• <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!
    日韩一区二区三区影片| 男人狂女人下面高潮的视频| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 特级一级黄色大片| 久久久久久久久久久免费av| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 22中文网久久字幕| a级毛片免费高清观看在线播放| 2021少妇久久久久久久久久久| 久热久热在线精品观看| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看| 精品人妻视频免费看| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx在线观看| 亚洲综合精品二区| 日本一本二区三区精品| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 国产精品一及| 久久国内精品自在自线图片| 99热这里只有是精品50| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99 | 精品久久久久久久久亚洲| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久 | 欧美激情在线99| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 久久久久久久久中文| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 日本免费在线观看一区| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 精品酒店卫生间| 国产91av在线免费观看| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 欧美xxxx黑人xx丫x性爽| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 男人狂女人下面高潮的视频| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 国产免费男女视频| 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 国产亚洲91精品色在线| 乱系列少妇在线播放| 免费人成在线观看视频色| av天堂中文字幕网| 亚洲自偷自拍三级| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| 欧美日本视频| 欧美日韩精品成人综合77777| 综合色丁香网| 国产单亲对白刺激| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 草草在线视频免费看| 综合色丁香网| 国产乱人偷精品视频| 亚洲av二区三区四区| 久久精品夜夜夜夜夜久久蜜豆| 成人午夜高清在线视频| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 美女国产视频在线观看| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 床上黄色一级片| 在线免费十八禁| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 一区二区三区高清视频在线| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 久久久久网色| 看黄色毛片网站| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 久久久久性生活片| 九草在线视频观看| 七月丁香在线播放| 简卡轻食公司| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| av国产免费在线观看| av在线播放精品| 成人二区视频| 一级黄色大片毛片| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 国产欧美日韩精品一区二区| 国产精品无大码| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 天堂av国产一区二区熟女人妻| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类| 成人av在线播放网站| 小说图片视频综合网站| 午夜视频国产福利| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 亚洲综合色惰| 精品久久久久久久久av| 色综合站精品国产| 午夜a级毛片| 干丝袜人妻中文字幕| 午夜福利在线观看吧| av卡一久久| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 99久久精品热视频| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 九九热线精品视视频播放| 欧美一区二区国产精品久久精品| 少妇的逼好多水| 国产成人精品婷婷| 国产乱人视频| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久,| 久久午夜福利片| 美女高潮的动态| 国产高清三级在线| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| 如何舔出高潮| 18+在线观看网站| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 国产精品国产三级专区第一集| 亚洲av男天堂| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 国产高清三级在线| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 久久99精品国语久久久| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 99久久人妻综合| 欧美+日韩+精品| 国产高清不卡午夜福利| 只有这里有精品99| 九九热线精品视视频播放| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 联通29元200g的流量卡| 91久久精品电影网| 美女黄网站色视频| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 插阴视频在线观看视频| 99热全是精品| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 欧美日韩国产亚洲二区| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 国产成人精品婷婷| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄 | 日本黄色片子视频| av在线亚洲专区| 22中文网久久字幕| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 老师上课跳d突然被开到最大视频| av在线亚洲专区| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| 亚洲av成人av| 成人午夜高清在线视频| 中文字幕制服av| 联通29元200g的流量卡| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看| 1000部很黄的大片| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 亚洲18禁久久av| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 小说图片视频综合网站| 成年女人看的毛片在线观看| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 国产av不卡久久| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯| 能在线免费观看的黄片| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂 | 超碰av人人做人人爽久久| 国产黄片视频在线免费观看| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 视频中文字幕在线观看| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 久久精品91蜜桃| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 日韩中字成人| 最近视频中文字幕2019在线8| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 亚洲色图av天堂| 精品久久久久久久久亚洲| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 国产高清三级在线| 高清在线视频一区二区三区 | 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 美女高潮的动态| 亚洲丝袜综合中文字幕| 国产成人a区在线观看| 老司机影院毛片| 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 国产精品野战在线观看| 国产精品国产三级专区第一集| 一夜夜www| 亚洲久久久久久中文字幕| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站 | 亚州av有码| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看| 国产精品永久免费网站| 日韩国内少妇激情av| av免费观看日本| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| 男人狂女人下面高潮的视频| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 全区人妻精品视频| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 亚洲五月天丁香| 国产精品伦人一区二区| 看黄色毛片网站| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 99热这里只有精品一区| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花 | 少妇高潮的动态图| 黄片wwwwww| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区 | 久久久a久久爽久久v久久| 国产精品.久久久| 黄片wwwwww| 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 如何舔出高潮| 伦精品一区二区三区| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 春色校园在线视频观看| 欧美日本视频| 七月丁香在线播放| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| 1000部很黄的大片| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 麻豆精品久久久久久蜜桃| 91精品一卡2卡3卡4卡| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 国产高清视频在线观看网站| 简卡轻食公司| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看| 亚洲av男天堂| 毛片女人毛片| 国产在线一区二区三区精 | 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 综合色丁香网| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区| 国产精品三级大全| 久久午夜福利片| 成年av动漫网址| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花 | 日韩欧美精品v在线| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验| 日日撸夜夜添| 建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的 | 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 欧美高清性xxxxhd video| 最近中文字幕2019免费版| 国产亚洲91精品色在线| 欧美3d第一页| .国产精品久久| 国产成人精品婷婷| 国产69精品久久久久777片| 亚洲av二区三区四区| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 国产视频内射| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 国产av不卡久久| 麻豆av噜噜一区二区三区| 久久久久久久久久久免费av| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 欧美色视频一区免费| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 三级经典国产精品| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 在线播放无遮挡| 久久婷婷人人爽人人干人人爱| 美女黄网站色视频| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 小说图片视频综合网站| 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| a级一级毛片免费在线观看| 午夜福利高清视频| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 欧美性猛交黑人性爽| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 免费观看精品视频网站| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| videossex国产| 久久这里有精品视频免费| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 精品人妻熟女av久视频| 中文资源天堂在线| 亚洲欧美精品专区久久| 综合色丁香网| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| www.av在线官网国产| 国产av码专区亚洲av| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| av在线播放精品| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 七月丁香在线播放| 乱系列少妇在线播放| www.av在线官网国产| 级片在线观看| 九九在线视频观看精品| 国产一区二区亚洲精品在线观看| 热99re8久久精品国产| 中文字幕久久专区| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 美女xxoo啪啪120秒动态图| av在线老鸭窝| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说 | 久久人妻av系列| 久久国产乱子免费精品| 午夜精品在线福利| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 九色成人免费人妻av| 精品久久久久久成人av| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 国语对白做爰xxxⅹ性视频网站| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验| 国产精品,欧美在线| 嘟嘟电影网在线观看| 中文天堂在线官网| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| 夜夜爽夜夜爽视频| 久久这里只有精品中国| 国产精华一区二区三区| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 欧美日韩精品成人综合77777| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 有码 亚洲区| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| av福利片在线观看| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久 | av国产免费在线观看| 亚洲精品国产av成人精品| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看| av播播在线观看一区| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 成年免费大片在线观看| 国产在线男女| 中文字幕精品亚洲无线码一区| 99热精品在线国产| 久久热精品热| 嫩草影院入口| 国产精品野战在线观看| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 能在线免费看毛片的网站| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版 | 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放 | 干丝袜人妻中文字幕| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| 老司机影院毛片| 一个人免费在线观看电影| 联通29元200g的流量卡| av免费观看日本| 久久久色成人| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 国产av不卡久久| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 免费大片18禁| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 久久99蜜桃精品久久| 简卡轻食公司| 日本免费在线观看一区| 久久6这里有精品| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说 | 老女人水多毛片| 国产乱人视频| 成人无遮挡网站| 中文资源天堂在线| 日日撸夜夜添| 亚洲av电影不卡..在线观看| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 波多野结衣高清无吗| 国产成人aa在线观看| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 亚洲精品国产av成人精品| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 伦精品一区二区三区| 一边亲一边摸免费视频| 亚洲不卡免费看| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区| 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 亚洲av成人av| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 深夜a级毛片| 中文字幕精品亚洲无线码一区| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 国语对白做爰xxxⅹ性视频网站| 一级黄色大片毛片| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| 国产精品电影一区二区三区| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 男女国产视频网站| 国产综合懂色| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看| 国产成人福利小说| 久久人妻av系列| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 久热久热在线精品观看| 午夜福利在线在线| 简卡轻食公司| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 色综合色国产| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 精品一区二区三区人妻视频| 国产精品国产三级国产专区5o | 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 国产综合懂色| 国产视频首页在线观看| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 内地一区二区视频在线| 亚洲av福利一区| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看| 18禁动态无遮挡网站| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 一级av片app| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看| 亚洲综合精品二区| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 色播亚洲综合网| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 青春草亚洲视频在线观看| 国产在视频线在精品| 国产 一区精品| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 国产高清不卡午夜福利| 2021少妇久久久久久久久久久| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 视频中文字幕在线观看| 色5月婷婷丁香| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 白带黄色成豆腐渣| 能在线免费看毛片的网站| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 身体一侧抽搐| 国内精品宾馆在线| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 大香蕉97超碰在线| 亚洲成人av在线免费| av视频在线观看入口| 黄色一级大片看看| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 少妇高潮的动态图| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99 | 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区| 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 国产精品,欧美在线| 中文资源天堂在线| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 婷婷色麻豆天堂久久 | 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区 | 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| 久久久久久大精品| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 欧美人与善性xxx| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯| 国产成人freesex在线| 久久精品综合一区二区三区| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 免费黄色在线免费观看| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花 | 亚洲精品乱码久久久久久按摩| 建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的 | 日本免费在线观看一区| 美女内射精品一级片tv| 国产老妇女一区| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 婷婷色麻豆天堂久久 | 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄 | 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 国产精品三级大全| a级一级毛片免费在线观看| 九色成人免费人妻av| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免| 18禁在线播放成人免费| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 久久精品人妻少妇| 成人二区视频| 精品久久久久久电影网 | 在线免费观看的www视频| av黄色大香蕉| 久久精品影院6| 97超碰精品成人国产| 激情 狠狠 欧美| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 国产高清国产精品国产三级 | 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 亚洲怡红院男人天堂| 国产日韩欧美在线精品| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx在线观看| 看免费成人av毛片| 99久国产av精品国产电影| 国产极品天堂在线| 国产一级毛片在线| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 国产黄片美女视频| 久久久久网色| 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 内地一区二区视频在线| 国产成人精品婷婷| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 精品久久久久久久末码| 永久免费av网站大全| 午夜激情欧美在线| 国产不卡一卡二| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 白带黄色成豆腐渣| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区 | 黄色配什么色好看| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 国产精品蜜桃在线观看| www.色视频.com| 国产淫语在线视频| 欧美性感艳星| 女人久久www免费人成看片 | 亚洲电影在线观看av| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 亚洲精品成人久久久久久| 老师上课跳d突然被开到最大视频| 国产成人福利小说| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 国产在视频线精品| 久久热精品热| 91精品国产九色| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 国产精品电影一区二区三区| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 最近中文字幕2019免费版|