Autonomous Vehicles and Civil Liability in Belgium

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

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).

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

Malengreau (2019a), p. 15.578 (n°6).

Kruithof (2018), p. 99 (n°163).

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).

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

Kruithof (2018), p. 101 (n°167).

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).

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

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

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 70^e 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.

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”).

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

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).

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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)).

Stijns and Samoy (2020), p. 52 (n°8).

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

Glansdorff (2013), p. 104 (n°3).

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).

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.

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

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).

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.

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

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).

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).

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.

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.

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).

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

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.).

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

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.

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).

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).

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).

See: Court of Cassation, 25 April 2005, as reported in (2005) Pasicrisie Belge (Pas), p. 924; Court of appeals (Civ.) Brussels (9^e ch.), 2 November 2010, as reported in (2012) RGAR (2), p. 14831 and note; Court of appeals Liège (20^e 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)).

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

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).

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

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).

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

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

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

Ronneau (2019), p. 97.

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

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

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).

Delforge (2015), p. 295 and further.

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.

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’.

Article 1 Product Liability Act.

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”).

Article 2 Product Liability Act.

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.

Article 1 Product Liability Act.

Article 5 Product Liability Act.

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”).

Article 3 Product Liability Act.

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.

Article 9 Product Liability Act.

Article 10 §2 paragraph 2 Product Liability Act.

Article 10 §2 paragraph 1 Product Liability Act.

See: Malengreau (2020), p. 54 (n°7).

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).

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

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

Malengreau (2019b), p. 15582 (n°59).

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

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.

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).

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.

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

Malengreau (2019b), p. 15582 (n°63).

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

Malengreau (2019b), p. 15582 (n°63).

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

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).

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”.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Malengreau (2019a), p. 15578 (n°17).

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

Malengreau (2019a), p. 15578 (n°17).

Sauvage (2020), p. 276 (n°41).

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

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

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

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

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

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).

Sauvage (2020), p. 274 (n°39).

Malengreau (2019a), p. 15578 (n°13).

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

Malengreau (2019a), p. 15578 (n°13).

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.

Malengreau (2020), pp. 60–63 (n°13).

Sauvage (2020), p. 275 (n°39).

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

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

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

Sauvage (2020), p. 277 (n°44).

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

Sauvage (2020), p. 278 (n°46).

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.

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

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

Kruithof (2017), p. 252.

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

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.

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

Vansweevelt and Weyts (2009), p. 454.

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).

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).

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

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

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

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

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).

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).

Malengreau (2019b), p. 15582 (n°54).

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).

Van Zuylen (2015a), pp. 40–41 (n°33).

Malengreau (2019b), p. 15582 (n°55).

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

Van Zuylen (2015a), pp. 42–43 (n°34).

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).

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.

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

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

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).

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

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

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

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

Fagnart (2017), p. 61 (n°130).

Sauvage (2020), p. 280 (n°51).

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

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

Malengreau (2019b), p. 15582 (n°50).

Kruithof (2018), p. 92 (n°148).

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.

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

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).

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.

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

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

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)).

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

Article 2 of the Product Liability Act.

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).

See: Werbrouck (2018), pp. 547–552.

De Bruin (2016), p. 491.

Article 5 of the Belgian Product Liability Act.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article 8 (b) of the Product Liability Act.

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).

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

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

Sauvage (2020), p. 270 (n°28).

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

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

See supra, Sect. 3.4.1.

Sjafrie (2020), p. 58.

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.

Ducuing (2021), p. 2.

V2V: Vehicle to Vehicle.

V2P: Vehicle to Pedestrians.

V2I: Vehicle to Infrastructure.

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

Durviaux et al. (2010), pp. 189–190.

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).

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”.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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

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

Sauvage (2020), p. 274 (n°39).

Sauvage (2020), p. 277 (n°44).

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.

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

Ducuing (2019), pp. 95–96 (n°8).

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

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.

Dheu et al. (2020), pp. 15–16.

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

Dheu et al. (2020), pp. 13–14.

Herrmann et al. (2018), pp. 18–19.

Ducuing (2019), pp. 95–96 (n°8).

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

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

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

Kemp (2018), p. 35.

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