© 2020 Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited for further information visit www.thomsonreuters.com.au or send an email to care.anz@tr.com Please note that this article is being provided for research purposes and is not to be repro- duced in any way. If you refer to the article, please ensure you acknowledge both the publication and publisher appropriately. The citation for the journal is available in the footline of each page. For information concerning permission to republish material from this journal, either in part or in its entirety, in any medium, please refer to http://sites.thomsonreuters.com.au/ journals/permissions. For general permission queries, contact LTA.permissions@thomsonreuters.com 172 (2020) 27 Tort L Rev 172 Assessing Potential Liability Regimes for Autonomous Vehicle Technologies in Singapore Terence Yeo* Autonomous vehicles (AVs) will be the future of transportation. They have the potential to radically transform the way we live, work and play. Singapore currently stands at the forefront of this veritable technological race because of her policies, innovation and infrastructure. But as with most great technologies, the development of AVs would be hamstrung eventually if regulatory changes are not made on time. This article examines how traditional liability regimes may be applied to AVs, focusing specifcally on the principles of negligence and product liability. It also considers the concept of granting legal personhood to AVs. The article ends with the conclusion that existing liability frameworks could struggle to cope with the unique challenge presented by AVs, and that regulators should frst focus on ensuring victim compensation through a no-fault compensation scheme. But this sphere is overshadowed by a growing realm of collective action where doer, deed and effect are no longer the same as they were in the proximate sphere, and which by the enormity of its powers forces upon ethics a new dimension of responsibility never dreamt of before. 1 In October 2016, a nuTonomy driverless taxi on a test drive collided with a lorry. This was the frst accident in Singapore involving an autonomous vehicle (AV), 2 and it was subsequently attributed to an “extremely rare combination of software anomalies”. 3 While no one was injured in this accident, AVs have been involved in fatalities elsewhere. For instance, in 2018, a pedestrian was killed in the United States after an Uber AV failed to properly identify her. 4 Yet, no matter what your opinion on AVs may be, the reality is that we are inching closer to a future where they will be widely deployed. 5 After the 2017 amendments to the Road Traffc Act (Singapore, cap 276, 2004 rev ed), it is now established in Singapore that motor vehicles without human drivers are permissible for trial and/or use under the statute, 6 subject to any restrictions which may be imposed through subsidiary legislation. 7 The Minister for Transport has also been vested with the power to enact new rules for AV trials, prescribe standards for * LLB (summa cum laude) Singapore Management University. This article is based on a directed research paper written under the supervision of Associate Professor Chen Siyuan in the author’s third year of study. The author thanks Associate Professor Chen for his invaluable guidance and support, as well as Lecturer Jerrold Soh for his helpful comments. All errors and omissions remain the author’s. 1  Hans Jonas, The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age (The University of Chicago Press, 1984) 6. 2  It is acknowledged that the use of the term “autonomous” may be misleading. “Autonomous” suggests that the vehicle can make independent decisions, while “automated” implies that the vehicle is controlled or operated by a machine. Since AVs are programmed to rely on humans for instructions, such as by having its user decide the routes and destination, “automated” would be a more accurate term. However, given its widespread use, this article will still adopt the term “autonomous”. See also Stephen Wood et al, “The Potential Regulatory Challenges of Increasingly Autonomous Motor Vehicles” (2012) 52 Santa Clara Law Review 1423, 1425. 3  Zhaki Abdullah, “‘Software Anomalies’ to Blame for Driverless Car Accident”, The Straits Times, 25 November 2016 <https:// www.straitstimes.com/singapore/software-anomalies-to-blame-for-driverless-car-accident>. 4  Sam Levin and Julia Wong, “Self-driving Uber Kills Arizona Woman in First Fatal Crash Involving Pedestrian”, The Guardian, 19 March 2018 <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/19/uber-self-driving-car-kills-woman-arizona-tempe>. 5  Singapore, Parliamentary Debates, Offcial Report, 9 January 2017, vol 94, col 62 (Khaw Boon Wan, Minister for Transport). 6  Road Traffc (Amendment) Bill (Bill 5 of 2017) (Singapore) cll 3, 6. 7  Road Traffc (Autonomous Motor Vehicles) Rules 2017 (No S 464) (Singapore) s 4.