Connected Automated Vehicles and Australian Consumer Law

The first claims brought by persons who have sustained injury loss or damage as a result of a CAV are likely to be very complex claims, especially where liability is in dispute, resulting in lengthy expensive litigation. Plaintiffs are likely to explore every possible legal basis for their claim, including the variety of claims available under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).
Where connected automated vehicles (CAVs) are alleged not to have performed in the manner advertised or expected, or to have a safety defect, a claim for damages under the ACL might be considered in addition to, or instead of seeking other legal remedies. A variety of claims are potentially possible: for personal injuries, loss or damage to other goods, building, fixtures or land. The threshold requirements for these claims are less demanding than claims brought in negligence, and many are strict liability claims. Claims may be brought in relation to goods or services, against manufacturers and/or suppliers. ‘Manufacturers’ is defined expansively and may include a number of entities in the supply chain. The ACL also provides for various statutory guarantees in ‘consumer transactions’ and consumer goods, and prohibits unfair practices including false or misleading representations. Guarantees include that goods are of acceptable quality, fit for purpose, safe, and free from defects.
ACL actions may potentially avoid many of the threshold complications regarding ‘driver’, much more easily allow actions against ‘manufacturers’ under existing CTP and NIIS schemes and further avoid the hurdle of fault present in general recovery through negligence. However, some major concerns arise if the ACL is viewed as a solution to the problem of liability for AVs.
This presentation will identify these concerns and make recommendations about possibilities for future reform in this area.