• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Tort Liability for Autonomous Vehicles in the Human-Computer Collaboration Scenario

    2022-04-26 03:22:11WangNa,HeChen
    科技與法律 2022年2期
    關(guān)鍵詞:自動駕駛人工智能

    Wang Na, He Chen

    Abstract: The handling of autonomous vehicles traffic accidents involves the differentiation and coordination of product liability and motor vehicle traffic accident liability. With the continuous development of the level of automation of driving technology, the basis of liability for damage caused by autonomous vehicles will shift from the compliance of driving behavior to the safety of the driving system. Correspondingly, the liability subject gradually moves from the driving system's driver to the driving system's producer. In the intermediate technical stage where human-computer must cooperate, tort liability for damage caused by autonomous vehicles can still be carried out under the framework of motor vehicle traffic accident liability as a whole to ensure that victims can obtain adequate relief in time. On the internal apportionment of liability, the separate view of the faults of the motor vehicle driver and the defects of the automatic driving system does not conform to the technical structure of "Shared Autonomy"; there are also difficulties in differential evaluation. In this regard, an integrated assessment should be carried out based on the "reasonable expectation standard," with risk assessment as the core, to reasonably delineate the responsibilities.

    Keywords: artificial intelligence; automatic driving; motor vehicle liability; product liability

    CLC: D 912 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? DC: A ? ? ? ? ? Article: 2096?9783(2022)02?0116?10

    1 Statement of Problem

    Autonomous driving is a product of the deep integration of the automotive industry and artificial intelligence technology, and it is also the most eye-catching application scenario of artificial intelligence. According to the Technology Roadmap for Energy Saving and New Energy Vehicle, China has initially formed an independent innovation system for intelligent connected vehicles in 2020 and started constructing smart cities. It can be predicted that autonomous vehicles will gradually embark on high-speed industrialization, marketization, and routinization[1].

    However, while maintaining high expectations for automated driving technology, society will also face systemic risks caused by uncertainty about the development of artificial intelligence. In May 2016, an electric car produced by Tesla Inc. in the auto-driving mode caused a severe accident, which has raised questions about the safety of auto-driving technology and brought to the surface the issue of responsibility for auto-driving car accidents. In 2021, the Tesla brake failure incident at the Shanghai Auto Show once again drew attention from all walks of life and put forward an urgent test of China's current legal liability system.

    Since 2017, the academic circles in our country have conducted heated discussions on the liability for damage caused by autonomous driving. At this stage, a preliminary consensus has been reached in the denial of the legal status of autonomous driving vehicles[2], the affirmation of product liability applicable to independent vehicle manufacturers[3] and the including of motor vehicle liability insurance package[4]. However, there is still a dispute about how the current motor vehicle accident liability and product liability rules apply in the autonomous driving scenario; the specific application relationship between the two responsibilities under different automated driving technology stages is still lacking in a particular discussion.

    Therefore, based on the existing community consensus and the practical needs, it is necessary to comb the liability structure of the damage caused by autonomous vehicles in the current technical stage and make specific discussions on the applicable methods of the current liability regulations.

    2 The "Three-Stage" Liability Structure for the Harm Caused by Autonomous Driving

    2.1 Three-Stage System of Autonomous Driving Technology

    A relatively unified understanding of autonomous vehicles' technical principles and development levels has been formed internationally. Currently, a rather influential classification definition system includes: the Automated and Connected Driving Strategy compiled by the German Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure (BMVI) in 20151; the Autonomous Vehicle Policy Guidelines released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 20162, and the Driving Road Map formulated by the European Road Traffic Research Advisory Committee (ERTRAC) in 20173. In a comprehensive comparison, the difference between the grading criteria is not evident in the definition of the degree of automation. In addition, China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology issued the recommended national standards for Automotive Driving Automation Classification in March 2020. See Figure 1 for specific comparison and description.

    Of course, the distinction of pure technology has limited significance in the field of law, so different disciplinary perspectives must be adopted for analysis and screening. Based on the above table, it can be found that the real sense of autonomous driving technology can be divided into three stages. The first is the assisted driving stage, which includes DA and PA modes. Humans still control the driving operation, and the system only completes auxiliary works in different ranges. The second is the autonomous driving stage, including CA and HA modes, where the system meets all driving operations while human drivers can choose to intervene in different degrees. The third is the pilotless stage, which is the FA mode. The system is responsible for the entire driving, and there is no possibility of human drivers participating4.

    Among these three stages, the leader of the driving operation gradually transitioned from a human driver to a computer system, and the degree of involvement of human decision-making and behavior in the process of the car showed a diminishing change. These differences will lead to changes in the corresponding evaluation standards in the law, which will affect the composition and assumption of responsibilities. Based on this, the following will analyze the liability structure of the damage caused by autonomous vehicles one by one by this technology division system.

    2.2 Responsibility Framework for Each Technical Stage

    2.2.1 The Assisted Driving Stage

    Assisted driving technologies such as Adaptive Cruise Control and Automatic Parking have been widely used in reality. In assisted driving mode, the human driver is still responsible for continuously monitoring the driving environment and assuming most driving tasks. Even in the unique process when the automated system takes over the vehicle's operation, the driver should still monitor the driving situation and be ready to intervene at any time. At this technological stage, the process of the car still depends entirely on the free will and autonomous behavior of the driver. The independent driving system does not have space to control the car's operation independently, so it will not substantially impact the current responsibility structure.

    Specifically, the motor vehicle accident liability is still applied first to the damage caused by a traffic accident in a car with a driving assistance system. According to Article 1208 of the Civil Code and Article 76 of China's Road Traffic Safety Law, fault liability applies to traffic accidents between motor vehicles and motor vehicles. As for traffic accidents between motor vehicles and non-motor vehicles or pedestrians, there are multiple theories: fault liability, the presumption of fault liability, non-fault liability, and indemnity liability[5]. Of course, no matter what approach is adopted, whether the driver of a motor vehicle is at fault has substantial meaning in terms of imputation.

    At this technical stage, the driver assistance system's intervention during the vehicle's operation will have a particular impact on determining the driver's fault, including whether the driver misuses the driver assistance system and whether the driver assistance system is intervened correctly during operation. However, based on the technical description and practical orientation of the driving assistance system, that is, taking over the individual processes under human autonomous decision-making and monitoring, it is not difficult to judge the driver's fault at this stage. When the driver reasonably fulfills the obligation of monitoring the driving environment and controlling the driving process, but the accident occurs due to the failure of the driving assistance system, it will enter the field of product liability. If the malfunction meets the definition of "defect" in Article 46 of the Product Quality Law, the victim of the accident shall claim damages from the vehicle manufacturer.

    According to the different links in which the defects occur, product defects can be divided into manufacturing defects, design defects, and warning defects[6]. Manufacturing defects are typical product defects and result in the strictest product liability. The operating program written by the manufacturer is stored in the driving assistance driving system. When individual "off-line products" appear in the same batch of cars, the operation program loaded on it is not the same as the version prepared by the manufacturer. It is why traffic accidents happen afterward and constitute the identification of manufacturing defects. Regardless of whether the defect originates from the program input link or the test link, the producer cannot claim to be exempted from liability because "all possible preventive measures have been taken"[7].

    When the function of the driving assistance system is to provide additional safety guarantees, such as emergency braking technology, when the technology fails to operate normally and causes an accident, it should be a design defect. As a result, manufacturers may try to evade liability by providing more complicated warning instructions. For example, Mercedes-Benz made a special reminder for its DISTRONIC PLUS System (distance-speed automatic adjustment system): "Drivers should pay attention to traffic conditions even when DISTRONIC PLUS is activated. Otherwise, you may not be able to recognize the danger in time, cause accidents and harm yourself and others." In this case, "The Restatement of the Law Third, Torts Products Liability" of the United States believes that warnings are not a simple way to circumvent manufacturing defects or design defects, nor are they a basis for identifying manufacturing defects and design defects. In other words, if a product can be designed to be safer, the producer should adopt this alternative design and not evade responsibility only by warning of the existence of risks[8].

    2.2.2 The Autonomous Driving Stage

    In the stage of autonomous driving, the driving operation and environmental monitoring of the car will all be completed by the system, and the human driver will only intervene to varying degrees. Whether the responsibility structure has completely changed is the core of the current academic dispute.

    On an objective level, human drivers no longer have complete de facto control over the car, making the autonomous driving system seem more in line with the traditional definition of the driver. Therefore, the "general tort liability theory" believes that the identity of the automatic driving car's driver has been changed to the passenger. The vehicle manufacturer should be responsible for the accident, and the driver should only bear the general tort liability when it is at fault[9]. According to the technical description of the automatic driving stage, human drivers may still need to respond and take over in due course while the system is running, which leaves the latter still retaining the possibility of intervention. Therefore, at this technological stage, the operational control ability of the human driver has not been wholly lost, and it is not appropriate to equate its status with the passenger. It may cause the driver's system monitoring and necessary takeover obligations a mere figurehead.

    In addition, when manufacturers of automatic driving cars are required to take responsibility for motor vehicle accidents, there are questions about how they should understand the faults of the producers. Specifically, the driver's fault refers to his violation of the necessary duty of care in traffic. That is the judgment of the existence and magnitude of the fault-based on whether the driving behavior violates Road Traffic Safety Laws, regulations, and related rules. Its essence lies in the evaluation of driving behavior compliance. The fault of the producer refers to the violation of the producer's safety communication obligation, that is, judging whether the applicability and safety of the product have reached the necessary level based on the general transaction view in the self-driving field, and its essence lies in the evaluation of the appropriateness of the production behavior[10]. The specific content of the two kinds of duty of care is different in the particular range and the judgment standards adopted.

    A different point of view is that better to relieve the victims of automatic driving car accidents and solve the legal evaluation dilemma caused by artificial intelligence technology. It should be based on the risk attributes of the motor vehicle and let Halter assume no-fault liability, which can be described as "the theory of strict liability for Halter"[11]. In this view, some scholars further proposed that the detriment of the motor vehicle party includes Halter's liability and the driver's liability. The former applies the principle of no-fault liability, and the latter uses the principle of presumption of fault[12]. However, China's Civil Code, Road Traffic Safety Law, and other current legal norms do not have the concept of Halter. It requires further discussion on whether and how to introduce strict liability for Halter from comparative law.

    Given that automatic vehicles still belong to motor vehicles, and there is still the possibility of human drivers intervening in the "autonomous driving stage", the tort liability for damage caused by automatic vehicles can still be carried out under the framework of the compulsory motor vehicle accident liability as a whole. This will solve the problem of assuming external responsibilities to ensure that the victims promptly obtain adequate relief.

    From the perspective of comparative law, countries have also shown a similar essential position on this. In May 2017, Germany's amendment to the Road Traffic Law for autonomous driving technology first clearly stipulated that there must be a driver on a motor vehicle in operation. Furthermore, the revised Article 1a paragraph 2 specifies that the system user is still the driver. Therefore, the system user (not the system provider) should still take the driver's responsibility independently in the autonomous driving stage5. At the same time, Article 1b, paragraph 2 of the amendment also sets special monitoring and takeover obligations on drivers while the automatic driving system operates. If an accident occurs in an automated driving mode, damages still depend directly on the driver rather than the producer6. Of course, if a malfunction of the autonomous vehicle causes the accident, the driver can claim compensation from the manufacturer after assuming the responsibility.

    In the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill announced in February 2017 in the United Kingdom, new compulsory car insurance regulations were introduced for autonomous vehicles. Victims of self-driving car accidents can claim compensation from insurance companies first, whether in driver or self-driving mode. In compliance with the current product liability regulations, the insurance company has the right to recover from the producer.

    Therefore, under the framework of the current law norms, it is reasonable to insist on "the tort liability of motor vehicle traffic accidents". In this regard, some scholars argue that the causes of accidents should be distinguished, and product liability and motor vehicle accident liability should be applied separately. In other words, if it is the autonomous vehicle problem, product liability should be used. The current penalty for motor vehicle accidents can still be applied if it is the driver's problem. But the problem with this view is how to use the existing liability rules in detail. For example, when humans and autonomous driving systems interact in decision-making, what is the difference between the fault of the drivers (motor vehicle side) and the product defect of the autonomous vehicle, and how to determine them separately. In the case of complex causality, the proof of these two elements of responsibility will become the key to whether the victim can obtain relief.

    2.2.3 The Pilotless Stage

    In the pilotless stage, the vehicle is not equipped with a driving control device, and the occupants are all passengers. The automatic driving system will take overall environmental monitoring and driving operations. The system user has no obligation to take over and no possibility of intervention. Therefore, views based on shared autonomy were all lost on a factual basis. At this time, regardless of the nature of liability, the producer of the car will become the sole subject of liability for damages. Under the framework of the current law, the analysis of autonomous vehicles liability in traffic accidents will thoroughly enter the institutional framework of product liability[13]. However, it is worth noting that the current system of product tort liability in comparative law is based on the two core elements of producer fault and product defect as a whole. There is a substantial difference between the two based on liability, which will lead to applying different substantive law norms. Therefore, this part will be investigated separately according to this dualistic system.

    In civil law countries or regions, the product tort liability in the primary civil law adopts the principle of fault liability. However, given its indirect tort of omission, through the transformation of the security obligation of communication, in theory, the producer's violation of the special duty of care is regarded as an essential basis for judging the illegality of the tortious act and the cause of imputation[10]. Based on the content of the safety obligations of different producers, different types of producer responsibilities have been gradually developed in practice, including responsibilities for product design defects, faults for manufacturing deficiencies, duties for lack of explanations, and duties for after-sales deficiencies.

    Specifically, the product's design should meet the transaction's requirements, including the theoretical design and the experiment or test under the expected conditions. The manufacturer who fails to pay due attention and results in design defects shall bear the tort liability. Similarly, producers also need to perform the necessary care in the manufacturing process of products. Not only to ensure the safety and reliability of the product production process but also to adopt appropriate quality control measures to prevent consequences with quality problems from entering the market. When the product is put into circulation, the producer is also obliged to give appropriate instructions and prompts to the purchaser, including the particular use of the product and the specific hazards that may occur. After that, the producer should still monitor the safety of the products sold and take necessary measures to prevent and remedy it when necessary. This is an affirmative duty, including the obligation to warn, recall, and improve[14].

    Based on the different types of products, the specific content and requirements of the objective duty of care borne by producers are also different[15]. As far as autonomous driving cars are concerned, the producers, of course, should be obliged to take care not to endanger drivers' lives and health.

    However, the difficulties that may exist under this analytical framework are: firstly, it is worth discussing the relationship between this duty of care and the responsibility to ensure the running of vehicles does not violate relevant road traffic regulations, especially in situations where self-driving cars violate traffic rules to avoid personal injury. Secondly, the producer's duty of safety care is restricted by predictability. In other words, only the danger that can be reasonably foreseeable to the producer will lead to a corresponding task of result avoidance. The most prominent feature that distinguishes driverless technology from other stages of autonomous driving technology is that the operating system itself can self-learn and adapt based on experience. As scholars have pointed out, although humans pre-set the operating rules of the autonomous driving system, they may not be able to foresee the system's specific decisions in specific situations[16]. As a result, the complete autonomy of the unmanned driving system will change the producer's ability to foresee danger, thereby affecting the judgment of reasonable duty of care. Finally, whether the producer adequately fulfilled the obligation of result avoidance is determined based on the relative trade-off between the cost of safety prevention that the defendant has not adopted and the safety benefits that the prevention should have achieved. In practice, discussions are usually conducted through the possibility of alternative solutions7. Therefore, producers may try to evade responsibility by providing more complex warnings to buyers or simply reducing the speed of the car, but this will be at the expense of the expected utility of driverless technology.

    As a particular rule of general tort liability, the structure of product defect liability is the damage caused by product defects. And its particularity lies in the change of the elements of liability from "producer fault" to "product defect". Therefore, at the establishment stage of responsibility, the producer won't be held whether there is subjective intention or negligence in the occurrence of the damage but only makes an objective judgment on whether the product's properties have defects[17].

    The so-called defect refers to the lack of reasonable safety of the product, which often adopts the consumer's good expectation standard as the judgment. The common expressions are "common expectations of ordinary consumers", "general recognition of the public", and so on[18]. The decision of the reasonable degree is a comprehensive evaluation, and the consideration factors include the characteristics of the product itself, the regular use, the period of circulation, and all related matters. When a product is abnormally dangerous under regular use, it can generally be determined that it does not meet consumers' reasonable expectations for product safety. A preliminary determination of "defect" can be reached[19]. Through the rule of primary-face proof, the court can directly infer the causation between the defect and the damage based on the evidence that the victim used the product involved and suffered an injury. Therefore, when applying product defect liability in the driverless stage, although the victim still needs to take the initial burden of proof for the defect and causality, it is easier than proving the producers fault.

    3 Responsibility Determination in the Human-Computer Interaction Circumstance

    The current automatic system represented by Tesla Autopilot gives the public a chance to see the future of automated driving. However, it is undeniable that it is still far from accurate "autopilot". Before the turning point of artificial intelligence technology arrives, we will be in the technical stage of "shared autonomy" for a long time, which is also the regulatory circumstance where academic controversy is concentrated. To cope with the upcoming CA technical stage, detailed interpretation work should be carried out under the current legal liability framework to clarify the specific liability determination rules, which have urgent practical significance.

    3.1 The Technical Characteristics and Burden Sharing Problems of "Shared Autonomy"

    Shared autonomy is a mode in which both the driver and the intelligent car control system can control the autonomous driving car under the condition of not fully autopilot, which corresponds to the technical stage of CA and HA. In the shared autonomy environment, the autopilot system and the driver share the right of decision-making and control of the car. The dynamic driving task is transformed from a traditional continuous process to an alternative automatic and manual driving method[20]. See Figure 2 for the switching process of control right.

    <H:\飛翔打包文件\2022年科技與法律第二期\3.2-科大科技與法律雜志2022年第2期(英文部分)\Image\image2_1.png>

    Figure 2 ? Switching process of control right in the shared autonomy environment

    The technical difficulty at this stage is the switching of control right. First of all, in the process of switching control from autonomous driving car to human, whether the driver can effectively recognize and evaluate the current driving state, then take over the operation of the vehicle, and ultimately avoid risks. Furthermore, how to make reasonable performance evaluation on the process of control proper switching and select the appropriate switching request timing to optimize the effectiveness of human-computer interaction to avoid accidents due to "automation bias".

    The technical "hand-off problem" will directly lead to the complexity of sharing legal responsibilities. After the driver of a motor vehicle assumes external responsibilities by Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law, whether it can recover compensation from the producer of the autonomous driving car, and the amount of compensation lies in the fault of the motor vehicle and the product defect of the self-driving vehicle exist or not. Under the autopilot mode, the human driver and the automatic driving system interact in decision-making, making it challenging to apply the traditional judgment methods of the two responsibilities.

    According to the description of different automated driving technology stages, human drivers have other intervention spaces for driving operation, and their level of attention as a driver should be different. Suppose the regulations insist on applying the fault standards of traditional motor vehicle drivers. In that case, it does not meet the significance of the development and application of autonomous driving technology. It is more likely to transfer the responsibilities of the car manufacturer to the driver. In the circumstance of deep human-computer interaction, the human driver's "foreseeable possibility" and "avoidable possibility" of damage are substantially affected by the operating state of the automatic driving system. For the fault judgment of the motor vehicle driver, the appropriateness of the design and operation of the automated driving system still needs to be considered. Correspondingly, the human driver's decision will react to the operation effect of the automated driving system, which makes it difficult to deviate from the appropriate evaluation of the specific behavior of the motor vehicle driver in the identification of product defects. As a result, in the determination of two different responsibilities, there is a situation where the requirements are a coincidence.

    3.2 The Foundation and Construction Path of the "Reasonable Expectation" Standard

    The interaction between the appropriateness of the motor vehicle drivers' behavior and the safety of motor vehicle products originates from the technical interrelationships and has an everyday legal basis.

    On the one hand, the motor vehicle driver's duty of care comes from the reasonable expectations of other traffic participants for the safety of motor vehicle operation. When the operation of a motor vehicle is entirely based on the driver, this reasonable expectation is embodied as the driver having the legal driving qualification, good driving ability, maintaining the necessary monitoring and vigilance, complying with road traffic laws, etc. Drivers who fail to meet these requirements are deemed unable to perform the duty of care properly and are at fault for the damage. On the other hand, the product must have safety that meets the general expectations of consumers, and the producer is obliged to limit the risk of injury or damage to an acceptable level. Therefore, the essential connotation of product defects lies in an unreasonable danger, and the main criterion is consumers' reasonable expectations.

    In the context of the application of autonomous driving technology, motor vehicle drivers have gradually given way to the automatic driving system, but society's reasonable expectations for the safe operation of motor vehicles have not decreased. Therefore, in terms of external liability, applying liability for the compulsory of vehicle traffic accidents is still realistic and reasonable. And in the control of autonomous vehicles, the vehicle driver and the autonomous driving system must cooperate to ensure that the vehicle's operation meets reasonable expectations. As a result, motor vehicle manufacturers may also become the main body of responsibility and take responsibility for the safety defects of the automatic driving system. Under the standard of reasonable expectation, the faults of motor vehicle drivers and the weaknesses of the automated driving system can be evaluated as a whole, and they can act on the composition and assumption of different types of responsibilities, respectively, to solve the problem of internal responsibility allocation based on the determination of causation.

    The occurrence of damage is a concrete realization of risk. The purpose of motor vehicle drivers is to fulfill the duty of reasonable care. The requirement that the product is free of defects is to control the risk level of motor vehicle operation within an excellent range to meet the reasonable expectations of others for the safety of others motor vehicle operation. Regardless of whether the specific safety problem comes from the improper operation of the human driver or the defect of the automatic driving system, it will eventually cause the safety risk of the self-driving car, leading to traffic accidents. Therefore, under the unified concept of liability, the key to applying the reasonable expectation standard lies in the assessment and delineation of risks.

    To improve the safety of autonomous vehicles, risk assessment methods based on different motion models have been developed technically, including risk assessment based on physical motion models, risk assessment based on behavioral motion models, and risk assessment based on perception/consciousness interactive motion models, and so on[21]. However, these methods are mostly centered on automated driving systems and focused on technological improvements in maps, perception, and planning, lacking consideration of human decision-making and behavior.

    The influence of humans as an uncertain factor fundamentally leads to the complexity of risk analysis in shared autonomy circumstances. In the risk analysis, the human condition, driving style, and previous human-machine cooperation experience should be fully considered. Friedman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory defined an engineering paradigm for developing a "shared autonomous autonomy" system in a human-centered manner. Based on this, he proposed seven principles for the operation of autonomous vehicles, emphasizing that the perception should be shared based on understanding human drivers and that attention should be paid to the effectiveness and safety of autonomous vehicles as a whole, rather than individual components[22]. This risk assessment method based on the technical framework aligns with integrated assessment thinking. It also has practical significance for risk division under the shared autonomy model.

    4 Conclusion

    Responsibility and legislative issues need to be addressed before automated driving technology is introduced to the public. Automated and networked driving are the inevitable trends of technological progress, but its safe, reliable, and controllable development cannot be separated from the support of the legal system. The handling of responsibilities for driving car traffic accidents involves the complex issue of distributing responsibilities between drivers of self-driving systems and providers of autonomous vehicle technology. Currently, autonomous driving technology has not shaken the existing liability framework system. In the long run, as the space for human drivers to intervene in vehicle operations continues to shrink, the ultimate responsibility will gradually shift from the driver to the producer of the automated driving system.

    In the intermediate technical stage of human-computer interaction, it is difficult to identify the faults of motor vehicles drivers and the product defects of the automatic driving system, leading to difficulties in sharing responsibilities. From the theory of interpretation, with reasonable expectations for the safe operation of autonomous vehicles as the connection point, it is expected to build an integrated liability determination criterion and provide a legal basis for the reasonable delineation of responsibilities. In terms of application, the concrete construction of appropriate expectation standards still mainly depends on technical risk assessment methods but should pay attention to the influence of human drivers' decision-making behavior in specific scenarios.

    References:

    [1] Energy Saving and New Energy Vehicle Technology Roadmap Strategic Advisory Committee. China society of automotive engineering: energy saving and new energy vehicle vechnology roadmap[M]. Beijing: China Machine Press,2016: 206?207.

    [2] ZHU Y H. Criticism of artificial intelligence legal personality viewpoint and rational responses[J]. Law Science Magazine, 2020, 41(3): 132?140.

    [3] FENG Y. Tort liability for damage caused by automatic driving vehicle[J]. China Legal Science, 2018, 4(6): 109?132.

    [4] FENG J Y. Artificial intelligence technology and change of liability law: autopilot as an object of investigation[J]. Journal of Comparative Law, 2018, 4(2): 143?155.

    [5] The Research Group on Tort Law of the Supreme People's Court. Understanding and application of the provisions of the tort law of the People's Republic of China[M]. Beijing: People's Court Press, 2010: 349.

    [6] American Academy of Law. Tort law restatement third edition: product liability[M]. Translated by XIAO Y P, et al.Beijing: Law Press, 2006: 273.

    [7] HE C. Reflection and reconstruction of developing risk defense system in China's product liability law[J]. Science of Law, 2016, 34(3): 135?144.

    [8] VICTOR E, SCHWARTZ. The restatement, third, torts Products liability a model of fairness and balance[J]. KAN J L. & Pub. Pol'y, 2000, 10: 41.

    [9] ZHANG T. Study on the civil liability for damage caused by artificial intelligence products[J]. Journal of Social Science, 2018, 4(4): 103?112.

    [10] GUO L Z. Introduction to the development of China's product liability law in the past ten years[J]. Taiwan Law Review, 2004, 110(7): 30.

    [11] YIN Q S. Problems and countermeasures of tort law of intelligent vehicle [J]. Science of Law, 2018, 36(5): 42?51.

    [12] LIU Z C. The construction of tort liability of the damage caused by autopilot vehicles[J]. Northern Legal Science, 2020,14(4): 5?17.

    [13] GARY E M, RACHEL A L. The coming collision between autonomous vehicles and the liability system[J]. Santa Clara L. Rev, 2012, 52: 1321.

    [14] ERWIN D , HANS J A. Unerlaubte handlungen·schadensersatz·schmerzensgeld (5. auflage) [M]. Translated by YE M Y & WEN D J. Beijing: China Renmin University Press, 2016: 132?134.

    [15] TERUAKI T. The Japanese tort law[M]. Translated by ?GU Z X & DING X S. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2011: 198?199.

    [16] SI X, CAO J F. On the civil liability of artificial intelligence:taking automatic driving vehicle and intelligent robot as the breakthrough point[J]. Science of Law, 2017, 35(5): 166?173.

    [17] YU M. The Japanese tort law[M]. Beijing: Law Press, 2015: 529?530.

    [18] Civil Law Office of the Legal Work Committee of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. Explanation, legislative reasons and relevant provisions of the tort liability law of the People's Republic of China[M]. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2010: 173.

    [19] HE C. The judicial effect of compulsory standard in Tort Law—focus on product responsibility[J]. Seeker, 2016, 4(4): 33?38.

    [20] WU C Z, WU H R, LYU N C. Review of control switch and safety of human-computer driving intelligent vehicle[J]. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, 2018, 18(6): 131?141.

    [21] STEPHANIE L, DIZAN V, CHRISTIAN L. A survey on motion prediction and risk assessment for intelligent vehicles[J]. Robomech Journal, 2014, 1(1): 1.

    [22] LEX F. Human-centered autonomous vehicle systems:principles of effective shared autonomy[EB/OL]. [2021-7-10]. https://arxiv. org/abs/1810. 01835.

    人機(jī)協(xié)作場景下自動駕駛汽車致害的侵權(quán)責(zé)任

    王 ?娜,賀 ?琛

    (安徽大學(xué) ?法學(xué)院,合肥 230601)

    摘 ? ?要:在自動駕駛汽車交通事故的處理上,涉及產(chǎn)品責(zé)任與機(jī)動車交通事故責(zé)任的界分與銜接問題。隨著駕駛技術(shù)自動化水平的持續(xù)提高,自動駕駛汽車致害的歸責(zé)基礎(chǔ)將由駕駛行為的合規(guī)性轉(zhuǎn)向駕駛系統(tǒng)的安全性。與之相對應(yīng),責(zé)任主體逐漸從駕駛系統(tǒng)的使用者向駕駛系統(tǒng)的生產(chǎn)者轉(zhuǎn)移。在人機(jī)必須合作的中間技術(shù)階段,自動駕駛汽車致害的侵權(quán)責(zé)任仍可整體在機(jī)動車交通事故責(zé)任的框架下展開,以確保受害人能夠及時(shí)獲得充分的救濟(jì)。而在責(zé)任內(nèi)部分擔(dān)上,割裂性看待機(jī)動車使用人過錯與自動駕駛系統(tǒng)缺陷,并不符合“人車共駕”的技術(shù)結(jié)構(gòu),亦存在區(qū)別評價(jià)上的困難。對此,應(yīng)基于“合理期待標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”進(jìn)行一體化評價(jià),以風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評估為核心,合理劃定責(zé)任。

    關(guān)鍵詞:人工智能;自動駕駛;機(jī)動車責(zé)任;產(chǎn)品責(zé)任

    猜你喜歡
    自動駕駛人工智能
    我校新增“人工智能”本科專業(yè)
    2019:人工智能
    商界(2019年12期)2019-01-03 06:59:05
    人工智能與就業(yè)
    數(shù)讀人工智能
    小康(2017年16期)2017-06-07 09:00:59
    “自動駕駛”熱潮背后的擔(dān)心和疑慮
    汽車周刊(2017年5期)2017-06-06 14:02:49
    汽車自動駕駛的發(fā)展
    基于自動駕駛下的車道規(guī)劃對交通擁堵的改善
    LTE—V車路通信技術(shù)淺析與探討
    移動通信(2016年24期)2017-03-04 22:12:26
    特斯拉默默更改了官網(wǎng)上“自動駕駛”的說明
    家用汽車(2016年9期)2016-11-04 15:04:44
    下一幕,人工智能!
    国产高清激情床上av| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 少妇的逼好多水| 久久久久国内视频| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| av黄色大香蕉| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 亚洲激情在线av| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 99热6这里只有精品| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| 国产一级毛片七仙女欲春2| 国产精品久久久人人做人人爽| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 久久伊人香网站| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看| 欧美在线黄色| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| 麻豆一二三区av精品| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 久久中文看片网| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美 | 欧美在线黄色| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 欧美午夜高清在线| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 色播亚洲综合网| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 老师上课跳d突然被开到最大视频 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃 | 十八禁网站免费在线| 国产精品女同一区二区软件 | 岛国在线观看网站| 身体一侧抽搐| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 美女黄网站色视频| 久久精品影院6| 国产精品,欧美在线| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 欧美性猛交黑人性爽| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频| 日本 欧美在线| 国产亚洲欧美98| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| 99久久综合精品五月天人人| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 91在线观看av| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 欧美+日韩+精品| 婷婷亚洲欧美| 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 黄色日韩在线| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| av国产免费在线观看| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久,| 天天添夜夜摸| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 久久精品91无色码中文字幕| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 久久久色成人| 热99re8久久精品国产| 久久久国产成人免费| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| av黄色大香蕉| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 一级毛片高清免费大全| 国产亚洲精品av在线| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 国产午夜精品论理片| 757午夜福利合集在线观看| 波野结衣二区三区在线 | 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩 | 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 亚洲成av人片免费观看| 国产视频内射| 丰满人妻熟妇乱又伦精品不卡| 亚洲无线观看免费| 亚洲专区中文字幕在线| 日韩成人在线观看一区二区三区| 精品国产美女av久久久久小说| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 国产精华一区二区三区| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 国产熟女xx| 欧美日韩精品网址| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 成人三级黄色视频| 香蕉av资源在线| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 嫩草影院入口| 蜜桃亚洲精品一区二区三区| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 国内精品一区二区在线观看| 熟女电影av网| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 夜夜躁狠狠躁天天躁| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www| 97碰自拍视频| 精品国产三级普通话版| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 成人18禁在线播放| 好男人电影高清在线观看| av在线天堂中文字幕| 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 少妇丰满av| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| av片东京热男人的天堂| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区 | 国产高清激情床上av| 有码 亚洲区| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频| 99久久精品国产亚洲精品| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 日韩高清综合在线| 国产日本99.免费观看| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡| av中文乱码字幕在线| 色在线成人网| 宅男免费午夜| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| av国产免费在线观看| 亚洲激情在线av| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 九色国产91popny在线| 在线观看66精品国产| 亚洲av成人不卡在线观看播放网| 中文字幕人成人乱码亚洲影| 欧美黄色片欧美黄色片| 69人妻影院| 国产成人aa在线观看| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 久久国产精品影院| 黄片小视频在线播放| 久久亚洲真实| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 亚洲第一电影网av| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 国产不卡一卡二| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 国产真实乱freesex| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕 | 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 久久精品国产综合久久久| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 久久久成人免费电影| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| 亚洲av美国av| 一个人免费在线观看电影| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 日本黄色片子视频| 欧美日本视频| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久,| 18美女黄网站色大片免费观看| 精品日产1卡2卡| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| 日韩免费av在线播放| 变态另类丝袜制服| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看| 中文字幕av成人在线电影| 叶爱在线成人免费视频播放| 久久草成人影院| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| 久久国产精品影院| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| a级毛片a级免费在线| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 搡老岳熟女国产| 日本 欧美在线| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 亚洲片人在线观看| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 少妇的逼好多水| 亚洲成av人片免费观看| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆 | 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 精品人妻1区二区| 久久精品影院6| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 日韩欧美在线乱码| 中文字幕av成人在线电影| 国产精品,欧美在线| 男女视频在线观看网站免费| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 国产精品野战在线观看| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 最近视频中文字幕2019在线8| 日韩有码中文字幕| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区| 欧美zozozo另类| 国产97色在线日韩免费| 特级一级黄色大片| 91av网一区二区| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 小说图片视频综合网站| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 国产成人av激情在线播放| 免费av不卡在线播放| 搡老岳熟女国产| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 成年女人看的毛片在线观看| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区| 一级作爱视频免费观看| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 国产高清视频在线观看网站| 国产av一区在线观看免费| 日本与韩国留学比较| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看 | 校园春色视频在线观看| 一级a爱片免费观看的视频| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 国产老妇女一区| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 一本综合久久免费| 亚洲无线在线观看| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 国产精品一及| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 国产日本99.免费观看| 1000部很黄的大片| 久久九九热精品免费| 国产黄片美女视频| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月 | 深爱激情五月婷婷| 免费av观看视频| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 国产高清三级在线| 99热只有精品国产| 午夜久久久久精精品| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩 | 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| av在线天堂中文字幕| 窝窝影院91人妻| 丰满的人妻完整版| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 色在线成人网| 97超级碰碰碰精品色视频在线观看| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女| 在线国产一区二区在线| 久久香蕉国产精品| 国产精品野战在线观看| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 国产三级黄色录像| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看 | 国产一区二区在线观看日韩 | 嫩草影视91久久| 毛片女人毛片| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 免费看光身美女| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 国产激情偷乱视频一区二区| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 色吧在线观看| 99热这里只有是精品50| 波多野结衣高清作品| 国产综合懂色| 深夜精品福利| 夜夜躁狠狠躁天天躁| 美女黄网站色视频| 级片在线观看| 国产免费av片在线观看野外av| 老司机福利观看| 美女大奶头视频| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类 | 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月 | 两个人视频免费观看高清| 天堂av国产一区二区熟女人妻| 午夜免费观看网址| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 久久精品夜夜夜夜夜久久蜜豆| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 在线观看一区二区三区| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 热99在线观看视频| 国产高清videossex| 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| 99久国产av精品| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看 | 久久性视频一级片| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 日本黄大片高清| 成年人黄色毛片网站| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 日韩av在线大香蕉| h日本视频在线播放| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看| 国产精品久久久久久人妻精品电影| 特级一级黄色大片| 69av精品久久久久久| 少妇高潮的动态图| 18美女黄网站色大片免费观看| 黄色日韩在线| 国产精华一区二区三区| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 久久久久九九精品影院| 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 国产极品精品免费视频能看的| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| av在线蜜桃| 精品一区二区三区视频在线 | 久久久国产成人精品二区| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看 | 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 最好的美女福利视频网| 99久国产av精品| 中文字幕人成人乱码亚洲影| 在线播放国产精品三级| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 丁香六月欧美| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 香蕉丝袜av| 757午夜福利合集在线观看| 夜夜爽天天搞| 熟女电影av网| 亚洲人成电影免费在线| 日本与韩国留学比较| 亚洲精品456在线播放app | 午夜影院日韩av| 免费看日本二区| 一a级毛片在线观看| svipshipincom国产片| 久久久成人免费电影| 久久人妻av系列| 国产精品一及| 日日夜夜操网爽| 九色成人免费人妻av| 一级毛片高清免费大全| 观看美女的网站| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 一区二区三区免费毛片| av在线蜜桃| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 免费看a级黄色片| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 午夜a级毛片| 一本精品99久久精品77| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 国产激情欧美一区二区| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 91在线观看av| 亚洲黑人精品在线| 成年女人看的毛片在线观看| 美女 人体艺术 gogo| 午夜影院日韩av| 国产精品久久久久久久久免 | 午夜福利欧美成人| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 国产av不卡久久| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 色综合站精品国产| 天天一区二区日本电影三级| 一区二区三区免费毛片| 一区二区三区高清视频在线| 一级黄片播放器| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 黄色日韩在线| 中国美女看黄片| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 欧洲精品卡2卡3卡4卡5卡区| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱 | 天堂影院成人在线观看| 床上黄色一级片| 9191精品国产免费久久| 久久亚洲真实| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 很黄的视频免费| 在线视频色国产色| av黄色大香蕉| 亚洲国产欧美人成| 日本熟妇午夜| 俺也久久电影网| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| or卡值多少钱| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9| 黄色女人牲交| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 香蕉丝袜av| 久久国产精品影院| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 制服人妻中文乱码| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 国产黄片美女视频| av女优亚洲男人天堂| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| netflix在线观看网站| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 1000部很黄的大片| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 日韩欧美在线乱码| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 香蕉av资源在线| 午夜视频国产福利| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 久久精品91蜜桃| 国产成人av教育| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 天堂网av新在线| 免费观看人在逋| av福利片在线观看| 女警被强在线播放| 亚洲精品成人久久久久久| 国产高清三级在线| 免费观看人在逋| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片| 三级毛片av免费| 一a级毛片在线观看| 人妻丰满熟妇av一区二区三区| 嫩草影院精品99| 波野结衣二区三区在线 | 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久| 热99re8久久精品国产| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 少妇的逼水好多| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 国产一区二区亚洲精品在线观看| 婷婷亚洲欧美| 一进一出抽搐动态| 国产主播在线观看一区二区| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 亚洲五月天丁香| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 哪里可以看免费的av片| 在线十欧美十亚洲十日本专区| tocl精华| 亚洲精品成人久久久久久| 亚洲在线观看片| 亚洲av一区综合| 久久精品91蜜桃| 国产单亲对白刺激| 天堂动漫精品| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 国产野战对白在线观看| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 香蕉丝袜av| 成年女人看的毛片在线观看| 蜜桃亚洲精品一区二区三区| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 内射极品少妇av片p| 久久九九热精品免费| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看 | 99久久精品热视频| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 久久精品91无色码中文字幕| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 九色成人免费人妻av| 精品福利观看| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 日韩高清综合在线| 国产av在哪里看| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕 | 国产单亲对白刺激| 十八禁网站免费在线| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 在线观看日韩欧美| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 免费在线观看日本一区| 国产精品久久久久久人妻精品电影| 97碰自拍视频| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 一个人免费在线观看的高清视频| 国产精品久久久久久久电影 | 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 久久久色成人| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 成人欧美大片| 中国美女看黄片| 国产三级在线视频| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 免费搜索国产男女视频| 日本五十路高清| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 欧美激情在线99| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 制服人妻中文乱码| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 成人18禁在线播放| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 亚洲不卡免费看| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 欧洲精品卡2卡3卡4卡5卡区| or卡值多少钱| 国产99白浆流出| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 中文字幕熟女人妻在线| 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费| 亚洲av电影不卡..在线观看| 琪琪午夜伦伦电影理论片6080| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 国产精品久久久久久久久免 | 欧美激情在线99| 波多野结衣高清无吗| 国产精品永久免费网站| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 两个人的视频大全免费| av黄色大香蕉| 亚洲av一区综合|