自动驾驶下生产商的刑事责任  

Criminal Liability of the Manufacturer in the Case of Autonomous Driving

作　　者： 李倩(译) 陈尔彦(校)[4] Frank Peter Schuster;Li Qian;Chen Er-yan

机构地区：[1]德国维尔茨堡大学 [2]天津大学法学院 [3]德国柏林自由大学 [4]北京大学

出　　处：《苏州大学学报（法学版）》2021年第3期41-50,共10页Journal of Soochow University：Law Edition

基　　金：国家社会科学基金“现代法治视野下侦查行为的起点问题和法律边界研究”(项目编号:19BFX079)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：在自动驾驶领域,技术的进步不可阻挡危险的发生。但人类司机只需在他所能掌握和控制的自动化系统范围内承担责任。在自动驾驶下,由于机器不能自己做出“正确”的决定,从刑法视角看,生产商可能需要对过失致人伤害、过失杀人、间接故意杀人、危害道路交通等罪承担刑事责任。生产商在此需要承担谨慎义务和个人责任。另外,生产商和研发人员在“两难处境”之下,如何编制紧急算法,也是一个无法回避的话题。与韦尔策尔提出的扳道工案完全不同,程序员对于“两难处境”的编程,并没有创设法律上不被许可的危险。我们可以在不打破德国刑法教义学传统原则的基础上,对其进行理性的讨论。In the field of autonomous driving,technological progress cannot prevent the occurrence of danger.However,the human driver can only assume responsibility within the scope of the automated system that he/she can master and control.In autonomous driving,since the machine cannot make the“correct”decision on its own,from the perspective of criminal law,manufacturers may need to bear criminal responsibility for crimes such as negligence causing injury,manslaughter,indirect intentional homicide,and endangering road traffic.Manufacturers need to bear the duty of care and personal responsibility.In addition,under the“dilemma”of manufacturers and developers,how to compile emergency algorithms is also an unavoidable topic.Completely different from Welzel’s case,programmers do not create a legally impermissible danger to programming in a“dilemma”.We can discuss it rationally without breaking the traditional principles of criminal law doctrine.

关 键 词：自动驾驶 紧急避险 谨慎义务 容许的风险 算法 

分 类 号：D914[政治法律—刑法学]