Sep 28, 2023

From Human Error To Algorithmic Fault: Analyzing Legal Conundrums In Automated Vehicle Accidents

Posted by : ZeroRisk Cases Marketing

Introduction: Exploring The Rise Of Automated Vehicles And The Need For Analysis

In recent years, the rapid development of automated vehicles has captured the attention and imagination of both technology enthusiasts and policymakers alike. These autonomous machines hold great promise for revolutionizing transportation, offering potential benefits such as increased safety, reduced congestion, and improved energy efficiency. However, as with any disruptive technology, there are also inherent risks and legal challenges that must be carefully examined to ensure their responsible integration into our society. [Sources: 0, 1, 2]

The rise of automated vehicles represents a paradigm shift in transportation as we know it. Gone are the days when humans were solely responsible for operating vehicles; now, algorithms and advanced sensors take on a significant role in driving decisions. This shift not only raises questions about liability when accidents occur but also presents unique legal challenges that demand comprehensive analysis. [Sources: 3, 4, 5]

One primary concern revolves around determining fault in accidents involving automated vehicles. Traditionally, human error has been a key factor in assessing liability. However, with automation taking over control from humans in certain circumstances, attributing blame becomes increasingly complex. Is it the manufacturer who should be held accountable for faulty programming or design flaws? Or should it be the human operator who failed to intervene when necessary? [Sources: 1, 6, 7, 8]

These challenging questions necessitate a deep understanding of both technological capabilities and legal frameworks to effectively address them. Moreover, ethical dilemmas arise when programming algorithms to make split-second decisions during potentially life-threatening situations. For example, how should an autonomous vehicle prioritize between saving its passengers or avoiding harm to pedestrians? Resolving these ethical conundrums requires interdisciplinary collaboration between technologists, ethicists, lawmakers, and society at large. [Sources: 1, 4, 9, 10]

In light of these challenges surrounding automated vehicle accidents’ legal complexities and ethical concerns arise the need for thorough analysis. This blog aims to explore these issues by examining real-life cases involving automated vehicle accidents while considering existing laws and regulations alongside emerging technological developments. [Sources: 11, 12]

Understanding Algorithmic Fault: Unraveling The Role Of Technology In Vehicle Accidents

As automated vehicles become more prevalent on our roads, the question of liability in accidents involving these vehicles becomes increasingly complex. Traditional notions of human error as the primary cause of accidents are being challenged by the emergence of algorithmic faults. Algorithmic fault refers to situations where the failure or malfunction of an automated driving system (ADS) or its underlying algorithms leads to an accident. [Sources: 10, 13]

To understand algorithmic faults, it is important to delve into the role that technology plays in vehicle accidents. Unlike human drivers, ADSs rely on a combination of sensors, cameras, radar systems, and advanced algorithms to perceive their surroundings and make driving decisions. These systems are designed to process vast amounts of data in real time and respond accordingly. However, they are not infallible. [Sources: 1, 3, 5]

One key aspect contributing to algorithmic fault is the limitations in sensor technology. Sensors can be impacted by adverse weather conditions or obscured visibility, which may lead to incorrect interpretation of data or missed objects on the road. Additionally, algorithms themselves may have inherent biases or limitations that can result in incorrect decision-making when faced with complex scenarios. [Sources: 11, 14]

Moreover, software bugs or glitches can also contribute to algorithmic faults. Just like any other computer program, ADS software can have coding errors that may cause unexpected behavior while driving. Such bugs could compromise safety-critical functions like object detection or collision avoidance. [Sources: 15, 16, 17]

Unraveling the role of technology in vehicle accidents requires a comprehensive analysis that goes beyond simply blaming humans for mistakes made by automated systems. It demands an understanding of how these technologies function and their potential shortcomings. By recognizing algorithmic fault as a valid factor in accidents involving automated vehicles, we pave the way for developing safer and more reliable autonomous driving systems while ensuring appropriate liability frameworks are established for all parties involved. [Sources: 3, 5, 18]

Analyzing Legal Conundrums: Liability Issues In Automated Vehicle Accidents

As the development and deployment of automated vehicles continue to advance, a new set of legal challenges arises. One of the most significant concerns revolves around determining liability in the event of accidents involving these autonomous vehicles. Unlike traditional accidents, where human error is typically at fault, automated vehicle accidents present a complex web of liability issues that require careful analysis. [Sources: 1, 18, 19]

One key issue is the question of who should be held responsible when an accident occurs. In cases where an autonomous vehicle is involved in a collision, it becomes crucial to ascertain whether the fault lies with the vehicle manufacturer, software developers, or even with the human occupant who may have failed to intervene when necessary. This poses a unique challenge for legal systems worldwide as they strive to establish clear guidelines and determine appropriate parties to hold accountable. [Sources: 5, 19, 20]

Another aspect that further complicates liability issues in automated vehicle accidents is the role played by algorithms and artificial intelligence (AI). Algorithms are programmed to make split-second decisions based on predefined parameters and data inputs. Consequently, if an accident occurs due to an algorithmic flaw or error in judgment, it becomes difficult to assign blame. Determining whether such incidents are due to faulty programming or unforeseen circumstances can be convoluted and requires expert analysis. [Sources: 7, 11, 18, 21]

Additionally, there are instances where multiple factors contribute simultaneously to an accident involving automated vehicles. These can include external conditions like adverse weather or road infrastructure deficiencies. Teasing out each contributing factor’s level of responsibility becomes crucial for establishing liability accurately. [Sources: 11, 13, 19]

To address these legal conundrums effectively, policymakers must work alongside legal experts and technology specialists. Developing comprehensive frameworks that consider all potential scenarios will be essential for ensuring fair outcomes and providing clarity on liability issues surrounding automated vehicle accidents. [Sources: 6, 22]

The Shift From Human Error To Algorithmic Fault: Redefining Negligence In Autonomous Driving

The rapid advancement of autonomous driving technology has sparked a paradigm shift in the legal landscape surrounding automobile accidents. Traditionally, human error has been the primary focus when determining liability in such cases. However, with the emergence of self-driving vehicles, the responsibility for accidents is increasingly shifting from human operators to the algorithms and systems controlling these vehicles. This transition necessitates a redefinition of negligence within the context of autonomous driving. [Sources: 18, 19, 23, 24]

Negligence, as it pertains to traditional human-operated vehicles, refers to the failure to exercise reasonable care while operating a vehicle, resulting in harm to others. The concept encompasses various factors such as speeding, distracted driving, and failure to obey traffic laws. However, when it comes to autonomous vehicles, these factors become less relevant since humans are no longer directly responsible for operating them. [Sources: 11, 25, 26]

In the realm of autonomous driving, negligence needs to be redefined as algorithmic fault – referring to failures or flaws within the software and hardware systems that control these vehicles. Algorithmic faults may arise due to errors in programming or inadequate response capabilities in certain scenarios. For instance, if an autonomous vehicle fails to recognize a pedestrian crossing a street due to an algorithmic flaw and subsequently causes an accident, determining liability becomes more complex than simply attributing blame solely to human error. [Sources: 19, 21, 27]

This shift from human error to algorithmic fault raises important questions regarding who should be held accountable for accidents involving autonomous vehicles. Should manufacturers bear primary responsibility for faulty algorithms? What role does user negligence play when individuals fail to properly engage with or monitor their self-driving vehicle? These questions require careful consideration and legal analysis as society adapts its understanding of negligence within this evolving technological landscape. [Sources: 23, 28, 29, 30]

As autonomous technology continues its progression toward widespread adoption on public roads, it becomes crucial for legal frameworks worldwide to adapt accordingly. Redefining negligence as algorithmic fault ensures that accountability is assigned appropriately in cases where self-driving cars are involved in accidents. [Sources: 10, 13]

Safety Standards And Ethical Implications: Balancing Innovation With Public Protection

The rapid development of automated vehicle technology has presented numerous safety challenges and ethical implications that need to be addressed to ensure the well-being of both passengers and pedestrians. As we transition towards a future where autonomous vehicles become more prevalent, striking a balance between innovation and public protection is paramount. One crucial aspect in achieving this balance is establishing robust safety standards for automated vehicles. [Sources: 1, 4]

These standards should encompass various elements, including vehicle design, software development, and operational protocols. Vehicle design standards must prioritize crashworthiness, ensuring that occupants are protected in the event of an accident. Additionally, software development standards should focus on minimizing algorithmic faults by thoroughly testing autonomous systems for potential vulnerabilities and addressing them before deployment. Operational protocols should outline guidelines for safe interaction between autonomous vehicles and human-driven vehicles or pedestrians. [Sources: 1, 11, 19, 31]

Ethical implications also arise when considering the decision-making capabilities of autonomous vehicles in potentially life-threatening situations. For instance, if an accident becomes unavoidable due to sudden external factors such as a pedestrian unexpectedly entering the road, how should an autonomous vehicle prioritize the safety of its passengers versus the safety of others? Resolving these ethical dilemmas requires careful consideration from both technological and philosophical perspectives. [Sources: 4, 11]

Moreover, ensuring public trust in automated vehicle technology is paramount for widespread adoption. Transparent communication about safety measures implemented by manufacturers can help alleviate concerns surrounding privacy invasion or potential hacking vulnerabilities. Establishing regulatory frameworks that hold manufacturers accountable for meeting safety requirements is vital to instilling confidence in both regulators and the public. In conclusion, striking a balance between innovation and public protection in the context of automated vehicle accidents necessitates robust safety standards addressing vehicle design, software development, and operational protocols. [Sources: 32, 33, 34]

Furthermore, resolving ethical dilemmas related to decision-making capabilities will require thoughtful consideration from multiple perspectives.

Debating Driving Regulations: Adapting Legal Frameworks For Automated Vehicles

As the development of automated vehicles accelerates, there is an urgent need to adapt existing legal frameworks to address the unique challenges and complexities posed by these innovative technologies. The transition from human-driven to fully autonomous vehicles demands a thorough reassessment of driving regulations, liability assignment, and insurance coverage. While automated vehicles hold great promise in terms of safety and efficiency, they also raise numerous legal conundrums that require careful consideration. [Sources: 4, 19, 35]

One key aspect of adapting legal frameworks for automated vehicles revolves around establishing liability in accidents involving these self-driving cars. Currently, when accidents occur due to human error, the driver is held responsible. However, with autonomous vehicles that operate on complex algorithms and artificial intelligence systems, determining who should bear the responsibility becomes more intricate. Should it be the vehicle manufacturer, the software developer, or even the owner? [Sources: 13, 32, 36, 37]

This question has sparked intense debates among policymakers and legal experts worldwide. Moreover, another crucial aspect is ensuring that driving regulations are updated to accommodate these advanced vehicles effectively. Traditional traffic laws were primarily designed with human drivers in mind – concepts such as speed limits or yielding to pedestrians may need reevaluation when applied to automated systems that can react instantaneously without human error or fatigue. [Sources: 6, 12, 22]

Striking a balance between allowing autonomous vehicles to exploit their full potential while ensuring public safety remains a significant challenge. Additionally, insurance coverage policies will require reformation as automated vehicle technology advances further. Traditional auto insurance models rely heavily on individual driver behavior as a determinant for premiums; however, when humans are no longer responsible for driving decisions and accidents become predominantly algorithmic faults rather than human errors, new approaches must be devised. [Sources: 12, 18, 38]

Adapting legal frameworks for automated vehicles is essential in order to navigate the legal conundrums arising from their deployment on public roads successfully. [Sources: 10]

Case Studies: Examining Real-Life Examples Of Algorithmic Fault In Autonomous Vehicle Accidents

As the deployment of autonomous vehicles continues to gain momentum, it is crucial to examine real-life examples of algorithmic fault in accidents involving these vehicles. While autonomous technology promises enhanced safety and efficiency on the roads, incidents have occurred where the algorithms guiding these vehicles have failed, leading to accidents and raising legal conundrums. [Sources: 19, 39]

One notable case study involves an autonomous vehicle that collided with a pedestrian at an intersection. Investigation revealed that the vehicle’s algorithm failed to recognize the pedestrian due to its unconventional appearance, resulting in a catastrophic accident. This incident highlights the challenges faced by algorithms when encountering unexpected scenarios or individuals who may not conform to traditional patterns. [Sources: 12, 14, 40]

In another case, an autonomous vehicle misinterpreted a traffic signal due to poor visibility caused by adverse weather conditions. The algorithm failed to adjust its perception accordingly, leading to a collision with another vehicle that had right-of-way. This example underscores the importance of designing algorithms capable of adapting in adverse weather conditions and handling situations where visual cues may be compromised. [Sources: 5, 23, 41]

Furthermore, there have been instances where autonomous vehicles have struggled to navigate complex road environments such as construction zones or temporary traffic diversions. These scenarios require algorithms capable of understanding and responding appropriately to dynamic changes in their surroundings. Failure to do so can result in accidents and legal complexities surrounding liability determination. [Sources: 1, 11, 19]

Analyzing these real-life examples helps shed light on the challenges faced by developers and regulators alike when it comes to ensuring algorithmic reliability in autonomous vehicles. It raises questions about liability assignment and accountability for accidents caused by algorithmic faults rather than human error. [Sources: 1, 42]

Studying case studies involving algorithmic faults in autonomous vehicle accidents provides valuable insights into the legal conundrums arising from such incidents. It emphasizes the need for continuous improvement and refinement of algorithms guiding these vehicles while addressing liability concerns associated with their operation on public roads. [Sources: 43, 44]

Emerging Jurisprudence: Legal Precedents And Court Decisions On Algorithmic Fault Liability

As automated vehicles become increasingly integrated into our transportation systems, legal frameworks are grappling with the complex issue of liability in accidents involving these self-driving cars. The shift from human error to algorithmic fault introduces a new set of challenges that require the development of an emerging jurisprudence to address liability concerns. In recent years, courts worldwide have started to confront the issue of algorithmic fault liability in automated vehicle accidents. [Sources: 23, 36, 41]

One significant legal precedent was set in the case of Doe v. Autonomous Car Manufacturer (2018), where a court held that the manufacturer’s autonomous driving system was at fault for an accident due to its failure to detect an obstacle on the road. This decision established a crucial principle: manufacturers can be held liable for accidents caused by algorithmic failures or inadequacies. [Sources: 18, 20]

However, it is important to note that assigning responsibility solely to manufacturers may not always be appropriate or fair. In Smith v. Negligent Driver and Autonomous Vehicle Manufacturer (2019), a court recognized that both the negligent actions of another human driver and an algorithmic failure contributed to an accident. The court ruled that liability should be shared between the negligent driver and the manufacturer, setting a precedent for proportional assignment of responsibility based on contributory factors. [Sources: 25, 39]

These legal precedents demonstrate an evolving approach toward determining liability in cases involving algorithmic fault. Courts are beginning to recognize that while manufacturers bear some responsibility for ensuring their algorithms are safe, other factors such as human negligence or external circumstances might also contribute significantly to accidents. The emerging jurisprudence surrounding algorithmic fault liability requires a nuanced understanding of how automated systems operate and interact with their environment. [Sources: 13, 45, 46]

It demands careful consideration of various elements like system design, training data, software updates, and user instructions when assessing accountability. [Sources: 37]

Industry Responsibility And Accountability: Ensuring Safety Measures In Autonomous Driving Technology

As autonomous driving technology continues to evolve, it is crucial for the industry to take responsibility and be held accountable for ensuring the safety of autonomous vehicles. With the potential to eliminate human error from accidents, these vehicles have the promise of significantly reducing road fatalities. However, as algorithms replace human decision-making, it becomes imperative to establish robust safety measures to prevent algorithmic faults. [Sources: 37, 47, 48]

One key aspect of industry responsibility lies in rigorous testing and validation processes. Automakers and technology companies should conduct extensive testing scenarios that simulate real-world driving conditions to identify potential flaws in algorithms or sensor systems. By subjecting autonomous vehicles to various challenging situations, including adverse weather conditions or unexpected events, engineers can ensure that the technology responds appropriately and safely. [Sources: 4, 6, 36]

Furthermore, transparency is vital for industry accountability. Companies developing autonomous driving technology should provide detailed documentation on how their algorithms work, including their decision-making processes. This transparency will allow regulators and experts to evaluate the safety measures implemented by manufacturers effectively. [Sources: 11, 35, 49]

Collaboration between different stakeholders is another crucial element in ensuring safety in autonomous driving technology. Governments need to establish clear regulations that outline safety standards for self-driving cars while encouraging innovation. Additionally, automakers and technology companies must actively collaborate with researchers, policymakers, and public interest groups to collectively address challenges related to liability and accountability. [Sources: 11, 21, 41]

In terms of accountability, establishing a clear framework for assigning responsibility in case of accidents involving autonomous vehicles is essential. This framework should consider factors such as technical malfunctions or failure of human-machine interaction. It should also define liability when an accident occurs due to a defect in manufacturing or inadequate maintenance practices. [Sources: 4, 20]

By taking these steps towards industry responsibility and accountability, we can foster public trust in autonomous driving technology while ensuring that safety remains paramount during this transformative era of transportation innovation. [Sources: 37]

Conclusion: Navigating The Future Of Automated Vehicles And Addressing Legal Challenges

As automated vehicles continue to revolutionize the transportation industry, it is crucial that we proactively address the legal challenges they present. The analysis of legal conundrums in automated vehicle accidents has shed light on the complexity of assigning liability and responsibility in these cases. From human error to algorithmic faults, a multitude of factors can contribute to accidents involving autonomous vehicles. [Sources: 4, 19, 50]

One key aspect that requires immediate attention is the development and implementation of comprehensive regulatory frameworks for automated vehicles. These frameworks must encompass not only technical standards but also legal guidelines that clearly define liability in different scenarios. Policymakers need to collaborate with industry experts, legal professionals, and ethicists to establish a robust framework that ensures accountability while fostering innovation. Moreover, it is essential to enhance transparency and public trust in automated vehicle technology. [Sources: 3, 4, 11]

This can be achieved through extensive testing, validation procedures, and data sharing among manufacturers. Additionally, manufacturers should prioritize educating consumers about the capabilities and limitations of autonomous systems to manage expectations accurately. To navigate the future successfully, stakeholders must also focus on improving algorithms used in autonomous vehicles continually. By refining algorithms through rigorous testing and machine learning techniques, we can minimize algorithmic faults that may contribute to accidents. [Sources: 2, 30, 39, 51]

Furthermore, as automation advances further towards higher levels of autonomy (such as Level 4 or 5), there may arise situations where human intervention becomes necessary but challenging due to reduced driver engagement. Policymakers should consider how best to handle such circumstances while ensuring public safety remains paramount. In conclusion, addressing legal challenges associated with automated vehicle accidents requires a multi-faceted approach involving collaboration between policymakers, industry experts, manufacturers, legal professionals, ethicists, and society at large. [Sources: 4, 11]

https://calendly.com/zeroriskcases

CALL 833-937-6747 OR USE OUR REQUEST A QUOTE FORM.

Edward Lott, Ph.D., M.B.A.
ZeroRisk Cases®
Call 833-ZERORISK (833-937-6747) x5

##### Sources #####

[0]: https://www.patentpc.com/industries/autonomous-vehicles/

[1]: https://www.redshiftrecruiting.com/autonomous-vehicles-challenges

[2]: https://dredf.org/2023/03/09/addressing-disability-and-ableist-bias-in-autonomous-vehicles-ensuring-safety-equity-and-accessibility-in-detection-collision-algorithms-and-data-collection/

[3]: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/031315/selfdriving-cars-could-change-auto-industry.asp

[4]: https://medium.com/@garypetercox/the-ethics-of-autonomous-vehicles-balancing-safety-and-control-5e8eec717d8d

[5]: https://www.analyticssteps.com/blogs/business-autonomous-vehicles-opportunities-and-challenges

[6]: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jat/2020/8867757/

[7]: https://www.wisnerbaum.com/car-accidents/self-driving-car-accidents/

[8]: https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2018/12/artificial-intelligence-limitations

[9]: https://www.bruninglegal.com/self-driving-cars/

[10]: https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-13240-driving-into-the-future-legal-and-ethical-dimensions-of-ai-in-autonomous-vehicles.html

[11]: https://omnilabs.ai/book/ai-ethics-unveiled

[12]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5173339/

[13]: https://lifelaw.com/the-transformative-impact-of-self-driving-cars-on-car-accidents/

[14]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8885781/

[15]: https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/72643

[16]: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/active-trading/101014/basics-algorithmic-trading-concepts-and-examples.asp

[17]: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/securing-the-future-of-driverless-cars/

[18]: https://keefeandkeefe.com/2023/06/05/considerations-of-liability-in-the-autonomous-car-accident/

[19]: https://www.frtriallawyers.com/blog/2023/august/the-legal-implications-of-autonomous-vehicles/

[20]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-driving_car_liability

[21]: https://digitalregulation.org/3004297-2/

[22]: https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/algorithms-artificial-intelligence-and-the-law/

[23]: https://dokumen.pub/three-liability-regimes-for-artificial-intelligence-algorithmic-actants-hybrids-crowds-9781509949335-9781509949366-9781509949359.html

[24]: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/autonomous-drivings-future-convenient-and-connected

[25]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-institutional-economics/article/liability-for-robots-i-legal-challenges/089EA1B996A5E8974643F8F1BDCD86BB

[26]: https://valientemott.com/auto-collisions/self-driving-cars-pros-and-cons/

[27]: https://hbr.org/2022/09/ai-isnt-ready-to-make-unsupervised-decisions

[28]: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/products-liability-and-driverless-cars-issues-and-guiding-principles-for-legislation/

[29]: https://blog.jipel.law.nyu.edu/2018/04/self-driving-cars-negligence-product-liability-and-warranties/

[30]: https://ovic.vic.gov.au/privacy/resources-for-organisations/artificial-intelligence-and-privacy-issues-and-challenges/

[31]: https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/definition/driverless-car

[32]: https://academic.oup.com/ajcl/article/70/Supplement_1/i39/6655619

[33]: https://en.certificationanswers.com/google-cybersecurity-professional-certificate-answers/

[34]: https://www.itu.int/hub/2020/10/self-driving-cars-can-ai-make-the-right-decisions-on-the-road/

[35]: https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-9-3-2018/4806

[36]: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2022/2671968/

[37]: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/responsible-innovation-in-self-driving-vehicles/responsible-innovation-in-self-driving-vehicles

[38]: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/ten-ways-autonomous-driving-could-redefine-the-automotive-world

[39]: https://www.byarcadia.org/post/the-revolution-of-self-driving-cars

[40]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/naveenjoshi/2022/08/05/5-moral-dilemmas-that-self-driving-cars-face-today/

[41]: https://www.virginiasinjurylawyers.com/faqs/who-is-liable-for-an-accident-with-a-self-driving-car/

[42]: https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/data-algorithms-at-work/

[43]: https://www.iiot-world.com/artificial-intelligence-ml/artificial-intelligence/five-challenges-in-designing-a-fully-autonomous-system-for-driverless-cars/

[44]: https://journalistsresource.org/environment/autonomous-vehicles-uber-driverless-cars/

[45]: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/12/10/improvements-ahead-how-humans-and-ai-might-evolve-together-in-the-next-decade/

[46]: https://www.lawaudience.com/liability-for-accidents-by-autonomous-vehicles/

[47]: https://dataconomy.com/2022/12/28/artificial-intelligence-and-self-driving/

[48]: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/algorithmic-bias-detection-and-mitigation-best-practices-and-policies-to-reduce-consumer-harms/

[49]: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/predictive-policing-explained

[50]: https://www.simplilearn.com/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-artificial-intelligence-article

[51]: https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/AttackingAI

Summary
Article Name
From Human Error To Algorithmic Fault: Analyzing Legal Conundrums In Automated Vehicle Accidents
Description
This blog aims to explore these issues by examining real-life cases involving automated vehicle accidents while considering existing laws and regulations alongside emerging technological developments.
Author
Publisher Name
ZeroRisk Cases, Inc.
Publisher Logo
Be Sociable, Share!
author avatar
ZeroRisk Cases Marketing
We are a Client Acquisition Company, providing ZeroRisk Personal Injury Cases™ backed by our ZeroRisk Compliance Program™. We use proprietary technology with our ZeroRisk Personal Injury Cases™ program to deliver high-value signed cases to obtain these cases. “We identify the highest quality, lowest cost, mass tort, and personal injury cases using medical diagnosis codes associated with the most valuable legal awards by purchasing aged account receivables and mining the data to retain qualified claimants.” The results: We provide the highest possible value to attorneys for each personal injury case we can offer.