This essay explains why an automated vehicle (AV) manufacturer should consider law during the design process for an AV intended as “fit-for-purpose” to transport intoxicated persons. It suggests that management, marketing, engineering and legal functions collaborate to develop product requirements and specifications that shield owner/occupants from criminal liability for DUI manslaughter, negligent homicide and similar charges, as well as guard against civil liability. This collaboration should occur for AV deployments in any state of the United States and in European countries.

This essay explores the interplay between proper corporate governance and engineering expertise in developing products that use artificial intelligence (with a focus on vehicle automation) and considers how an organization might balance maximizing earnings with the public interest in safe and secure AI-driven products. The essay recommends that for oversight directors use a management model with structures of communication and reporting which provides for more direct engagement with engineers and product managers.

This essay provides a matrix for use by researchers and system designers as a heuristic device to assess the likely legality of the deployment of a surveillance camera system. After presenting the matrix the essay considers examples in which smart camera technology might enhance the venues for deployment of surveillance cameras. Lastly, the article speculates about legal risks that may confront smart camera technology as it becomes more sophisticated.