The rapid advancement of autonomous driving technology, while enhancing travel efficiency and safety, has sparked significant debate regarding the identification of criminal liability subjects. Based on an analysis of Chinas legislative landscape and international practices, this paper focuses on the criminal law challenges in attributing liability in accidents involving autonomous vehicles. Since autonomous driving systems themselves do not qualify as criminal subjects, liability should primarily fall on manufacturers and users, but only in cases involving intent or gross negligence. In terms of normative foundations, this paper integrates the "theory of permitted risk" and the "theory of conflicting obligations," arguing for a certain degree of risk tolerance in the development of autonomous driving technology. In situations involving conflicting legal interests, priority should be given to protecting passenger safety. Furthermore, from the perspectives of manufacturers and users, the paper outlines specific duties of care, including compliance in production, risk disclosure, and ongoing monitoring obligations for manufacturers, as well as users obligations for preemptive prudence and post-accident assistance. Ultimately, it is proposed that criminal law should reasonably narrow the scope of liable parties and clarify special duties of care, thereby safeguarding individual legal interests while providing institutional support for the regulated development of autonomous driving technology.
Qian Su (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: