HB2444 – Defining the legal liabilities associated with the operation of autonomous vehicles.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Kloba (D; 1st District; Kirkland)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Civil Rights & Judiciary.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would define the legal liability of manufacturers of autonomous vehicles. They’d be responsible for the safety of occupants, other users of the road, and property to the same extent that an attentive and unimpaired human driver in similar circumstances would be. Breaches of the system’s duty of care would include operating in a way that would be negligent if a person did it; failing to obey motor vehicle laws, rules, and regulations; failing to make defensive driving maneuvers without undue risk, and requesting a person to take control of the vehicle in circumstances in which it was unreasonable to do that expeditiously and without creating an additional hazard. Such failures would count as ordinary or gross negligence, and manufacturers’ could be financially liable for losses resulting from them. They’d still be liable if intervention by a third party had contributed to a system’s failure to control the vehicle.

The bill would establish strict liability for autonomous vehicles being tested, were running without human supervision, or claimed to be capable of doing that. Manufacturers would be liable for damages to people or property regardless of whether the automated system or a person was in control of the vehicle immediately before the accident, and regardless of any failures on the part of the test driver. Unless you’d deliberately engaged in a malicious act, you could get paid for damages simply by showing that the car had caused them. Drivers who’d taken over partial or complete control of a vehicle from the system would not be responsible for any loss arising from their negligent acts or omissions during the first 10 seconds after the transfer of control; they might be liable if they didn’t respond within 10 seconds to requests from the system about taking over or shifting control of the vehicle.

However, people who were responsible for supervising the operation of a system might be liable for losses rather than the manufacturer if the loss happened more than ten seconds after they took over control of a vehicle, the loss was caused by a readily apparent hazard that could have been avoided or mitigated through reasonable intervention without unduly endangering the them, other individuals, or property; they knew or should have known that the system wouldn’t deal with the hazard adequately without intervention; and they had a reasonable amount of time to perceive, react to, and avoid the hazard.

Systems would have to shut down and stop at the first available safe location if they couldn’t continue operation of the vehicle without undue risk and a person was unwilling or unable to intervene in the vehicle’s controls or provide adequate remote supervision. If a vehicle had urgent-egress or demand-stop features, occupants wouldn’t be liable for using or failing to use them when the vehicle was operating fully autonomously. Manufacturer would have to have automated vehicles display appropriate and effective visual warnings to motorists and vulnerable road users while they were being tested on the road.