrong. Indeed, throughout American history—from the Articles of Confederation through Lochner v. New York and Employment Division v. Smith, the Court itself has repeatedly rejected the notion that compulsory laws, in and of themselves, are presumptively unconstitutional.

This Article offers a novel examination of the history of challenges to compulsory laws inside and outside the context of the First Amendment. For centuries, the Supreme Court has faced hundreds of challenges to objectionable taxes, objectionable drafts, objectionable regulations, and objectionable funding conditions. With few exceptions, the Court has responded that the “government could not work” if it lacked the power to compel people to do things to which they objected. Although the Constitution prescribes many specific limits on the powers of the federal and state governments, the Constitution’s very purpose was to create a union that had the power to compel political minorities to accept the will of a political majority. Such a union would be incompatible with a governing document that prohibited officials from compelling people to take any action to which they religiously or politically objected—even when those objections were sincerely held.

Borrowing the Supreme Court’s own language, this Article calls the Court’s typical response the “government-could-not-work” doctrine, and conclude that objectionable compulsion, in and of itself, should not trigger the strict scrutiny of Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. Rather, compulsory laws should be treated the same as any other law, and analyzed for whether they are arbitrary, are discriminatory, or otherwise violate specific constitutional limits.

©Virginia Law Review Association. All rights reserved.