When it comes to industrial safety, the main question when facing accusation of negligence is "what would a reasonable person have done in that situation". It takes into account things like:
- would a reasonable person have identified this feature as having an exploitable vulnerability?
- was it reasonably practicable to protect against it?
In this case, the manufacturer could argue that, in their review of the risks associated with their remote connection system, it was not reasonable to expect that it could be compromised and lead to a hazard.
Obviously, now that it has been demonstrated, there will be a much greater expectation that car manufacturers secure their remote access pathways.
In this case, the manufacturer could argue that, in their review of the risks associated with their remote connection system, it was not reasonable to expect that it could be compromised and lead to a hazard.
Obviously, now that it has been demonstrated, there will be a much greater expectation that car manufacturers secure their remote access pathways.