Philadelphia woman who was driving a partially automated Mach-E charged with DUI homicide

[Pioneer74]

You gotta love lawyers.

Defense lawyer Zak Goldstein said he had not yet seen the criminal complaint or any reports on the crash, and called the deaths a tragedy. However, he noted that, broadly speaking, Pennsylvania law on DUI-related homicides requires “that the DUI caused the homicide."

“If in fact it's a failure in a self-driving or a driving system, that may not be a homicide by DUI even if the driver is intoxicated,” he said, adding that he has not seen any case law on the issue in Pennsylvania.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/b...mach-e-charged-with-dui-homicide/75058802007/

Sponsored

 

[TaxmanHog]

Automation or not, DRUNKS DO NOT belong behind the wheel of any vehicle!

 

[Zprime29]

That lawyer needs to do some more research before opening his mouth again.

 

[RocketGhost]

That lawyer needs to do some more research before opening his mouth again.

Sometimes when a lawyer makes a ridiculous or far-fetched argument it's because that's the best he has to work with. This is likely an open-shut DUI case where the defendant is in deep sh!t, and the "Bluecruise-made-me-do-it" argument is the only thing that has a non-zero chance of getting the defendant out of a heap of trouble. Of course the chance is extremely slim, but if the client is willing to pursue it, it's worth a shot. And it's also not an all-or-none situation, if the court finds that Bluecruise contributed to the accident it may be a mitigating factor that may help the defendant.

The reality is that the argument will go nowhere. The public is not keen on shifting blame away from an intoxicated driver, and thus far most cases involving vehicle driving aids have put liability on drivers when they weren't actively ready to take control.

 

[MaintGrl]

That lawyer needs to do some more research before opening his mouth again.

Na, he just needs a bigger shovel....

 

[mattskr]

Level 2 Autonomous System - Defined as the driver must be fully present and able to take control at any time. I don't see how an intoxicated driver could win this argument.

It's like blaming non-adaptive cruise control for rear-ending a vehicle.

 

[PreservedSwine]

I’m no lawyer, however, iirc, some cases aren’t decided by right/wrong. Judgements can be given for being 95% wrong, but 5% right.
I recall an accident where a car rounded a blind corner, and hit a man who just stopped his car in the middle of the oncoming lane. The car that was parked in the middle of the road, in the oncoming lane, on a blind corner, was killed. His estate sued, and were awarded a settlement. They had come to the conclusion that although he was 95% to blame, the other driver was fault for not being able to stop in time, and was also at fault.
Who knows what happens if this actually makes it to trial. The fact that they’re suing the entity with the deepest pockets likely plays a factor

Sponsored