The Roundtable
Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
 By Tyler Larkworthy
Tyler Larkworthy is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania studying computer science and economics. Driverless cars represent a technological innovation that is as fraught with potential legal and ethical issues as it is futuristic. Manufacturers and engineers working on driverless cars must meet numerous regulations to bring their products to market. But a pressing legal question remains: When a driverless car crashes, who is to blame? A coherent regulatory framework for autonomous vehicles is lacking in the U.S. Only nine states and Washington, D.C. address driverless cars in any way in their laws, with most banning fully driverless vehicles. Only Florida allows truly driverless vehicles, that is, vehicles which move without an operator in the driver’s seat. [1] Florida law specifies, however, that a remote operator must still be able to take control of the vehicle in the event of an emergency. Forty-one states do not address autonomous vehicles in their legal codes, leaving the broad issue of the cars’ legality pending. [1]
0 Comments
 Tyler Larkworthy is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania studying computer science and economics.
Editor’s Note: this piece was written before the recently issued executive order instituting a new version of the travel ban. The first month of the Trump presidency has seen divisive policy decisions and bitter legal pushback, epitomized by the controversial travel ban issued on January 27. The ban, enacted by Executive Order 13769, is valid for 90 days and applies to seven countries which have Muslim-majority populations. [1] After switching positions several times, the federal government decided that the ban did not apply to green card holders, meaning that US permanent residents from the seven restricted countries could still lawfully enter the country. The ban faced near immediate challenge in numerous states. [2] On February 3, Judge James Robart issued a temporary restraining order against the ban, though the lawsuit in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington remains pending. [3] The Trump administration appealed Robart’s order to the Ninth Circuit Court. A panel of three judges on the 9th Circuit ruled against the Trump administration, leaving the restraining order in place and signifying an end to implementation of the ban. |
|
|