SpringerLink
Log in

Autonomous Vehicles and Civil Liability in Belgium

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Autonomous Vehicles and Civil Liability in a Global Perspective

Part of the book series: Data Science, Machine Intelligence, and Law ((DSMIL,volume 3))

  • 57 Accesses

Abstract

In the absence of an ad hoc liability regime for autonomous vehicles, victims will have to rely on existing Belgian legal frameworks. Whereas certain road victims, the so-called ‘vulnerable users’, will presumably continue to benefit from facilitated compensation stemming from the no-fault regime of Article 29bis, other road victims, including drivers, will have to resort to general fault liability, liability for things or product liability as a legal basis for bringing a claim. The following analysis identifies potential legal hurdles that may arise when applying these regimes and which may vary according to the vehicle’s automation level. Furthermore, the analysis provides an overview into the potential for autonomous vehicles to ‘disrupt’ existing liability paradigms, notably through the foreseen digitalisation and ‘servitisation’ of mobility.

The following chapter does not touch upon developments at the European level such as the Commission’s recent proposals on an AI Liability Directive or a revised Product Liability Directive as they are not yet binding. See for a first analysis of these proposals: Dheu O, De Bruyne J, Ducuing C (2022) The European Commission’s Approach To Extra-Contractual Liability and AI – A First Analysis and Evaluation of the Two Proposals. CiTiP Working Paper. Available on SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4239792.

Part of this research has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation - Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions program under the Safer Autonomous Systems (SAS) project, grant agreement n° 812.788: https://etn-sas.eu/. This publication reflects only the author’s view, exempting the European Union from any liability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
EUR 29.95
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
EUR 128.39
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
EUR 171.19
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See for an extensive study on the societal impact of autonomous vehicles: De Bruyne (2021), 408 p.

  2. 2.

    Royal decree (arrêté) of 18th March 2018 related to tests with automated vehicles. This statute inserts a new article, art. 59/1 in the royal decree (arrêté) of December the 1st 1975. This text establishes the possibility for the public authorities (Minister in charge of road traffic) to grant derogations to the Road traffic code in order for tests of autonomous vehicles to be carried out including in real time traffic. See: Cassart (2018), p. 136 (n°12–13). A code of practice for testing with autonomous vehicles on public roads was previously adopted in 2016 (however, it is non-binding guidelines).

  3. 3.

    The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) designed a 6 level scale ranging from no automation (level 0) to full automation (level 5).

  4. 4.

    Malengreau (2019a), p. 15.578 (n°6).

  5. 5.

    Ibid.

  6. 6.

    Kruithof (2018), p. 99 (n°163).

  7. 7.

    Ibid. p. 99 (n°164).

  8. 8.

    Article 2 §1 paragraph 1 and 2 of the Act of 21 November 1989 on Mandatory Liability Insurance for Auto Motor Vehicles (la Loi du 21 novembre 1988 relative à l’assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs).

  9. 9.

    Article 3 §1 paragraph 1 of the Act of 21 November 1989 on Mandatory Liability Insurance for Auto Motor Vehicles.

  10. 10.

    Kruithof (2018), p. 101 (n°167).

  11. 11.

    Article 29bis of the Act of the 21 November 1989 on Mandatory Liability Insurance for Auto Motor Vehicles (as amended). For more information on Article 29bis, see: Schoubroeck and Meurs (2013), 102 p; Malengreau (2019b), p. 15582 (n°57).

  12. 12.

    Article 2 §1 of the Act of 21 November 1989 on Mandatory Liability Insurance for Auto Motor Vehicles.

  13. 13.

    De Coninck and Dubuisson (2015), p. 28.

  14. 14.

    See: Court of Cassation, 6 January 2012, as reported in (2012) RGAR (7), p. 14892 (R.G. n° C.10.0343.F); Court of First Instance, Brussels 70e ch., 26 January 2006, as reported in (2008) RGAR (3), p. 14373; Court of First Instance, Brussels 87 e ch., 5 December 2016, as reported in (2017) RGAR (6), pp. 15399–15405; Also see: Bocken et al. (2014), p. 251 with references.

  15. 15.

    Article 1 paragraph 1 of the Act of 21 November 1989 on Mandatory Liability Insurance for Auto Motor Vehicles (“véhicules destinés à circuler sur le sol et qui peuvent être actionnés par une force mécanique sans être liés à une voie ferrée”).

  16. 16.

    See for instance: Police Court Charleroi, 4e ch., 2 November 2006, as reported in (2007) JLMB (10), p. 401.

  17. 17.

    See for instance: Court of First Instance, Brussels, 27 January 2006, as reported in (2007) RGAR (5), p. 14262; Fagnart (1994), p. 12388 (n°51–54).

  18. 18.

    Court of Cassation, 15 November 2012, as reported in (2013) RGAR (4), p. 14972; Court of Cassation, 30 September 2010, as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n° C.09.0545.F); This requirement of involvement, however, cannot be confused with the required ‘causal link’, which is one of the requirements to impose liability pursuant to Article 1382 of the OBCC. See also infra for more information.

  19. 19.

    A contact between the vehicle and the victim is not always strictly required. See case law mentioned by De Rode (2023), pp. 27–28 (n°32–33), footnote 120 & 124–125: on the influence of a vehicle in the accident’s occurrence see: Police Court, Brussels, 15 April 2002, as reported in Dr. circ., 2002, p. 358; On the involvement of a bus whose presence obscured the view of a pedestrian and a vehicle, which prevented them from correctly evaluating the situation, see: Court of First Instance, Civ., Brussels, 27 January 2006, as reported in RGAR, 2007, p. 14262.

  20. 20.

    Court of Cassation, 28 April 2011, as reported in (2011) RGAR (6), p. 14765: the link between the vehicle and the accident exists as long as there was a contact between the vehicle and the victim; Court of Cassation, 3e ch. N, 9 January 2006, as reported in (2006) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), I, p. 87 (RG n° C.04.0519.N): a motor vehicle is involved in a traffic accident when there is any link between the vehicle and the accident. The existence of a causal link between the vehicle and the accident is not required for the vehicle to be involved.

  21. 21.

    However, there is one exception to this exclusion: the driver (‘ayant droit’) beneficiary of a victim who was not a driver and if such victim did not intentionally cause the damage. See: Article 29bis §2 of the Act of the 21 November 1989 on Mandatory Liability Insurance for Auto Motor Vehicles.

  22. 22.

    Court of Cassation, 1ère ch. F, 26 October 2007, Les Assurances Fédérales c/ R.F, as retrieved from Juportal.be (RG n° C.06.0341.F).

  23. 23.

    Article 29bis §1 of the Act of the 21 November 1989 on Mandatory Liability Insurance for Auto Motor Vehicles.

  24. 24.

    Ibid.

  25. 25.

    Article 29bis §5 of the Act of the 21 November 1989 on Mandatory Liability Insurance for Auto Motor Vehicles.

  26. 26.

    Article 29bis §4 of the Act of the 21 November 1989 on Mandatory Liability Insurance for Auto Motor Vehicles.

  27. 27.

    See in general: Bocken et al. (2014), 270 p.; Stijns and Samoy (2020), 192 p.

  28. 28.

    In Belgium, the theory of equivalence of conditions usually prevails with regards to causality (Vansweevelt and Weyts 2009, pp. 763–873, with further references; Fagnart 2006, p. 14.080 (n°3); Van Quickenborne 2007, pp. 31–46 with further references). See, however: Kruithof (2015), pp. 139–208 (concluding that another rule can better describe Belgian positive law on causation in civil liability. Under this rule a fact is a cause of a loss if (i) the loss would in the given circumstances not have occurred as it specifically occurred without the fact and (ii) the fact has increased the specific risk of which the specific loss occurrence was a realisation). In some cases, the theory of adequate causality is relied upon as well (Glansdorff 2013, pp. 119–120 (n°22–23)).

  29. 29.

    Stijns and Samoy (2020), p. 52 (n°8).

  30. 30.

    Ibid.; See also: Kruithof (2018), p. 45 (n°60).

  31. 31.

    Glansdorff (2013), p. 104 (n°3).

  32. 32.

    See on the violation of a legal provision: Court of Cassation, 16 May 2011, as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n° C.10.0664.N). See on the violation of the general duty of care: Court of Cassation, 4 November 2010, as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G.n° C.09.0214.F).

  33. 33.

    Court of Cassation, 10 April 1970 as reported in (1970) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), I, p. 682, as mentioned by Van Ommeslaghe (2010), p. 1189 (n°830); Dubuisson et al. (2009), p. 30 (n°13); De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), p. 337.

  34. 34.

    Van Ommeslaghe (2010), p. 1189 (n°830).

  35. 35.

    Court of Cassation, 9 February 2017, as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n° C.13.0143.F), as reported in (2017) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), p. 337; Court of Cassation, 16 May 2011, as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n° C.10.0664.N); See case law as reported by Kruithof (2018), p. 50 (n°68).

  36. 36.

    See case law reported by De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), p. 337, footnote n°56: Court of Cassation, 10 April 2014 (C.11.0796.N), as reported in (2014) Arr Cass, p. 962, (2014) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), p. 25; Court of Cassation, 16 May 2011, as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n° C.10.0664.N), and reported in (2011) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), p. 1339; Also see: Vandenberghe et al. (2000), p. 1564; Vansweevelt and Weyts (2009), p. 138.

  37. 37.

    Arrêté royal du 1er décembre 1975 portant règlement général sur la police de la circulation routière [et de l’usage de la voie publique].

  38. 38.

    Court of Cassation., 9 December 2011, as reported in (2017) RGDC (10), p. 545; Bocken et al. (2014), p. 89 and further; Vansweevelt and Weyts (2009), p. 125 and further; Stijns and Samoy (2020), pp. 54–55 (n°11–12).

  39. 39.

    Kruithof (2018), p. 46 (n°62); On the requirement of a general duty of care which is assessed against the behavior of a reasonable person placed in the same circumstances, see: Court of Cassation, 25 November 2002, as reported in (2002) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), p. 2230; Dubuisson (2009), p. 23 (n°3); Van Ommeslaghe (2010), p. 1190 (n°830).

  40. 40.

    See: Court of Cassation, 5 May 1971, as reported in (1971) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), p. 802 and note, as mentionned by Van Ommeslaghe (2010), p. 1190 (n°830); Court of Cassation, 12 November 1951, as reported in (1951) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), I, p. 128, as mentionned by Stijns and Samoy (2020), p. 55 (n°12), footnote n°57; Vansweevelt and Weyts (2009), pp. 134–136; Bocken et al. (2014), p. 91.

  41. 41.

    Court of Cassation, 26 May 1904, as reported in (1904) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), I, p. 246, as mentioned by Van Zuylen (2015a), pp. 7–8, (n°1) footnote n°5.

  42. 42.

    See for more information: Fagnart (2017), 196 p; Cornelis and Bützler (1982), 728 p; Stijns and Samoy (2020), p. 101 and following (n°69 and following).

  43. 43.

    See also: Van Zuylen (2015a), p. 9 (n°3); Kruithof (2018), pp. 91–92 (n°149) with further references.

  44. 44.

    For recent case law on these conditions, see: Court of Cassation, 12 November 2015, as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n°C.14.0468.N, C.14.0469.N.).

  45. 45.

    Fagnart (2017), pp. 19–20 (n°34); Ninane and Van Zuylen (2015), pp. 229–230 (n°12).

  46. 46.

    Van Ommeslaghe (2010), p. 1347 (n°941). See case law mentioned by author: Court of Cassation, 21 April 1972, as reported in (1972) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), I, p. 773 and note; Bocken et al. (2014), p. 184; Vansweevelt and Weyts (2009), p. 456; Vandenberghe and Van Quickenborne (2011), p. 387.

  47. 47.

    See for example: Court of Cassation, 8 March 2018 as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n° C.17.0248.N); Court of Cassation, 7 October 2016, as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n° C.15.0314.N-C.16.0060.N); Court of Cassation, 4 January 2016, as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n° C.15.0191.F); Court of cassation, 13 March 2015 as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n° C.14.0284.N).

  48. 48.

    See for instance: Court of Cassation, 4 January 2016 as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n° C.15.0191.F); Court of Cassation, 11 March 2010, as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n° C.09.0186.N); Ninane and Van Zuylen (2015), pp. 251–254 (n°32–35).

  49. 49.

    On recent case law, see: op. cit., Court of cassation, 4 January 2016, as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n° C.15.0191.F); Court of cassation, 11 March 2010 as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n° C.09.0186.N), as reported in (2010) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), p. 777; Kruithof (2018), p. 91 (n°147); Stijns and Samoy (2020), pp. 108–109 (n°74).

  50. 50.

    See: Court of Cassation, 25 April 2005, as reported in (2005) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), p. 924; Court of appeals (Civ.) Brussels (9e ch.), 2 November 2010, as reported in (2012) RGAR (2), p. 14831 and note; Court of appeals Liège (20e ch.), 20 May 2010, as reported in (2011) RGAR (1), p. 14704 (“Pour apprécier si le vice de la chose qui est invoqué constitue une caractéristique anormale, il convient de se référer à la destination normale du bien et de fixer, sur cette base, le degré de sécurité qu’il doit normalement presenter”) (as mentioned by, op. cit., Van Zuylen 2015a, pp. 40–41 (n°33)).

  51. 51.

    Kruithof (2018), p. 92 (n°147) with further references.

  52. 52.

    Court of Cassation, 11 September 2008, as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n° C.07.0200.F); Court of Cassation, 1 December 2006, as reported in (2006) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), pp. 2535–2539; Court of Cassation, 24 February 2006, as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n° C050112F).

  53. 53.

    Kruithof (2018), p. 92 (n°149); Lambert (2016), p. 9 (n°20).

  54. 54.

    See for instance: Court of Cassation, 22 February 2018, as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n° C.17.0313.N); Court of Cassation, 13 September 2012, as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n° C.10.0226.F); Court of Cassation, 22 January 2009, as retrieved on Juportal.be (R.G. n° C.06.0418.F).

  55. 55.

    Dubuisson (2006), p. 18; Lambert (2016), pp. 5–6 (n°8–9).

  56. 56.

    Ninane and Van Zuylen (2015), p. 234 (n°15).

  57. 57.

    Lambert (2006), pp. 5–6 (n°9); Dubuisson (2006), p. 18 (n°6).

  58. 58.

    Ronneau (2019), p. 97.

  59. 59.

    Van Zuylen (2015b), pp. 20–21 (n°15); Dubuisson (2006), p. 19 (n°7).

  60. 60.

    Kruithof (2018), p. 92 (n°148). See mentioned case law at footnote n°474.

  61. 61.

    The owner is not necessarily the custodian. Ownership over the thing is not a sufficient condition. See: Court of cassation, 22 March 2004, as reported in (2004) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), p. 487; Stijns and Samoy (2020), p. 102 (n°70); On the transfer of custody, see: Ninane and Van Zuylen (2015), p. 243 (n°23).

  62. 62.

    Delforge (2015), p. 295 and further.

  63. 63.

    Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products [1985] OJ L210/29.

  64. 64.

    Act of 25 February 1991 Relating to Liability for Defective Products (“Loi relative à la responsabilité du fait des produits defectueux”), hereafter referred to as the ‘Product Liability Act’.

  65. 65.

    Article 1 Product Liability Act.

  66. 66.

    Article 11 §1 and §2 Product Liability Act; Kruithof (2018), p. 96 (n°157) (“Damage to goods is only covered for goods other than the defective product itself and if the damaged goods are of a type ordinarily intended for private use or consumption”).

  67. 67.

    Article 2 Product Liability Act.

  68. 68.

    The Product Liability Act refers in Article 2 to products as tangible items (“biens meubles corporels”), whereas the Product Liability Directive is not as straightforward. It only mentions “movables” without strictly referring to their tangibility.

  69. 69.

    Article 1 Product Liability Act.

  70. 70.

    Article 5 Product Liability Act.

  71. 71.

    Montero (2006), p. 626 (n°6) (“Il ressort de cette définition que la notion de défaut est étroitement liée au concept de sécurité. Le critère réside dans le caractère potentiellement dommageable du produit pour l’intégrité physique des individus ou pour leurs biens de consommation privés”).

  72. 72.

    Article 3 Product Liability Act.

  73. 73.

    In some cases, the product supplier can also be qualified as the producer: see Article 4 § 2 Product Liability Act; The importer can also be held liable under the conditions of article 4 § 1 of the Product Liability Act.

  74. 74.

    Article 9 Product Liability Act.

  75. 75.

    Article 10 §2 paragraph 2 Product Liability Act.

  76. 76.

    Article 10 §2 paragraph 1 Product Liability Act.

  77. 77.

    See: Malengreau (2020), p. 54 (n°7).

  78. 78.

    Ibid.

  79. 79.

    Indeed, under certain circumstances (unfavorable weather conditions, complex environments, etc.), the vehicle may come to a halt or the user may have to resort to driving manually (if that is possible).

  80. 80.

    On the issue of causation, see for instance: Martin-Casals (2019), pp. 201–228.

  81. 81.

    Article 1 of the Act of 21 November 1989 on Mandatory Liability Insurance for Auto Motor Vehicles.

  82. 82.

    Malengreau (2019b), p. 15582 (n°59).

  83. 83.

    Van Ommeslaghe (2010), p. 1470 (n°1035).

  84. 84.

    Van Schoubroeck and Meurs (2013), pp. 20–23; De Rode (2023), p. 32; Bogaert (2004), pp. 54–55; Malengreau (2020), p. 118 (n°61); However, two authors disagree: Tanghe and De Bruyne (2018), p. 15 (n°22). According to them, the driver should not be restrictively defined. Such a restrictive definition does not give much clues as to how the driver may be characterized.

  85. 85.

    Court of Cassation, 13 May 2016, as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n° C.15.0415.F); Court of Cassation, 7 September 2015, as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n° C.14.0209.F).

  86. 86.

    See case law reported by Tanghe and De Bruyne (2018), p. 16 (n°23), footnote n°61: Court of Cassation, 13 April 2007, as reported in (2007) Arr.Cass. p. 776, (2007) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), p. 681, (2007–2008) RW, p. 1078, note by Simoens, (2007) TBH, n°8, p. 797, note by Van Schoubroeck C; T.Pol. 2007, n°4, p. 203, note; Cass. 7 June 2012, T.Verz. 2012, n°4, 477, note by Van Den Hout E; Benelux Court of Justice, 8 December 1994, n° A 93/5, Benelux Jur. 1994, 109, consideration 17.

  87. 87.

    Tanghe and De Bruyne (2018), p. 16 (n°23–24); De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), pp. 339–341.

  88. 88.

    Malengreau (2019b), p. 15582 (n°63).

  89. 89.

    Tanghe and De Bruyne (2018), p. 17 (n°25–26).

  90. 90.

    Ibid. p. 17 (n°26).

  91. 91.

    Malengreau (2019b), p. 15582 (n°63).

  92. 92.

    Ibid.

  93. 93.

    See also: Swinnen (2018), p. 1091.

  94. 94.

    Court de Cassation, 9 February 2017, as reported in (2017) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), p. 337 (R.G. n° C.13.0143.F); Also see case law reported by: De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), p. 337 (footnote n°56).

  95. 95.

    Article 2.13 of the Belgian Highway Code (“Arrêté royal du 1er décembre 1975 portant règlement général sur la police de la circulation routière et de l’usage de la voie publique”): “Le terme “conducteur” désigne toute personne qui assure la direction d’un véhicule ou qui guide ou garde des animaux de trait, de charge, de monture ou des bestiaux”.

  96. 96.

    De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), pp. 339–340.

  97. 97.

    See: Court of Cassation, 30 October 1967, Pas. 1968, I, 303, as mentioned by De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), p. 339, footnote n°62.

  98. 98.

    See: Court of Cassation, 23 October 1973, as reported in (1974) Arr Cass p. 221, (1973) I Pasicrisie Belge (Pas.) p. 203 and (1974) RGAR n°9330 with notes by Fagnart J.-L. Malengreau explains that this decision was given on the basis of the previous version of the Highway Code (Article 2-6° of the 14 March 1968 Royal decree “portant règlement general sur la police de la circulation routière). However, he adds that the definition of the driver under this article was very similar to that of the current Article 2.13 of the Highway Code (Malengreau 2019a, p. 15578 (n°16), footnote n°88). See also concurring: Sauvage (2020), p. 276 (n°41), footnote 211.

  99. 99.

    De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), pp. 339–340.

  100. 100.

    Sauvage (2020), p. 276 (n°41): “le niveau d’autonomie du véhicule ne devrait pas remettre en question la qualité de conducteur de l’utilisateur”. However, he nuances this assertion when referring to vehicles without a steering wheel.

  101. 101.

    Court of Cassation, 4 June 1973, as reported in (1973) Arr Cass, p. 961 and (1973) I Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), I, p. 918, as mentioned by De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), pp. 339–340.

  102. 102.

    De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), p. 341.

  103. 103.

    Malengreau (2019a), p. 15578 (n°17).

  104. 104.

    De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), p. 341.

  105. 105.

    Malengreau (2019a), p. 15578 (n°17).

  106. 106.

    Sauvage (2020), p. 276 (n°41).

  107. 107.

    De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), p. 341; See also: Swinnen (2018), pp. 1092–1093.

  108. 108.

    Op. cit., Court of Cassation, 4 June 1973, as reported in (1973) Arr Cass, p. 961 and in (1973) I Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), p. 918.

  109. 109.

    De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), p. 342; Malengreau (2019a), p. 15578 (n°18); Sauvage (2020), p. 276 (n°41).

  110. 110.

    De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), p. 341.

  111. 111.

    See also: De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), pp. 342–343.

  112. 112.

    Sauvage (2020), p. 276 (n°41–42); Malengreau (2019a), p. 15578 (n°20).

  113. 113.

    See: op. cit., Court of Cassation., 9 December 2011, as reported in (2017) RGDC (10), p. 545 (R.G. n° C.11.0015.F); Court of Cassation, 5 June 2003, as reported in (2003) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), I, p. 1125 (R.G. n° C.01.0252.F).

  114. 114.

    Court of Cassation, 5 May 1971, as reported in (1971) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), p. 802 and note (case law mentioned by Van Ommeslaghe 2010, p. 1190 (n°830)); Jacquemin and Hubin (2017a), p. 118 (n°43).

  115. 115.

    Sauvage (2020), p. 274 (n°39).

  116. 116.

    Malengreau (2019a), p. 15578 (n°13).

  117. 117.

    De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), pp. 344–345; Sauvage (2020), p. 277 (n°44).

  118. 118.

    Malengreau (2019a), p. 15578 (n°13).

  119. 119.

    However, reading and decrypting the on-board data event recorder may shed light to who was in control at the time of the accident, but may not always be sufficient.

  120. 120.

    Malengreau (2020), pp. 60–63 (n°13).

  121. 121.

    Sauvage (2020), p. 275 (n°39).

  122. 122.

    Jacquemin and Hubin (2017a), p. 117 (n°43).

  123. 123.

    De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), pp. 345–346.

  124. 124.

    De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), p. 346.

  125. 125.

    Sauvage (2020), p. 277 (n°44).

  126. 126.

    Malengreau (2019a), p. 15578 (n°13); See also: Swinnen (2018), p. 1092.

  127. 127.

    Sauvage (2020), p. 278 (n°46).

  128. 128.

    On the general concept of justification cause see: Court of Cassation, 22 March 2002, as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n° C.00.0401.F) (“une cause de justification ne peut résulter que d’un événement indépendant de la volonté humaine et que celle-ci n’a pu ni prévoir ni conjurer”); Court of Cassation, 8 January 1982, as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n° 3210–3216); See: Van Ommeslaghe (2010), pp. 1381–1384 (n°966) and further; Delforge et al. (2019), p. 715 (n°262 and further); Van Zuylen (2013), p. 273 and further.

  129. 129.

    Malengreau (2019a), p. 15578 (n°13). However, for a nuanced approach on force majeure and negligence, see: Kruithof (2018), p. 116 (n°188).

  130. 130.

    Malengreau (2019a), p. 15578 (n°13 and 19).

  131. 131.

    Kruithof (2017), p. 252.

  132. 132.

    Tanghe and De Bruyne (2018), p. 40 (n°62); Malengreau (2019a), p. 15578 (n°19).

  133. 133.

    Malengreau (2019a), p. 15578 (n°19). However, the author differentiates between fully autonomous vehicles, where the irresistibility issue is not relevant since the user has no control over the driving process, and partially autonomous vehicles where demonstrating such irresistibility will be more delicate.

  134. 134.

    For a thorough analysis, see: Swinnen (2018), pp. 1078–1084.

  135. 135.

    Vansweevelt and Weyts (2009), p. 454.

  136. 136.

    Malengreau (2019b), p. 15582 (n°48). In the same direction, see: Sauvage (2020), p. 281 (n°53); Tanghe and De Bruyne (2018), p. 45 (n°71–72).

  137. 137.

    Court of Cassation, 21 April 1972, as reported in (1972) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), I, p. 773 and note, as mentioned by Van Ommeslaghe (2010), p. 1347 (n°941).

  138. 138.

    See for instance: Van Ommeslaghe (2010), p. 1347 (n°941); Kruithof (2018), p. 91 (n°146).

  139. 139.

    Ninane and Van Zuylen (2015), pp. 228–230 (n°10–12); Lambert (2016), pp. 4–5 (n°5).

  140. 140.

    De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), p. 349.

  141. 141.

    Malengreau (2019b), p. 15582 (n°48); Van Zuylen (2015a), p. 14 (n°11); Jacquemin and Hubin (2017b), p. 124 (n°50).

  142. 142.

    Definition given by Van Ryn Jean in 1946 (Van Ryn 1946, p. 166). See: Court of Cassation, 4 January 2016, as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n°C.15.0191.F); Court of Cassation, 13 March 2015, as reported in (2015) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), p. 721 (R.G.n° C.14.0284.N); Court of Cassation, 17th January 2014, as reported in (2014) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), p. 143 (R.G.n° C.12.0510.F).

  143. 143.

    Van Zuylen (2015a), p. 40 (n°32). See: Court of Cassation, 4 January 2016, as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n° C.15.0191.F); Court of Cassation, 25 April 2005, as reported in (2005) Pasicrisie Belge p. 924 (R.G. n° C.03.0400.N).

  144. 144.

    Malengreau (2019b), p. 15582 (n°54).

  145. 145.

    As reported by Jacquemin and Hubin (2017b), p. 126 (n°51). This criterion has been advocated by: Van Zuylen (2015a), pp. 40–45 (n°32–36); Marchetti (2005), pp. 340–341 (n°7).

  146. 146.

    Van Zuylen (2015a), pp. 40–41 (n°33).

  147. 147.

    Malengreau (2019b), p. 15582 (n°55).

  148. 148.

    Jacquemin and Hubin (2017b), p. 126 (n°51).

  149. 149.

    Van Zuylen (2015a), pp. 42–43 (n°34).

  150. 150.

    Court of Cassation, 4 January 2016, as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n° C.15.0191.F); Court of Cassation, 11 March 2010, as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n° C.09.0186.N); Van Zuylen (2015a), pp. 42–43 (n°34).

  151. 151.

    See: Court of Cassation, 27 November 1969, as reported in (1970) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), I, p. 277 as mentioned by: Van Ommeslaghe (2010), p. 1353 (n°944); De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), p. 350.

  152. 152.

    De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), p. 350; Malengreau (2019b), p. 15582 (n°53).

  153. 153.

    De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), pp. 350–351; Kruithof (2017), p. 264; Jacquemin and Hubin (2017b), p. 125 (n°51).

  154. 154.

    Court de Cassation, 13 Mars 2015, as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n° C.14.0284.N), reported in (2015) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), p. 721; Court of Cassation, 31 October 2013, as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n° C.12.0628.N), reported in (2013) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), p. 2115; Court of cassation, 2 January 2009, (R.G. n° C.08.00774.N-C.08.0217.N), as reported in (2009) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), p. 2. For instance, public road authorities have been held liable on the basis of article 1384, first paragraph, OBCC, for accidents which were caused by certain external elements that were present on the road (e.g. a rock or a concrete bloc). See: Marchetti (2005), pp. 338–339 (n°5); Kruithof (2018), p. 92 (n°147).

  155. 155.

    De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), p. 351.

  156. 156.

    Malengreau (2019b), p. 15582 (n°48): “il suffit d’identifier une caractéristique, sans devoir nécessairement l’isoler du matériel qu’elle affecte”.

  157. 157.

    Cour of Appeal Liège, 21 Novembre 2019, as reported by Fruy (2020), p. 1.

  158. 158.

    See, e.g.: Court of Cassation, 13 September 2012, as reported in (2012) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), p. 1647 (R.G. n° C.10.0226.F); Court of Cassation, 28 May 2010, as reported in (2010) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), p. 1649 (RG n° C.09.0233.F).

  159. 159.

    Jacquemin and Hubin (2017b), p. 128 (n°53).

  160. 160.

    Fagnart (2017), p. 61 (n°130).

  161. 161.

    Sauvage (2020), p. 280 (n°51).

  162. 162.

    Ninane and Van Zuylen (2015), p. 234 (n°15).

  163. 163.

    Ninane and Van Zuylen (2015), p. 243 (n°23).

  164. 164.

    Malengreau (2019b), p. 15582 (n°50).

  165. 165.

    Kruithof (2018), p. 92 (n°148).

  166. 166.

    See case law as reported by Kruithof (2018), p. 92 (n°149): Court of Cassation, 4 February 2011 as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n° C.10.0236.N), (2011) Arr.Cass. p. 401, (2011) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas.), p. 429; Court of Cassation, 14 February 2013, as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n° C.11.0793.F), as reported in (2013) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), p. 429, (2013) Arr.Cass. p. 443.

  167. 167.

    Malengreau (2019b), p. 15582 (n°51); Sauvage (2020), p. 280 (n°51); De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), p. 354.

  168. 168.

    Sauvage (2020), p. 280 (n°51); The guard of the thing is indivisible, however as noted by some, the thing itself can be divisible. See: Ninane and Van Zuylen (2015), pp. 240–243 (n°21–22).

  169. 169.

    See: Malengreau (2019b), p. 15582 (n°50–51) who agrees that the software programmer could be held liable as the custodian of the software, provided that the software is considered a thing.

  170. 170.

    Malengreau (2020), p. 109 (n°51); De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), p. 354.

  171. 171.

    Tanghe and De Bruyne (2018), pp. 52–53 (n°84).

  172. 172.

    On the notion of joint custodianship, see: Court of Cassation, 25 March 1943, reported in (1948) RCJB, p. 157, as mentioned by Dubuisson (2006), p. 34 (n°20) footnote n°64; Lambert (2016), p. 6 (n°11); Sauvage (2020), p. 280 (n°51); Also see: Swinnen (2018), pp. 1083–1084. Case law has shown that ‘cumulative’ or joint custody of a thing can be possible (see: Fagnart 2017, p. 70 (n°144)).

  173. 173.

    See for an extensive analysis: Werbrouck (2018), pp. 529–603.

  174. 174.

    Article 2 of the Product Liability Act.

  175. 175.

    Coulon (2016), 6 p. (n°12); Enghelhard and De Bruin (2017), p. 56; Fairgrieve et al. (2016), pp. 46–47 (n°67–70); Fagnart and Boularbah (2000), pp. 132–134; De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), p. 367; Sauvage (2020), pp. 265–266 (n°15).

  176. 176.

    See: Werbrouck (2018), pp. 547–552.

  177. 177.

    De Bruin (2016), p. 491.

  178. 178.

    Article 5 of the Belgian Product Liability Act.

  179. 179.

    Recent case law from the European Court of Justice has developed the notion of ‘potential safety defect’ which, if applied to mobility products, may impact the manufacturer (Emanuilov 2017, 8 p). See March the 5th 2015 ECJ judgment in joined Cases C-503/13 and C-504/13, the so-called Boston Scientific case.

  180. 180.

    De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), p. 359; Bocken et al. (2014), p. 197, footnote n°47.

  181. 181.

    Van Ommeslaghe (2010), p. 1459 (n°1028); De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), pp. 358–359.

  182. 182.

    De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), p. 359.

  183. 183.

    Ibid., pp. 359–361.

  184. 184.

    Article 5 (a), (b), (c) of the Product Liability Act.

  185. 185.

    De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), p. 361.

  186. 186.

    Malengreau (2020), pp. 86–87 (n°30); De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), pp. 368–369.

  187. 187.

    De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), pp. 361–362.

  188. 188.

    Article 8 (b) of the Product Liability Act.

  189. 189.

    See: De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), pp. 362–363; Sauvage (2020), p. 270 (n°28); Malengreau (2019b), p. 15582 (n°40–42); Jacquemin and Hubin (2017b), pp. 134–135 (n°59).

  190. 190.

    De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), p. 363; Sauvage (2020), p. 270 (n°28).

  191. 191.

    Jacquemin and Hubin (2017b), p. 136 (n°59).

  192. 192.

    Sauvage (2020), p. 270 (n°28).

  193. 193.

    Article 8 (e) of the Belgian Product Liability Act.

  194. 194.

    ECJ Judgement of 29 May 1997, Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. C-300/95, ECLI:EU:C:1997:255, paragraph 27; Court of Cassation, 6 April 2006 as reported in (2006) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), p. 802 (R.G. n° C.05.0156.N).

  195. 195.

    Jacquemin and Hubin (2017b), p. 137 (n°59); Malengreau (2019b), p. 15582 (n°43). See for an extensive analysis: Werbrouck (2018), pp. 580–591.

  196. 196.

    See supra, Sect. 3.4.1.

  197. 197.

    Sjafrie (2020), p. 58.

  198. 198.

    C-ITS, which stands for ‘Cooperative Intelligent Transport systems’, refers to systems where various technologies will allow “road users and traffic managers to share information and use it to coordinate their actions. This cooperative element [is] enabled by digital connectivity between vehicles and between vehicles and transport infrastructure” (European Commission website, “Cooperative, connected and automated mobility (CCAM)”: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/its/c-its_en). Such C-ITS solutions would enable the autonomous vehicles to communicate between each-other as well as with the smart road infrastructure.

  199. 199.

    Ducuing (2021), p. 2.

  200. 200.

    V2V: Vehicle to Vehicle.

  201. 201.

    V2P: Vehicle to Pedestrians.

  202. 202.

    V2I: Vehicle to Infrastructure.

  203. 203.

    Enghelhard and De Bruin (2018), p. 96.

  204. 204.

    Durviaux et al. (2010), pp. 189–190.

  205. 205.

    Since the Flandria decision by the Court of Cassation, public entities are subject to the general rules of civil liability (Articles 1382 and following of the OBCC) (Court of Cassation, 5 November 1920, as reported in (1920) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), I, p. 239, as mentioned by Durviaux 2010, pp. 225–226, footnote n°7).

  206. 206.

    Road authorities must open roads that are sufficiently safe and must obviate any abnormal danger. See, e.g.: Court of cassation, 12 April 1984, as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n° 7050): “Hormis le cas où une cause étrangère qui ne peut leur être imputée les empêche de remplir l’obligation de sécurité qui leur incombe, les pouvoirs publics doivent, par des mesures appropriées, obvier à tout danger anormal dans l’établissement des voies qu’ils ouvrent à la circulation publique”. Article 135 § 2 of the New Communal Act (Nouvelle Loi Communale du 24 juin 1988) imposes a duty of safety (which amounts to a duty of care) for Communes which are responsible for the safety and maintenance of their roads. They must subsequently control such roads and ensure that they are not unsafe by taking adequate action: Durviaux et al. (2010), pp. 196–197/pp. 202–203; See also: Court of Cassation, 28 January 2005 (R.G. n° C.02.0272.N), as reported in (2005) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), p. 217: “En vertu de son obligation de ne construire des routes et de n’ouvrir celles-ci à la circulation routière que si elles sont suffisamment sûres, toute commune est tenue, sous réserve d’une cause étrangère qui ne lui est pas imputable et qui l’empêche de se conformer à cette obligation de sûreté, d’éviter par la prise de mesures adéquates tout danger anormal qui pourrait tromper la légitime attente des usagers, fût-il caché ou apparent”.

  207. 207.

    See for instance: Police Court of Brussels (9 e ch.), 12 September 2019, n° 15A388, as reported in (2020) VAVARC (2), pp. 26–31 (the road was known to be defective, and the region was held liable for fault for failing to take action); First Instance Court of Namur (division Dinant), 21 March 2017, n° 16/354/A, as reported in (2017) VAVARC (3), pp. 10–12; Durviaux et al. (2010), p. 200; Kruithof (2018), p. 102 (n°168): “fault liability can be used invoking a violation of the municipal government’s statutory duty to maintain safe traffic on the public roads, streets and squares on its territory. The Court of Cassation has ruled that, while this statutory rule does not require the municipality to reach the result of safety at any cost, which would result in a quasi-strict liability of the municipality for traffic accidents caused by unsafe road conditions, but only imposes a duty of care on the government to take all reasonable measures to maintain safety, the government is presumed to be aware of all unsafe conditions on the roads on its territory”.

  208. 208.

    See: First Instance Court of Brussels, 13 January 2015, as retrieved from Juportal.be (R.G. n°12/4792/A); Court of Appeals of Liège, 17 September 2015, as reported in (2016) RGAR, p. 15268. Case law mentioned in: Delforge et al. (2019), p. 714.

  209. 209.

    See for instance: Court of Cassation, 20 April 2001, as reported in (2001) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), p. 655; Court of Appeals of Liège, 30 June 2010, as reported in (2011) RGAR (5), pp. 14743–14745; Durviaux et al. (2010), p. 200.

  210. 210.

    See for instance: Court of Cassation, 23 May 2014, as reported in (2014) Pasiscrisie Belge (Pas), p. 1278 (R.G. n°C.12.0301.F); Durviaux et al. (2010), p. 197.

  211. 211.

    For instance, road authorities have been held liable on the basis of Article 1384, first paragraph, OBCC for deteriorated road surfacing. See case law reported by: Durviaux et al. (2010), pp. 217–218.

  212. 212.

    See: Malengreau (2019b), p. 15582 (n°65).

  213. 213.

    Malengreau (2019b), p. 15582 (n°65). This author argues that the automatic compensation scheme for road users should continue to apply to autonomous vehicles; See also: Sauvage (2020), p. 264 (n°12).

  214. 214.

    Malengreau (2019b), p. 15582 (n°64); Tanghe and De Bruyne (2018), p. 20 (n°31).

  215. 215.

    De Bruyne and Tanghe (2017), p. 336; Malengreau (2019a), p. 15578 (n°14); Sauvage (2020), p. 274 (n°39).

  216. 216.

    Sauvage (2020), p. 274 (n°39).

  217. 217.

    Ibid.

  218. 218.

    Sauvage (2020), p. 277 (n°44).

  219. 219.

    Malengreau (2019b), p. 15582 (n°66); Kalra et al. (2009), p. 22; Lohmann (2017), p. 337 (n°2); Wagner (2018), p. 39; Smith (2017), p. 45.

  220. 220.

    On this issue, see: Dheu et al. (2020), p. 13.

  221. 221.

    Ducuing (2019), pp. 95–96 (n°8).

  222. 222.

    Ibid., p. 96 (n°9).

  223. 223.

    Dheu et al. (2020), p. 14.

  224. 224.

    See for instance: Expert Group on Liability, New Technologies formation (2019) Liability for artificial intelligence and other emerging digital technologies. Report for the European Commission: 70 p.

  225. 225.

    Dheu et al. (2020), pp. 15–16.

  226. 226.

    See, e.g.: McCarthy et al. (2017), 259 p.

  227. 227.

    Dheu et al. (2020), pp. 13–14.

  228. 228.

    Ibid., p. 14.

  229. 229.

    Ibid., p. 14.

  230. 230.

    Ibid., p. 14; Also see: Expert Group on Liability and New technologies (2019) Liability for artificial intelligence and other merging digital technologies. EC commissioned Report, pp. 39 and 44. The authors of the report seem to evoke the possibility of the manufacturer acting as an ‘operator’. The ‘frontend operator’ is also distinguished from the ‘back-end operator’. On the blurred product versus service dichotomy, also see: Evas Tatjana (2018) A common EU approach to liability rules and insurance for connected and autonomous vehicles. European Added Value Assessment accompanying the European Parliament’s legislative own initiative report, p. 22.

  231. 231.

    Herrmann et al. (2018), pp. 18–19.

  232. 232.

    Ducuing (2019), pp. 95–96 (n°8).

  233. 233.

    Narayanana et al. (2020), pp. 255–293.

  234. 234.

    Kostiainen and Tuominen (2019), pp. 239–254.

  235. 235.

    At least in urban environments. This assertion may hold less true in the countryside.

  236. 236.

    Kemp (2018), p. 35.

  237. 237.

    On the notion of leasing vehicles: see (op. cit.) Sauvage (2020), pp. 268–269 (n°23).

References

  • Bocken H, Boone I, Kruithof M (2014) Inleiding tot het schadevergoedingsrecht: buitencontractueel aansprakelijkheidsrecht en andere schadevergoedingsstelsels. Die Keure, Bruges

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogaert J (2004) Tien jaar praktijk artikel 29bis: de regeling ten voordele van zwakke weggebruikers. Kluwer, Mechelen, pp 54–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassart A (2018) Législation. Bref point sur la situation Belge en matière de voiture autonome. Revue du droit des technologies de l’information 71:136

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornelis L, Bützler R (1982) De buitencontractuele aansprakelijkheid voor schade veroorzaakt door zaken: rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek: België, Frankrijk, Nederland, Bondsrepubliek Duitsland en Engeland. Kluwer, Antwerp, p 728

    Google Scholar 

  • Coulon C (2016) Du robot en droit de la responsabilité civile: à propos des dommages causés par les choses intelligentes. Responsabilité civile et assurances 4:6

    Google Scholar 

  • De Bruin R (2016) Autonomous intelligent cars on the European intersection of liability and privacy: regulatory challenges and the road ahead. EJRR 3:491

    Google Scholar 

  • De Bruyne J (2021) Autonome motorvoertuigen. Een multidisciplinair onderzoek naar de maatschappelijke impact. Vanden Broele, Bruges, p 408

    Google Scholar 

  • De Bruyne J, Tanghe J (2017) Liability for damage caused by autonomous vehicles: a Belgian perspective. JETL 8(3)

    Google Scholar 

  • De Coninck B, Dubuisson B (2015) L’indemnisation automatique des usagers faibles, victimes d’accidents de la circulation. Rapport belge. In: L’indemnisation des victimes d’accidents de la circulation en Europe, recueil des travaux du Groupe de Recherche Européen sur la Responsabilité civile et l’Assurance (GRERCA). Bruylant, Brussels, p 28

    Google Scholar 

  • De Rode H (2023) L’indemnisation des victimes faibles d’accidents de circulation. Anthemis, Limal

    Google Scholar 

  • Delforge C (2015) Le défaut de sécurité au sens de la loi du 25 février 1991 relative à la responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux. In: Delforge C, Van Zuylen J (coord) Les défauts de la chose, Responsabilités contractuelle et extracontractuelle. Anthemis, Limal, p 295

    Google Scholar 

  • Delforge C, Delbrassinne C, Leleux A, Mortier S, Van Zuylen J, Vandenhouten L, Defosse M, Larielle S, Vandenberghe N (2019) Chronique de jurisprudence (2015 à 2016) - La responsabilité aquilienne (Articles 1382 et 1383 du Code civil). RCJB 4:715

    Google Scholar 

  • Dheu O, Ducuing C, Valcke P (2020) The Emperor’s new clothes: a roadmap for conceptualizing the ‘new vehicle’. Revue Transidit 75

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubuisson B (2006) La garde de la chose… . Pour des prunes? Note sous Cass., 20 mars 2003. RCJB 60(1):18

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubuisson B (2009) Les faits générateurs de responsabilité. In: La responsabilité civile – chronique de jurisprudence 1996–2007. Larcier, Brussels, p 23

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubuisson B, Callewaert V, Ganthem C, De Coninck B (2009) §1 Définitions et éléments de la faute civile. In: La responsabilité civile. Larcier, Brussels, p 30

    Google Scholar 

  • Ducuing C (2019) Mobility, new technologies and innovation regulation. In: Rethinking IT and IP law – celebrating 30 years CiTiP. Intersentia, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Ducuing C (2021) Understanding the rule of prevalence in the NIS Directive: C-ITS as a case study. Comput Law Secur Rev 60:105514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durviaux A (2010) Chapitre 4 - La responsabilité civile des pouvoirs publics du fait de leurs agents et la responsabilité civile des agents des pouvoirs publics. In: Droit de la fonction publique. Larcier, Brussels, pp 225–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Durviaux L, Kohl B, Fisse D (2010) Voirie: le point sur la responsabilité des pouvoirs publics. In: Lecocq P, Engels C (eds) Chronique de droit à l’Usage des Juges de Paix et de Police. Die Keure, Bruges

    Google Scholar 

  • Emanuilov I (2017) Autonomous systems in aviation: between product liability and innovation. In: Proceedings of seventh SESAR innovation days, Belgrade, 28–30 November 2017, 8 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Enghelhard EFD, De Bruin R (2017) EU Common Approach on the liability rules and insurance related to Connected and Autonomous Vehicules. Annexe I of the European Added Value Assessment Accompanying the European Parliament’s legislative own-initiative report, p 56

    Google Scholar 

  • Enghelhard EFD, De Bruin R (2018) Annex I EU Common Approach on the liability rules and insurance related to Connected and Autonomous Vehicles. In: European Added Value Assessment accompanying the European Parliament’s legislative own initiative report, p 96

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagnart J-L (1994) L’indemnisation des victimes d’accidents de la circulation après la réforme bâclée du 30 mars 1994. RGAR:12388

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagnart J-L (2006) Petite navigation dans les méandres de la causalité. RGAR 2:14.080

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagnart J-L (2017) La responsabilité du fait des choses. Wolters Kluwer, Waterloo

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagnart J-L, Boularbah H (2000) La garantie et la responsabilité en matière de dommages causés par les produits. Bruylant, Brussels, pp 132–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairgrieve D et al (2016) Part I. Product Liability Directive. In: Machnikowski P (ed) European product liability: an analysis of the state of the art in the era of new technologies. Intersentia, Cambridge, pp 46–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Fruy G (2020) Attention à la fermeture automatique des portes! Les Pages: obligations, contrats et responsabilités 69:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Glansdorff F (2013) Les conditions de la responsabilité extra-contractuelle. In: Van Den Haute E (ed) Le droit des obligations dans les jurisprudences française et belge. Bruylant, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann A, Brenner W, Stadler R (2018) Autonomous driving: how the driverless revolution will change the world. Emerald Publishing, Bingley, pp 18–19

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jacquemin H, Hubin J-B (2017a) Chapitre 2. La responsabilité extracontractuelle du faits des robots ou de l’intelligence artificielle. In: Jacquemin H, De Streel A (eds) L’intelligence artificielle et le droit. Larcier, Brussels, p 118

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacquemin H, Hubin J-B (2017b) Titre 1. Aspects contractuels et de responsabilité civile en matière d’intelligence artificielle. In: Jacquemin H, De Streel A (eds) L’intelligence artificielle et le droit. Larcier, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalra N, Anderson J, Wachs M (2009) Liability and regulation of autonomous vehicle technologies. In: California PATH Research Report – RAND, p 22

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp R (2018) Autonomous vehicles – who will be liable for accidents? Digit Evid Electron Signat Law Rev 15:35

    Google Scholar 

  • Kostiainen J, Tuominen A (2019) Mobility as a service—stakeholders’ challenges and potential implications. In: Muller B, Meyer G (eds) Towards user-centric transport in Europe: challenges, solutions and collaborations. Springer, Cham, pp 239–254

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kruithof M (2015) Oorzaak of aanleiding? Geen causaal verband zonder causale bijdrage’. In: Vansweevelt T, Weyts B (eds) Actuele ontwikkelingen in het aansprakelijkheidsrecht en verzekeringsrecht. Iste Interuniversitair Congres over Aansprakelijkheids – en Verzekeringsrecht. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 139–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruithof M (2017) Chapter 11. Tort Law. In: Kruithof M, De Bondt W (eds) Introduction to Belgian law. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, p 252

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruithof M (2018) Tort law in Belgium. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert C-E (2006) La responsabilité du fait des choses – rappel des conditions d’application et observations. RGDC 1:5–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert C-E (2016) La responsabilité du fait des choses – rappel des conditions d’application et observations. RGDC 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Lohmann M-F (2017) Liability issues concerning self-driving vehicles. EJRR 7(2):337

    Google Scholar 

  • Malengreau T (2019a) Automatisation de la conduite: quelles responsabilités en droit Belge? (Première partie). RGAR 5:15.578

    Google Scholar 

  • Malengreau T (2019b) Automatisation de la conduite: quelles responsabilités en droit belge? (Deuxième partie). RGAR 6

    Google Scholar 

  • Malengreau T (2020) Automatisation de la conduite: quelles responsabilités en droit Belge? In: Lazaro C, Strowel A (eds) Des Véhicules Autonomes à l’Intelligence Artificielle: Droit, politique et éthique. Larcier, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchetti R (2005) Quelques considérations à l’égard de la notion de vice et de l’exigence causale dans le cadre de la responsabilité du fait des choses vicieuses. RGDC 6

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin-Casals M (2019) Causation and scope of liability in the internet of things. In: Lohsee S et al (eds) Liability for artificial intelligence and the internet of things. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 201–228

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy M, Seidl M, Mohan S, Hopkin J, Stevens A, Ognissanto F, Kathuria N, Cuerden R (2017) Access to in vehicle data and resources. Publications Office of the European Union, p 259

    Google Scholar 

  • Montero E (2006) Les produits défectueux dans un écheveau de responsabilités. RGDC 10:626

    Google Scholar 

  • Narayanana S, Chaniotakisb E, Antoniou C (2020) Shared autonomous vehicle services: a comprehensive review. Transp Res Part C 11:255–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ninane Y, Van Zuylen J (2015) Le vice dont répond le gardien ou le propriétaire sur le fondement des articles 1384, alinéa 1er, et 1386 du Code civil. In: Delforge C, Van Zuylen J (coord) Les défauts de la chose. Responsabilités contractuelle et extracontractuelle. Anthemis, Limal

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronneau V (2019) La garde de la chose: une figure, deux visages? Forum de l’assurance 195:97

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauvage D-A (2020) Les véhicules autonomes et le droit de la circulation. RGDC 5:276

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoubroeck C, Meurs T (2013) Vergoedingsregeling Zwakke Weggebruiker (art. 29bis WAM-wet). Kluwer, Mechelen, p 102

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjafrie H (2020) Introduction to self-driving vehicle technology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, p 58

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith B-W (2017) Automated driving and product liability. Mich State Law Rev 45

    Google Scholar 

  • Stijns S, Samoy I (2020) Leerboek Verbintenissenrecht. Boek 1bis. Die Keure, Bruges

    Google Scholar 

  • Swinnen K (2018) De inpassing van digitale producten in het Belgisch privaatrecht. TPR 3:1091

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanghe J, De Bruyne J (2018) Software aan het stuur: aansprakelijkheid voor schade veroorzaakt door autonome motorrijtuigen. In: Vansweevelt T, Weyts B (eds) 3de conferentie ALLIC (Nieuwe risico’s in het Aansprakelijkheids- en Verzekeringsrecht) Nieuwe risico’s in het aansprakelijkheids- en verzekeringsrecht. Intersentia, Antwerp

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Ommeslaghe P (2010) Droit des obligations. Tome II: Sources des Obligations. Bruylant, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Quickenborne M (2007) Oorzakelijk verband tussen onrechtmatige daad en schade. Kluwer, Mechelen, pp 31–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Ryn J (1946) La responsabilité du fait des choses. JT:166

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Schoubroeck C, Meurs T (2013) Vergoedingsregeling zwakke weggebruiker (art. 29bis WAM-wet). Kluwer, Mechelen, pp 20–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Zuylen J (2013) Du fait justificatif à la force majeure: les visages contrastés de l’exonération de la responsabilité. In: Bockourt J, Callewaert V, Capart R et al (eds) Evaluation du dommage, responsabilité civile et assurances - Liber amicorum. Anthemis, Limal, p 273

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Zuylen J (2015a) La responsabilité du gardien d’une chose affectée d’un vice (art. 1384, al. 1er, du Code civil). In: Cruysmans G (ed) Actualités en droit de la responsabilité. Bruylant, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Zuylen J (2015b) Le vice dont répond le gardien ou le propriétaire sur le fondement des articles 1384, alinéa 1er, et 1386 du Code civil, pp 20–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandenberghe H, Van Quickenborne M (2011) Overzicht van rechtspraak. Aansprakelijkheid uit onrechtmatige daad 2000–2008. TPR 355

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandenberghe H, Van Quickenborne M, Wynant L, Debaene M (2000) Aansprakelijkheid uit onrechtmatige daad (1994–1999) Overzicht van rechtspraak. TPR 1551:1564

    Google Scholar 

  • Vansweevelt T, Weyts B (2009) Handboek buitencontractueel aansprakelijkheidsrecht. Intersentia, Antwerp

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner G (2018) Robot liability. In: Lohsse S, Schulze R, Staudenmayer D (eds) Liability for artificial intelligence and the internet of things. Hart Publishing, Oxford, p 39

    Google Scholar 

  • Werbrouck J (2018) De productaansprakelijkheid voor zelfrijdende motorrijtuigen. TPR 55(1–2)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. KU Leuven Centre for IT & IP Law - imec, Leuven, Belgium

    Orian Dheu & Jan De Bruyne

  2. KU Leuven Centre for IT & IP Law, Leuven, Belgium

    Peggy Valcke

  3. KU Leuven Institute for the Law of Obligations, UHasselt, Leuven, Belgium

    Ilse Samoy

Authors
  1. Orian Dheu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan De Bruyne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peggy Valcke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ilse Samoy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan De Bruyne .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Wolfsburg, Germany

    Hans Steege

  2. Department of Legal and Economic Sciences, Università degli Studi Suor Orsola Benincasa, Naples, Italy

    Ilaria Amelia Caggiano

  3. Department of Legal and Economic Sciences, Università degli Studi Suor Orsola Benincasa, Naples, Italy

    Maria Cristina Gaeta

  4. Bird & Bird LLP, Frankfurt/Main, Germany

    Benjamin von Bodungen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Dheu, O., De Bruyne, J., Valcke, P., Samoy, I. (2024). Autonomous Vehicles and Civil Liability in Belgium. In: Steege, H., Caggiano, I.A., Gaeta, M.C., von Bodungen, B. (eds) Autonomous Vehicles and Civil Liability in a Global Perspective. Data Science, Machine Intelligence, and Law, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41992-8_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41992-8_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-41991-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-41992-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation