[DigitalToday reporter Hyunwoo Choo (추현우)] China’s predictable damages framework and relatively controlled medical-cost system were cited as factors behind BYD’s pledge to accept responsibility for accidents while its driver-assistance system “God’s Eye” is in use. On June 5, EV outlet CleanTechnica introduced readers’ opinions that taking responsibility in the same way will not be easy in the United States for the time being.

A reader identified as “Matthew2312” pointed out that traffic-accident damages in China are calculated in a relatively standardized way based on formulas and tables of criteria. Compensation for death and disability, medical expenses, funeral costs and lost wages are calculated systematically, the reader said, and U.S.-style punitive damages or large awards for emotional distress are effectively rare.

From that perspective, BYD’s unlimited liability is closer in meaning to covering the full amount of damages calculated under the law. In China, companies can calculate the financial burden per accident relatively accurately, but in the United States the size of awards varies widely depending on jury verdicts, making such predictions difficult, another view said. A case in Florida in which a $330 million damages verdict was returned against Tesla was also mentioned.

Another reader identified as “neroden” cited medical costs as a bigger variable in the United States. The reader claimed the country lacks a universal healthcare system and medical costs are 10 to 100 times more expensive than in other countries, meaning actual medical expenses from a single accident can reach $20 million. In China, by contrast, most medical care is covered by national health insurance and prices are relatively controlled, keeping potential costs at a manageable level, the reader said.

China’s litigation structure was also presented as background. A reader identified as “Midori Mayari” said China tends to view attorney fees and protracted lawsuits as economically inefficient and seeks to reduce them, and standardized damages criteria align with that direction.

The latter part of the article also mentioned differences in BYD’s and Tesla’s current positions. It raised the possibility that BYD, with greater trust and political capital in China, may have rolled out a liability policy first to stay ahead in competition. It also cited a view that Tesla still lacks a comparable level of data and local experience. Tesla was only able to widely roll out “FSD” and “Tesla Assisted Driving” in China a few days ago after building data centers to process vehicle remote data within the country.