Ethiopian Tort Law vis a vis Autonomous Vehicles

This section shows which aspect of automated vehicles differentiates them from normal cars regarding
tortious liability. For example, in the presence of a producer, an owner, and a user, does the absence of
a human driver create that much difficulty in establishing liability? At the international level, the Geneva
and Vienna Conventions are incompatible with automated [Link] notion of the driver within the
1949 Geneva Convention on Road Traffic and the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic does not
accommodate automated driving. Within the meaning of these Conventions, a driver is a human who
decides on the speed and direction by operating (some of) the vehicle's controls. As a result, fully
autonomous driving (SAE Level 5 vehicle) is driverless within the meaning of these two Conventions.105
Like the Geneva and Vienna Conventions, the Ethiopian civil Code assumes a driver is a human who
decides on the speed and direction by operating the vehicle's controls. Different lines of argument are
forwarded regarding who is liable for the damage resulting from autonomous driving.
i. Owner
Art. 2081 of the Civil Code provides that an owner is strictly liable for a damage. It provides that the
motor vehicle owner shall be liable for any damage caused by the vehicle, even if the damage was
caused by a person not authorized to drive the vehicle. Moreover, Art. 2082 (1) provides that a person
who has taken possession of the vehicle for personal gain shall be liable for any damage caused by the
vehicle in his possession. Some argue that since the civil Code establishes a strict liability of the car
owner to compensate the victim, the same principle can be applied to autonomous driving. This means
that the owner of self-driving cars will be held strictly liable for the damage.106 However, in addition to
victim compensation, the owner of the car can control or mitigate the damage is the other justification
for making the car owner strictly liable. So, it is not always justifiable to establish strict liability for the
car's owner in the case of autonomous driving because it might be beyond the owner to control or
mitigate the damage resulting from autonomous driving.

ii. Manufacturer
The other line of arguments is making the manufacturer liable for the damage resulting from
autonomous [Link] mentioned above, Art. 2085 (1) of the Civil Code provided that “a person who
manufactures goods and sells them to the public for profit shall be liable for any damage to another
person resulting from the normal use of the goods.”107 The manufacturer must sell the goods to the
public for profit, and the damage must have come from regular use. Only profit-oriented manufacturers
are liable under Art. 2085 of the Civil Code, i.e., the cost of doing business. The claimant cannot rely on
this provision when the manufacturer distributes the product free of charge unless it is shown that he
committed a fault. For example, suppose that a defective Covid-Vaccine is distributed to the public free
of charge and sustained damage; the victim cannot sue the manufacturer per Art. 2085. The justification
is that without fault manufacturer who gives the vaccine free of charge should not be strictly liable.
Moreover, "who manufactures goods and sells them" indicates that the manufacturers would directly
deal with the consumer. However, the producer produces an item and directly sells it to the consumer
bringing a contractual relationship between the two parties. The governing law will be the contract or
consumer protection law, not the extra-contractual liability law. On the other note, Article 2085 (2)
provides that no liability shall be incurred where the defect that caused the damage could have been
discovered by a customary examination of the goods. Therefore, the consumer must customarily
examine the thing to the extent his knowledge permits. One way of customarily examining the good is to
thoroughly read and stick to the directions/instructions given by the manufacturer. Well-developed
manufacturers give directions on how and when to use the product. However, the guides are usually
written in English, and it might not be easy to understand the manufacturer's instructions. In addition,
Article 2086 (1) of the Civil Code provides that the persons declared legally liable for the manufactured
goods (2085) "may relieve”himself of the liability to the victim by proving that he has committed no
offence, that it was impossible to establish the cause of the damage, or that it was not within his power
to prevent the damage or that the damage was due to the fault of a third party. However, the Amharic
version provides that persons legally declared liable “may not relieve” themselves by proving they did
not commit a fault. As it is strict liability, no one can relieve himself of liability by proving that he was not
at fault. Moreover, the law makes a person liable not because he committed fault but because his
activity was dangerous and caused damage to another, or it was the object under his possession and
from which he gained benefit that caused damage to another. Accordingly, the Amharic version
expresses the true intention of the legislature. Regarding manufacturer liability, the challenge is that the
would-be autonomous vehicle that brings about damage will be an input of foreign companies, and the
victims cannot proceed against the manufacturers in Europe, the USA, or elsewher

iii. Designer

As stated above, Art. 2085 of the Civil Code recognizes only manufacturing defects. It leaves the victim
uncompensated when he uses a defective product due to design defects or a failure to warn. Some
argue that most of the manufactured goods have been imported from abroad. We must care about
the victim's interest since it would be difficult for the victim to prove the design defect and act against
the designer. So, it is recommended to make the manufacturer liable to the victim in case of product
defects, whether manufacturing or design defects. Once he has compensated the victim, the
manufacturer will seek a remedy from the designer per their contractual relationship.108 However,
the manufacturer can quickly shift the burden of proof if the product is free from manufacturing
defects but has design defects. As a policy maker, the legislative organ should also consider which
party should take the responsibility, as always making the manufacturer liable to the victim might not
achieve the desired policy goals, for example, deterring the wrongdoing.

iv. Joint and Several Liability of Manufacturer, Importer, Wholesaler & Retailer
as per Consumer Protection Laws
Contract law and consumer protection laws may serve as a panacea to fill the gaps in tort law. When
we see the contract law, the possible scenario is that the producer produces, for example, an
autonomous vehicle and sells it to the whole seller; the wholesaler will again sell the purchased
autonomous car to the retailer, and the retailer will sell it to the consumer. Under this chain of
transactions, there is no contractual relationship between the producer and the consumer. The
solution for such kinds of challenges will be the privity of contracts. Accordingly, the consumer will
proceed against the retailer; the retailer will proceed against the whole seller; the wholesaler, on his
part, will proceed against the producer.109 However, it is proved to be challenging to rely on the
retailer because retailers are smallholders, they cannot compensate victims for the damage, and the
retailers do not involve anything human as they deliver the product to the consumer as packed by the
producer. Usually, the retailer is economically too weak to compensate the consumer. Therefore, so
long as it is a civil case unless the defendant has a deeper pocket, the whole exercise of bringing an
action will be useless. As a result, the privity of the contract will not be a solution for the liability
arising from autonomous vehicles. Alternatively, the Ethiopian competition and consumer protection
laws may serve as a panacea to fill the gaps in tort law.110 Art. 14 (5) of the Trade Competition and
Consumers Protection Proclamation provides as follows:Every consumer shall have the right to: claim
compensation or related either jointly or severally from persons who have participated in the supply
of goods or services as manufacturer, importer, wholesaler, retailer, or in any other way for damages
he has suffered because of purchase or use of the goods or [Link] defects in Goods and
Services: Art. 20 of the Trade Competition and Consumers Protection Proclamation provides as
follows:
1/ Any consumer may report defects in goods and services purchased and the damage the defects
may cause to the Ministry or the relevant bureau.

2/ A consumer may, without prejudice to warranties or legal or contractual provisions more

advantageous to him, demand the seller, within 15 days from the date of purchase:
a) in the case of defective goods, to replace the goods or refund the price paid; or
b) in the case of defective service, to re-deliver the service free of charge or to refund the fee paid.

3/ Any consumer shall have the right to claim, in accordance with the relevant laws, payment of
compensation for any damage resulting from the use of the
defective goods or service or from the failure of the seller to meet his demand presented pursuant to
sub-article (2) of this [Link] all that has been mentioned so far, one may suppose that product
defect is not becoming an issue of contractual or extra-contractual liability but of consumer protection
or public interest. Consumer protection laws may check whether the products being marketed to the
public are up to the standard. In addition, inspecting the product or quality control may help us
prevent possible risks associated with consuming a processed product.111 Sometimes, despite quality
control, we may not decidedly avoid the risk that may materialize through regular use. In such a case,
the remedial scheme of the proclamation comes into the picture.112 Therefore, as per Art. 14 (5) of
the Trade Competition and Consumers Protection Proclamation, the injured party can claim
compensation jointly or severally from the manufacturer, importer, wholesaler & retailer.113

2.3. Tort Liability for Damage Caused by 3D Printing

(i) Conceptual Overview of 3D Printing

3D Printing is a process for making a physical real-world object from a virtual digital model. Items that
have already been printed include human body parts, prosthetics, aircraft and automotive parts, medical
devices and implants, guns, toys and the list is endless. In principle, everything is 3D printable.114 We
are transforming from the two-dimensional world of printing/duplication to 3D-printed drugs, food
products, hardware, and even biological organs.115 3D Printing is already becoming a significant
industry with tremendous innovative potential for many applications, from dental and medical, to
automotive, aerospace/aviation, toys, military, fashion, food, eyewear, and construction.116 With the
adoption of 3D Printing, a product can be directly fabricated from a CAD file. This transformation lowers
the production threshold, thus enabling ordinary people to engage in production activities, and drives
consumers to take a proactive role in directing the production process by serving as the coordinators
between CAD file designers and object fabricators.117

(ii) The Usage of 3D Printing in Ethiopia

In Ethiopia, 3D Printing has the potential to change the face of Ethiopian manufacturing sector and
provide a space for meeting the industrial production needs of Ethiopian consumers, companies, and
organizations. 3D Printing is a perfect investment for Ethiopian manufacturers that could become an
alternative to costly, non-environmentally friendly manufacturing processes and imported spare parts.
Ethiopia opened large industrial parks that would accommodate many jobs. 3D Printing could foster
industrial manufacturing development in Ethiopia as the Federal and Regional governments invest and
support industrial projects. It is an opportunity to contribute to Ethiopia's economy. It is also a chance to
help manufacturing companies improve the quality and reduce the costs of their products.118 The fate
of manufacturing in Ethiopia and the rest of the developing world is increasingly tied to emerging
technologies, particularly 3D Printing, which the Economist called 'the third industrial revolution'. In
order to remain economically competitive, Ethiopia should accelerate the transition to high-value
manufacturing by acquiring and developing capabilities in 3D printing technology.119Ethiopia already
uses 3D printers for various purposes, mainly in the aerospace and automotive industries. For example,
the Boeing 787 Dreamliner Ethiopian owns has thirty 3D printed parts, but Boeing plans to use more 3D
printed features in its aircraft. As of 2014, it has printed over 22,000 parts for its various
products.120However, Boeing's 737 Max suffered two fatal crashes, in 2018 and 2019, that was shown
to be caused by a design flaw and led to a global grounding of the aircraft. The 737 MAX suffered a
recurring failure in the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), causing two fatal
crashes, Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, in which 346 people died in total.121
Boeing has already paid substantial amounts voluntarily to compensate the families of the Lion Air 610
and Ethiopian Airlines 302 passengers. In addition, it may have contractual agreements with purchasers,
including airlines and leasing companies, entitling them to compensation for losses due to product
defects.122 Let us suppose that Boing company refused to compensate the victim voluntarily. Then,
would the company be held responsible as per tort law? The following section tries to address such kind
of issues.
(iii) Ethiopian Tort Law vis-à-vis 3D Printing: Who is a Liable Person ?
3D Printing will impact many legal fields, including regulatory, intellectual property, insurance,
environmental, transportation, contracts, and imports/exports.123 However, this article is limited to
examining the legal considerations of 3D Printing in the tort law system. For example, who should be
potentially liable for a defective 3D-printed product? Who is responsible for an injury resulting from
using a defective 3D Product? In traditional mass production, tort liability targets producers. Since
producers are considered the party who can reduce accidents at the lowest cost and spread the losses,
they must bear the residual liability and are thus exposed to strict liability. In the context of 3D Printing,
where digital designing and physical fabrication are accomplished by a single entity (i.e., under the so-
called "one-stop business model"), applying strict liability might still be desirable. However, for
production organized in the so-called "separation models124, accidents are not unilateral, and it is
difficult to define the most appropriate party who can efficiently reduce accidents and spread
losses.125Therefore, who should be liable for a defective 3D-printed product? Who is responsible for an
injury resulting from using a defective 3D Product? should the digital designer, manufacturer, or
hobbyist printer be liable for the injured?

i. Digital Designer
Establishing the liability of the digital designer is problematic because it is difficult to identify whether
the “code” is a product or not.126 A physical object produced through 3D Printing fits within traditional
product concepts. However, 3D Printing requires CAD files and Code to operate the printer, and whether
this software would also be considered a product is questionable.127

ii. Manufacturers

Concerning manufacturers, the purpose of imposing strict liability on a commercial seller, manufacturer,
or distributor of products is to create “safety incentives” for manufacturers that encourage more
significant investment in product safety.128 Under a strict liability theory, product users seeking to
recover for injuries resulting from a 3D-printed product face the additional hurdle of proving that a
commercial manufacturer or seller placed the product on the market. Moreover, holding the printer
manufacturer liable is unlikely because it must show that the 3D printer was already defective at
delivery.

iii. A hobbyist Printer

An entity that regularly makes, markets, distributes, and sells 3D printed products as part of its ongoing
business activities will be strict liability. On the contrary, a hobbyist printer, who occasionally uses 3D
Printing to make, for example, a hard-to-obtain spare part, which then injures a consumer, will not be
subjected to strict liability
iv. Joint and Several Liability of Manufacturer, Importer, Wholesaler & Retailer as per Consumer
Protection Laws
As we have seen earlier, in case of product defects, as per Art. 14 (5) of the

Trade Competition and Consumers Protection Proclamation the injured party

can claim compensation jointly or severally from the manufacturer, importer, wholesaler & retailer.130
Therefore, in case of product defects related to 3D Printing, the injured party can claim compensation
jointly or severally from the manufacturer, importer, wholesaler & retailer.

Concluding

The current Ethiopian civil code cannot regulate cyberspace torts such as theft
of personal data, online defamation, cyberattacks, and tort problem arising
from bitcoin and cryptocurrency. As a result, damages caused by the
cyberattack and dismantling of personal data, cyber security, and the crypto
platform will not be redressed. Therefore, the Ethiopian government should
expedite the passage of the cyber security and personal data protection
regulations to minimize the losses associated with database security breaches
and redress any tort liability associated with database [Link], the
Ethiopian civil code governing tort liability is unresponsive to regulating tort
cases arising from 3D printers or 3D printable products.