Distribution of the Burden of Proof in Autonomous Driving Tort Cases: Implications of the German Legislation for China

Abstract

In the realm of autonomous driving tort, a significant disparity exists in the parties’ access to autonomous driving data and essential technical information, resulting in challenges in unilateral proof. The traditional burden of proof framework in driving litigation is inadequate for direct application in the autonomous driving sphere. As we approach the era of widespread autonomous driving operations, there is an urgent need to clarify and redefine the allocation of the burden of proof in specific litigations. Utilizing comparative legal analysis and case studies, this paper delves into the disparities in the legislative provisions concerning the burden of proof for autonomous driving in Germany and China. China can learn from Germany’s legislative precedence in shifting the burden of proof for “product defect” and “fault” onto the manufacturer, thereby requiring the infringed party to merely furnish preliminary evidence indicating a “causal relationship between the defect and the damage”. This approach mitigates the evidentiary burden on the aggrieved party, clarifies the litigation procedures, incentivizes manufacturers to enhance the technology, reinforces risk management, and ultimately facilitates the progression of autonomous driving technology.

Keywords

• autonomous driving
• artificial intelligence
• burden of proof
• liability for tort
• product liability