Page 28 - Feb2019_BarJournal

The unavailability or coverage for damages exact result desired whereas a “substantial This solution, however, is called into
resulting from crash optimization would be certainty” tort, on the other hand, exists question by the doctrine of inferred intent.
nothing less than tragic. Not only might it when the actor does something which such Under the doctrine, intent to harm can be
disincentivize research and implementation individual believes is substantially certain inferred in “cases in which the insured’s
of life-saving crash optimizing technology, to cause a particular result even if the intentional act and the harm caused
but it would have the absurd result of actor does not desire that result. Harasyn are intrinsically tied so that the act has
allowing coverage for claims arising from v. Normandy Metals, Inc., 49 Ohio St.3d necessarily resulted in the harm.” Allstate
defects in autonomous vehicles, but not 173, 175, 551 N.E.2d 962, 964 (Ohio 1990). Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 128 Ohio St.3d 186,
for damages that have been minimized by Under Harasyn, and its progeny only direct 2010-Ohio-6312, 942 N.E.2d 1090, ¶ 56
crash optimization algorithms that perform intent intentional torts are uninsurable. Id. (2010). Autonomous vehicles that select
exactly as designed and intended. Per this distinction one could argue, that some victim for harm, say the motorcyclist,
One path to circumventing a public when an autonomous vehicle engages in over another, say the school bus, can be said
policy bar on coverage for the intentional crash optimization that results in injury to be choosing to crash in a manner that
torts of autonomous vehicle is by invoking or death, the vehicle, or more accurately will necessarily harm the motorcyclist, and
a distinction Ohio courts thread between the vehicle’s crash optimization algorithm, thus claims for the resulting damages would
“direct intent” and “substantial certainty” intends no harm to any individual, but be uninsurable.
intentional torts. A “direct intent” tort, only to minimize overall damage with the The better approach to understanding
such as a battery, occurs when the actor unavoidable, but undesired, consequence of why intentional harm resulting from crash
does something which brings about the injuring or killing. optimization should be covered is by

Welcome anne owings ford chad a. Jira

nEW memBers Benjamin fuchs Peter m. kahnert
Jones day
rex l. gaylord
anjali kanwar

Jennifer Joy afrates Brandilyn m. cook Eleanor l. german Jonathan r. kapus
Jones day w. H. Hunt Legal Group, LLC
Bryan Badalamenti Ian r. crawford matthew J. gherlein katherine knouff
Jones day davis & Young A Legal Professional Association

cory n. Barnes Jennifer Ivy cupar Joseph giuliano courtney renee koski
BakerHostetler NEO Human Trafficking Law Clinic Law Offices of Robert Gitmeid & Associates
kathryn Elaine ryan P. Dalton michael D. goldstein matthew kurz
Goldstein & Goldstein Co., LPA Synenberg & Associates, LLC
Bartolomucci anita Davenport Brendan goodwine Theresa marie lanese
Ulmer & Berne LLP Fay Sharpe LLP Lazzaro Luka Law Offices, LLC
grant E. Bilinovich Deanna Davise Brynne a. grady Shannon lear
Jones day Mcdonald Hopkins LLC Friedman & nemecek, L.L.C.
michelle Brunson melissa Dials madelyn Julia grant Ellesha may lecluyse
Fisher Phillips Friedman & nemecek, L.L.C. Ulmer & Berne LLP

lena Buttkus Sean Drake rebecca J. grunick Jeffrey a. leikin
Mr. Trustpoint.One Jeffrey Leikin LLC
rachel Byrnes gretchen Ebner alanna christine guy mira lendel
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
roz campbel Sarah fairchild Jewel m. Heath Joanna natasha lopez
Akron Cleveland Association of Realtors Cleveland-Marshall Law School Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office

maria Therese ciccolini Bradley feimer nicholas J.m. Holland christina luo
Jones day The Albert Law Firm
Trenton Joel cleland leah marie finan Erin S. James Tiaon michele lynch
The Law Offices of Trenton J. Cleland Jones day Law Office of Tiaon Michele Lynch

28 | Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Journal clemetrobar.org