1. Introduction

Autonomous Mobility Governance Disputes in Thailand concern civil and legal disputes arising from the development, deployment, operation and regulation of autonomous vehicles and intelligent transportation systems.

Autonomous mobility includes:

Self-driving and driverless vehicles.

AI-controlled passenger cars and taxis.

Autonomous buses and public transportation.

Driverless freight and logistics vehicles.

Autonomous delivery robots.

Connected and vehicle-to-everything (V2X) transportation systems.

AI-based traffic management and automated road infrastructure.

Autonomous electric vehicles and smart mobility platforms.

The central legal challenge is determining who bears civil liability when an autonomous mobility system causes an accident, personal injury, property damage, financial loss or infringement of individual rights.

Thailand does not yet have a comprehensive, dedicated autonomous-vehicle liability statute. Consequently, conventional civil liability, motor vehicle regulation, product liability, insurance and consumer protection legislation provide the principal legal framework.

Important distinction: The Thai Supreme Court decisions discussed below are actual decisions concerning general tort, motor vehicle and negligence principles. They are not judgments specifically involving fully autonomous vehicles. Their relevance is their potential application by analogy to autonomous mobility disputes.

2. Legal framework governing autonomous mobility in Thailand

A. Civil and Commercial Code (CCC)

The Thai Civil and Commercial Code is the principal source of civil liability.

Section 420 – General tort liability

Section 420 establishes liability where a person, wilfully or negligently, unlawfully injures another person's life, body, health, liberty, property or rights.

Its application to autonomous mobility includes:

Negligent development of autonomous-driving software.

Failure to install appropriate collision-avoidance systems.

Inadequate vehicle maintenance.

Negligent deployment of autonomous taxis.

Failure to warn passengers about system limitations.

Negligent supervision of automated transportation services.

For example, if a transportation company deploys an autonomous vehicle with a known braking-system defect and the vehicle injures a pedestrian, the company may face civil liability depending on the evidence and its legal responsibilities.

Section 425 – Employer liability

An employer may be jointly liable for wrongful acts committed by an employee in the course of employment.

This provision becomes relevant where:

A fleet operator negligently supervises an autonomous vehicle.

A safety employee ignores system warnings.

A maintenance technician improperly repairs a vehicle.

A transportation company employee negligently activates an automated driving system.

Section 437 – Liability arising from mechanically propelled vehicles

This is particularly important.

Section 437 imposes a presumption of liability on a person who possesses or controls a mechanically propelled vehicle when it causes injury, subject to statutory defences such as force majeure or the injured person's fault.

The provision creates a major interpretative problem for autonomous vehicles: when an AI system controls acceleration, steering and braking, who is legally considered to possess or control the vehicle?

Possible defendants include:

The registered vehicle owner.

The actual operator.

The autonomous fleet company.

A person with effective control over the vehicle.

Other responsible parties under separate legal provisions.

The precise allocation depends on the facts and judicial interpretation.

B. Vehicles Act B.E. 2522 (1979)

The Vehicles Act regulates vehicle registration, licensing, vehicle characteristics and related requirements.

Its importance in autonomous mobility disputes includes:

Vehicle registration and classification.

Technical requirements.

Vehicle modifications.

Compliance with applicable safety standards.

Legal requirements for vehicles operating on public roads.

A major difficulty is that the traditional regulatory framework was developed around human-operated vehicles rather than fully driverless systems.

C. Land Traffic Act B.E. 2522 (1979)

The Land Traffic Act provides rules concerning road use, traffic safety, vehicle operation and driver responsibilities.

Autonomous mobility raises questions concerning:

Whether a human occupant must remain capable of taking control.

Who is responsible for observing traffic signals.

How autonomous vehicles should respond to pedestrians.

Whether automated vehicles can lawfully operate in mixed traffic.

Who is responsible when an automated system violates traffic regulations.

D. Product Liability Act B.E. 2551 (2008)

The Product Liability Act provides an important route for claims involving unsafe products.

Potentially responsible business operators include manufacturers, importers and other qualifying businesses in the distribution chain.

Relevant defects may involve:

Faulty braking systems.

Defective sensors.

Inaccurate object-recognition technology.

Unsafe steering mechanisms.

Defective embedded vehicle hardware.

Inadequate safety warnings.

An important unresolved issue concerns standalone software. Whether packaged autonomous-driving software falls within the statutory definition of a product requires careful interpretation. A software developer should not automatically be treated as liable under this legislation merely because its software contributed to an accident.

E. Road Accident Victims Protection Act B.E. 2535 (1992)

This legislation establishes compulsory motor vehicle insurance and preliminary compensation arrangements for road accident victims.

It is particularly relevant because victims may require immediate medical or death-related compensation before the ultimate question of negligence or technological fault has been determined.

3. Major categories of autonomous mobility governance disputes

A. Autonomous vehicle accident liability

This is the most important category.

An autonomous vehicle may cause an accident because of:

AI perception failure.

Incorrect object detection.

Software malfunction.

Sensor obstruction.

Failure to recognize pedestrians.

Incorrect traffic-signal interpretation.

Unanticipated road conditions.

The principal question is whether liability belongs to the vehicle operator, owner, manufacturer, software developer or fleet-management company.

Under Sections 420 and 437, a claimant may have different legal routes depending on the nature of the accident and the identity of the defendant.

B. Manufacturer and software developer liability

Autonomous vehicles rely on interconnected hardware and software.

Disputes can arise when manufacturers fail to provide safe products or developers introduce defective software updates.

Examples include:

An AI braking algorithm incorrectly identifies an obstacle.

A manufacturer releases a defective autonomous-driving update.

A sensor manufacturer supplies inaccurate detection equipment.

A software provider fails to address a known vulnerability.

A vehicle manufacturer provides insufficient safety instructions.

The Product Liability Act may apply to qualifying unsafe physical products and responsible business operators. General tort principles may separately apply where negligent development, maintenance or deployment causes damage.

C. Autonomous public transportation disputes

Thailand's smart transportation development may involve automated buses, intelligent railway systems, driverless shuttles and autonomous taxis.

Civil disputes may involve:

Passenger injuries.

Negligent transportation services.

Unsafe vehicle deployment.

Failure to maintain automated systems.

Contractual breaches.

Passenger compensation.

Inadequate emergency-response arrangements.

Transportation companies cannot automatically avoid their responsibilities by arguing that an AI system independently made the decision.

D. Autonomous freight and logistics disputes

Autonomous freight vehicles create legal issues involving cargo damage, delivery delays, collisions and contractual performance.

For example, an autonomous truck transporting commercial goods may cause an accident because its navigation system incorrectly identifies a road closure.

Potential claims may involve:

The vehicle operator.

The logistics company.

The manufacturer.

The software supplier.

The cargo owner.

The insurer.

The contractual relationship between these parties may determine additional rights of indemnification and recovery.

E. Autonomous mobility data and privacy disputes

Connected vehicles collect substantial quantities of information, including:

Location and movement data.

Passenger information.

Driving behaviour.

Facial and biometric information, where collected.

Vehicle identification data.

Communication records.

The Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) becomes relevant when personal data is collected, processed, disclosed or transferred unlawfully.

Potential disputes include unauthorized location tracking, disclosure of passenger information, excessive data collection and cybersecurity breaches.

F. Autonomous mobility platform disputes

Ride-hailing and mobility-as-a-service platforms may use AI to determine routes, fares, vehicle allocation and service availability.

Civil disputes can arise from:

Incorrect automated fare calculations.

Unauthorized cancellation of transportation services.

Discriminatory passenger allocation.

Unfair contractual disclaimers.

Incorrect safety ratings.

Financial losses resulting from automated platform decisions.

The Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979), applicable contractual principles and consumer-case procedures may become relevant.

4. Important Thai Supreme Court case laws

The following seven decisions provide useful judicial principles for analysing autonomous mobility disputes. They concern conventional vehicles, tort liability and related legal principles rather than autonomous vehicles themselves.

Case 1: Supreme Court Decision No. 3437/2537

Subject: Vehicle ownership versus actual possession or control

Facts:

The defendant owned a vehicle involved in an accident. However, another person was driving it at the time. The defendant was neither driving nor travelling in the vehicle.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that ownership alone did not establish possession or control under Section 437 of the Civil and Commercial Code.

Legal principle:

A vehicle owner is not automatically liable under Section 437 merely because their name appears as its owner. The actual possession or control of the vehicle at the relevant time is important.

Relevance to autonomous mobility:

This decision creates an important question for driverless transportation.

If an autonomous taxi is owned by one company, operated by another company and controlled by an AI system, ownership alone may not resolve who is responsible under Section 437.

The court would need to examine the relevant possession and control relationships.

Case 2: Supreme Court Decision No. 2659/2524

Subject: Meaning of possession under Section 437

Facts:

The dispute concerned the meaning of the person possessing a mechanically propelled vehicle when damage occurred.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court interpreted possession under Section 437 as referring to the person actually holding and using the vehicle at the time of the damage.

Legal principle:

The statutory concept of possession is connected with actual use and control at the time of the incident.

Relevance to autonomous mobility:

This decision is particularly significant where an autonomous vehicle operates without a human driver.

For example, a fleet-management company may remotely supervise a driverless vehicle while the passenger merely occupies it.

The legal question is whether the fleet operator or another person has the relevant possession or control. The judgment does not itself answer how AI-based control should be classified.

ThaiDeka+1

Case 3: Supreme Court Decision No. 3081/2523

Subject: Duty to maintain mechanically propelled vehicles safely

Facts:

The case concerned an accident involving a vehicle allegedly suffering brake failure.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court recognized that a person using a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road has a duty to inspect, maintain and repair its mechanical components so that it remains safe for operation.

Legal principle:

Vehicle users cannot simply rely on a mechanical failure as an excuse without establishing the relevant circumstances and legal defence.

Relevance to autonomous mobility:

This principle can be extended by analogy to autonomous vehicle maintenance.

A fleet operator may need to establish that it:

Maintained braking equipment.

Inspected sensors.

Followed software maintenance requirements.

Addressed safety warnings.

Installed necessary security updates.

A mechanical or software failure should not automatically establish force majeure.

Case 4: Supreme Court Decision No. 2668/2524

Subject: Excessive speed and foreseeable road accidents

Facts:

A driver travelling at excessive speed collided with one vehicle and subsequently struck another vehicle approximately 25 metres away because the driver could not stop in time.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court considered the accident preventable had the driver not been travelling at excessive speed. The defendant was held responsible under Section 437.

Legal principle:

A person responsible for a mechanically propelled vehicle cannot rely on an external event as force majeure where the resulting damage could have been prevented through proper care and control.

Relevance to autonomous mobility:

An autonomous vehicle must select a safe speed according to road conditions.

If an AI system continues travelling at excessive speed despite congestion, poor visibility or an approaching pedestrian, the resulting accident may create liability for the legally responsible parties.

The case is useful when evaluating automated speed-selection algorithms.

Case 5: Supreme Court Decision No. 1091/2523

Subject: Accidents involving two mechanically propelled vehicles

Facts:

The dispute involved a collision between two mechanically propelled vehicles.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that Section 437 could not simply be applied to impose the statutory presumption of liability in a collision between two mechanically propelled vehicles under the legal framework considered in that case.

Legal principle:

The statutory presumption under Section 437 must be applied according to its legal scope. It does not automatically resolve every collision involving motor vehicles.

Relevance to autonomous mobility:

This distinction matters when:

Two autonomous cars collide.

An autonomous bus collides with a conventional vehicle.

Two driverless freight vehicles collide.

A connected vehicle causes damage to another automated vehicle.

In such disputes, ordinary negligence and other applicable civil liability principles become especially important.

Case 6: Supreme Court Decisions Nos. 1978–1979/2526

Subject: Employer responsibility, vehicle ownership and pleading requirements

Facts:

The dispute concerned an accident involving a vehicle owned by one defendant and driven by another defendant who was an employee and relative of the owner.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court considered the requirements for establishing the owner's liability under Section 437. Merely alleging ownership and employment was insufficient to establish every necessary element of the claim, particularly possession or control.

Legal principle:

The claimant must properly plead and establish the legal basis on which each defendant is alleged to be responsible.

Relevance to autonomous mobility:

An autonomous mobility accident may involve several defendants:

Vehicle manufacturer.

Fleet operator.

Technology provider.

Maintenance contractor.

Transportation company.

A claimant should distinguish the legal basis for each defendant's responsibility rather than treating every participant as automatically liable.

Case 7: Supreme Court Decision No. 6683/2537

Subject: Standing and entitlement to recover vehicle repair costs

Facts:

A borrower of a vehicle sought compensation for repair costs following damage caused by another driver's conduct.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that the borrower was not automatically entitled to recover the repair costs because the borrower was not the person who had suffered the relevant financial loss.

Legal principle:

A claimant seeking compensation must establish that they have suffered the legally relevant damage or possess the legal right to claim it.

Relevance to autonomous mobility:

This principle is important in disputes involving:

Leased autonomous vehicles.

Shared mobility fleets.

Rental vehicles.

Autonomous taxi operators.

Vehicle financing arrangements.

Insurance companies exercising subrogation rights.

A passenger, vehicle owner, leasing company and insurer may have different legal interests in the same accident.

LawNode+2

5. Additional judicial principles relevant to autonomous transportation

Two further decisions offer useful supplementary guidance.

Supreme Court Decision No. 1326/2510

The Court considered an accident in which two drivers contributed to a collision: one was speeding and the other failed to give way. The decision illustrates that separate negligent acts can independently contribute to the same accident.

For autonomous mobility, similar reasoning may become relevant when a defective automated driving system and negligent human intervention both contribute to an accident. This was a criminal decision, so it should not be mistaken for a direct civil apportionment ruling.

ThaiDeka+1

Supreme Court Decision No. 8155/2555

The Court considered the conduct of an ambulance driver passing a red signal during an emergency journey. The decision examined the special legal treatment of emergency vehicles and the importance of the actual pleaded negligence.

For autonomous emergency transportation, this illustrates why the legal rules applicable to emergency vehicles and the actual circumstances of operation must be considered separately from ordinary automated driving.

ฎีกาที่ 8155/2555

6. Allocation of civil liability in autonomous mobility disputes

One of the most difficult questions is identifying the legally responsible party.

The following framework illustrates how liability may be assessed under existing Thai law.

Liability is not necessarily exclusive. Several parties may be responsible under different legal provisions if their conduct independently contributes to the damage.

A. Liability of vehicle owners

Vehicle owners may face claims where their possession or control satisfies Section 437.

However, Decision No. 3437/2537 demonstrates that ownership by itself does not automatically establish Section 437 liability.

In autonomous transportation, the distinction between legal ownership, actual possession and operational control becomes particularly important.

B. Liability of autonomous fleet operators

Fleet operators may face liability where they:

Deploy unsafe vehicles.

Ignore system warnings.

Fail to maintain vehicles.

Operate vehicles without adequate safety procedures.

Negligently supervise remote-control operations.

Sections 420, 425 and 437 may be relevant depending on the circumstances.

C. Liability of autonomous vehicle manufacturers

Manufacturers may face liability where an unsafe physical vehicle or component causes injury.

Potential claims include defective braking mechanisms, faulty steering equipment and malfunctioning sensors.

The Product Liability Act is particularly relevant because it provides a statutory framework for liability for damage caused by unsafe products.

However, the distinction between defective physical products and standalone software remains important.

D. Liability of AI software developers

Software developers may become involved where an autonomous-driving algorithm causes an accident.

For example:

A developer supplies a navigation and object-recognition system that repeatedly fails to recognize pedestrians at certain intersections. The transportation company receives warnings but continues operating its fleet.

Possible legal issues include:

Whether the software was negligently designed.

Whether the developer knew about the defect.

Whether the operator ignored known risks.

Whether the defect caused the accident.

Whether the relevant software falls within product liability legislation.

General tort liability under Section 420 may be considered where its requirements are established.

E. Liability of maintenance and technology providers

Maintenance contractors may be responsible where defective servicing contributes to an accident.

For example, a contractor improperly calibrates an autonomous vehicle's radar sensors, resulting in inaccurate obstacle detection.

Potential liability may arise under Section 420 or contractual obligations.

7. Contractual disputes in autonomous mobility

Autonomous mobility services depend on contractual relationships between passengers, manufacturers, fleet operators, software companies and logistics providers.

The Civil and Commercial Code governs relevant contractual relationships.

Major disputes include:

1. Passenger transportation contracts

A passenger may claim compensation where a transportation company fails to provide the agreed safe transportation service.

2. Autonomous vehicle leasing contracts

A dispute may arise when a leasing company supplies a vehicle that does not satisfy agreed safety or operational requirements.

3. Software licensing agreements

Software providers and vehicle manufacturers may disagree about responsibility for defects, software updates and system failures.

4. Autonomous freight contracts

A logistics provider may become liable for cargo damage or delivery failures, depending on the contractual allocation of responsibilities.

5. Liability exclusion clauses

A company may attempt to exclude responsibility by arguing that an accident resulted from an autonomous system rather than human conduct.

Such clauses are not automatically enforceable against every claimant. Applicable mandatory laws, consumer protections and statutory restrictions must be considered.

8. Evidence and proof in autonomous mobility litigation

Autonomous mobility disputes require more sophisticated evidence than conventional road accidents.

[성남시 시정소식지 비전성남] 성남시, 교통·자율주행 빅데이터센터 개소

A. Sensor and camera records

Evidence concerning obstacles, pedestrians, traffic signals and surrounding road conditions.

Capability spotlight: Fault management

B. Software logs

Records of AI decisions, software versions, system warnings and automated driving commands.

The Black Box of a Car: What It Remembers, What Forensics Can Tell Us

C. Event data records

Vehicle speed, braking, steering, acceleration and system activation information.

Digital Forensics in Cyber Investigations: Acquisition, Analysis, and Interpretation of Digital Evidence | by Mai Tran | The Records of Information Technology & Systems Security | Feb, 2026 | Medium

D. Digital forensic evidence

Evidence of unauthorized access, cyberattacks, software manipulation and data integrity.

Burden of proof

Different legal provisions establish different evidentiary requirements.

Under Section 420, the claimant generally needs to establish the wrongful act, damage and legally relevant causal connection.

Under Section 437, the statutory presumption changes the burden of proof for qualifying vehicle-related damage.

Under product liability legislation, the claimant must establish the statutory conditions, including the relevant damage, unsafe product and causal connection.

In contractual litigation, the relevant contractual obligation, breach and resulting loss must be established.

A major practical difficulty is that manufacturers and technology providers often possess the technical information needed to determine why an autonomous vehicle malfunctioned.

Thai legislation should therefore consider stronger mechanisms for preserving and disclosing relevant vehicle data in civil proceedings.

9. Insurance disputes involving autonomous mobility

Insurance is an essential component of autonomous transportation governance.

Thailand's Road Accident Victims Protection Act B.E. 2535 provides compulsory motor vehicle insurance and preliminary compensation arrangements.

However, autonomous mobility creates additional insurance questions.

A significant problem arises where insurers and policyholders disagree over whether an accident resulted from driver negligence, defective technology or unauthorized software modification.

Insurance contracts should expressly address autonomous driving modes, system updates, remote intervention, cybersecurity and the responsibilities of fleet operators.

10. Government regulation and institutional governance

Autonomous mobility governance requires coordination between different Thai public institutions.

Important regulatory stakeholders include:

Department of Land Transport: Vehicle registration, licensing and applicable vehicle requirements.

Department of Highways: Road infrastructure and highway safety.

Department of Rural Roads: Rural road infrastructure and safety.

Royal Thai Police: Traffic enforcement and accident investigation.

Office of Consumer Protection Board: Consumer protection issues.

Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee: Personal data governance.

Thai Industrial Standards Institute: Applicable industrial and product safety standards.

Thailand has also undertaken research and regulatory consideration concerning autonomous vehicles. A 2024 standards initiative concerning automated driving systems illustrates the emerging technical regulatory direction.

Nevertheless, technical standards alone do not settle civil liability, insurance coverage or the legal status of fully driverless vehicles.

Global law firm+2

11. Major legal challenges in Thailand

12. Proposed legal reforms for Thailand

Thailand should consider developing a comprehensive legal framework specifically addressing autonomous mobility.

A. Autonomous Vehicle Liability Act

A dedicated statute could establish:

Legal definitions of autonomous vehicles and automated driving systems.

Responsibilities of vehicle owners and operators.

Manufacturer and software-provider obligations.

Rules for human intervention.

Civil compensation mechanisms.

Liability allocation for autonomous accidents.

B. Reform of Section 437

Section 437 should be reconsidered to clarify how possession and control operate when a vehicle is controlled by an automated driving system.

The law should distinguish between:

Actual physical possession.

Legal ownership.

Operational control.

Remote supervision.

Automated decision-making.

A clear statutory approach would reduce uncertainty in accidents involving driverless vehicles.

C. Software liability reform

The Product Liability Act B.E. 2551 should be reviewed to determine whether and how autonomous-driving software should be expressly covered.

The reform should consider:

Embedded software.

Standalone driving applications.

Software updates.

AI training and model defects.

Cybersecurity vulnerabilities.

Failures caused by connected infrastructure.

D. Mandatory autonomous mobility insurance

Thailand should consider a specialized insurance framework requiring adequate coverage for:

Autonomous vehicle operators.

Third-party injuries.

Passengers.

Pedestrians.

Defective technology.

Autonomous freight operations.

E. Digital evidence legislation

A clear framework should establish requirements for:

Preserving accident-related system logs.

Recording automated driving decisions.

Maintaining software version histories.

Providing access to relevant evidence.

Protecting personal information.

Ensuring independent technical investigations.

F. Human rights and public safety

Autonomous transportation should respect:

Human dignity.

Personal autonomy.

Privacy.

Equal access to transportation.

Disability rights.

Consumer rights.

Protection of pedestrians and vulnerable road users.

G. Regulatory testing and certification

Before commercial deployment, autonomous vehicles should undergo appropriate safety assessments, technical testing and regulatory authorization.

Testing should examine performance in:

Heavy traffic.

Monsoon conditions.

Flooded roads.

Poor visibility.

Congested urban intersections.

Areas with significant pedestrian activity.

13. Comparative legal perspective

Thailand can benefit from examining international approaches to autonomous mobility regulation.

The most important comparative lesson is that autonomous mobility requires a combination of vehicle safety regulation, civil liability, insurance and technological accountability.

14. Hypothetical legal disputes under Thai civil law

The following examples demonstrate how the existing framework could be applied.

Scenario 1: Autonomous taxi injures a pedestrian

An autonomous taxi fails to recognize a pedestrian and causes serious injuries.

Potential legal issues:

Section 420 negligence.

Section 437 vehicle liability.

Product Liability Act.

Road accident insurance.

Scenario 2: Autonomous freight vehicle suffers software failure

A driverless freight vehicle loses its navigation capability and damages commercial property.

Potential legal issues:

Fleet operator negligence.

Manufacturer liability.

Software-related tort claims.

Cargo and commercial insurance disputes.

Scenario 3: Autonomous bus causes passenger injury

An automated braking system activates incorrectly and injures passengers.

Potential legal issues:

Transportation service obligations.

Defective product liability.

Negligent maintenance.

Passenger compensation.

Scenario 4: Cyberattack causes autonomous vehicle collision

A hacker accesses an autonomous vehicle's control system and changes its movement instructions.

Potential legal issues:

Cybersecurity negligence.

Product defects.

Fleet operator responsibility.

Digital evidence preservation.

Third-party tort liability.

Scenario 5: Two autonomous vehicles collide

Two driverless vehicles collide at a road intersection because their automated systems interpret traffic conditions differently.

Potential legal issues:

Section 420.

The limited application of Section 437 in vehicle-to-vehicle collisions.

Technical causation.

Manufacturer and operator responsibility.

Insurance recovery.

15. Overall conclusion

Civil Law and Autonomous Mobility Governance Disputes in Thailand represent an emerging area of civil liability, transportation regulation and technological governance.

The Thai Civil and Commercial Code provides important foundations through Sections 420, 425 and 437. The Vehicles Act B.E. 2522, Land Traffic Act B.E. 2522, Product Liability Act B.E. 2551 and Road Accident Victims Protection Act B.E. 2535 provide additional regulatory and compensation mechanisms.

The seven principal Supreme Court decisions examined above establish important principles concerning vehicle possession, actual control, maintenance duties, causation, statutory liability and standing to claim compensation.

However, these decisions were developed in the context of conventional transportation. They do not comprehensively resolve liability involving autonomous artificial intelligence.

The central legal reform priority for Thailand should be to move from a predominantly driver-centred liability model towards a technology-aware system of shared responsibility. Such a system should protect accident victims while ensuring that manufacturers, software developers, vehicle owners and mobility operators remain accountable for the risks they create or control.

16. Important legal provisions and case-law revision table

Research qualification: The cases above should be treated as analogous authorities, not autonomous-vehicle precedents. Their application to AI-controlled mobility will depend on future legislation and judicial interpretation. This is an academic legal analysis, rather than a substitute for advice on a particular accident or lawsuit.