Photo of Clay Cossé

Clay Cossé

Subscribe to Clay Cossé's Posts

Clay Cossé represents clients in complex litigation in the automotive, products liability, commercial, electrical and gas utility, transportation, and catastrophic loss spheres. Clay obtains results for his clients by leveraging superior knowledge of their industries, their technologies, their processes, and the state of the art.  Clay serves as co-leader of the firm’s electric and autonomous vehicles (E/AV) and advanced mobility team. He is a frequent contributor to Westlaw Today on all subjects automotive.

Contact:Read more about Clay Cossé

It’s been several months since we surveyed top automotive executives and insiders on the major legal issues facing the industry for our 2023 Automotive Trends Report.

As the automotive world continues to evolve and navigate a shifting legal landscape, we look at some of the major themes driving it forward… and the ones that might be in the rearview mirror.

What’s next in the dynamic world of autonomous vehicles? Clay Cossé and Mark Malven dive in.Continue Reading 2023 Automotive Trends Check-In: Trending Up or Trending Down? Spotlight: Autonomous Vehicles

It’s been several months since we surveyed top automotive executives and insiders on the major legal issues facing the industry for our 2023 Automotive Trends Report.

As the automotive world continues to evolve and navigate a shifting legal landscape, we look at some of the major themes driving it forward… and the ones that might be in the rearview mirror.

In part 2 of our midyear check-in, Clay Cossé, Dommond Lonnie, and Mike Carey identify on the major legal issues driving the future of Electric Vehicles.Continue Reading 2023 Automotive Trends Check-In: Trending Up or Trending Down? Spotlight: Electric Vehicles

Technologies like built-in navigation, driver-assistance systems and integral telematics, and mobile device synchronization increasingly bring data privacy to the forefront in the auto industry. While the EU has taken a top-down approach, individual states on this side of the pond continue to pass legislation in this space. The latest effort comes from Texas. And it should come as no surprise that it’s Texas-sized.  Continue Reading Texas Passes One of the Strongest Data Privacy Laws in the Nation

On Wednesday, May 31, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced a new proposal that could “maximize the lifesaving potential” of Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) systems. Clay Cossé of Dykema’s Automotive Industry Group breaks down the key highlights.Continue Reading 5 Takeaways From the New Proposal That Could Put Emergency Braking in Every Car

On November 15, 2021, President Biden signed into law the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (“Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act” or “IIJA”). Vehicle, highway, and crash safety improvements were not a major part of the IIJA’s billing. Maybe the lack of publicity on this aspect of the IIJA was the result of the legislation’s overall vast scope. Whatever the reason, the IIJA actually affected (or at least required NHTSA to effect) a number of substantial and consequential vehicle safety initiatives.

It’s now just more than a year after the IIJA’s enactment, so I wanted to discuss the IIJA in the vehicle safety context in a two-part series. In the first part of this series, I discussed what the IIJA is—what did it do/require NHTSA to do? In the second part of this series, I’ll discuss what NHTSA has done to affect the IIJA mandates in the roughly 14 months since it was enacted.Continue Reading Update on the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law: Where Are We a Year Later? [Part II]

On November 15, 2021, President Biden signed into law the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (“Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act” or “IIJA”). Vehicle, highway, and crash safety improvements were not a major part of the IIJA’s billing. Maybe the lack of publicity on this aspect of the IIJA was the result of the legislation’s overall vast scope. Whatever the reason, the IIJA actually affected (or at least required NHTSA to effect) a number of substantial and consequential vehicle safety initiatives. 

It’s now just over a year after the IIJA’s enactment, so I wanted to take this opportunity to discuss the IIJA in the vehicle safety context in a two-part series. I’ll first discuss what the IIJA is—what did it do/require NHTSA to do? In the second part of this series, I’ll discuss what NHTSA has done to affect the IIJA’s mandates in the roughly 14 months since it was enacted.Continue Reading Update on the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law: Where Are We a Year Later? [Part I]

Part Two of Two – Intelligent Speed Assistance

Last week, the National Transportation Safety Board recommended that all new vehicles be equipped with (a) passive blood-alcohol monitoring and (b) intelligent speed adaptation advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS). The NTSB issued these two recommendations after investigating a horrific New Year’s Day 2021 crash that killed nine people in Avenal, California. That crash occurred when an intoxicated driver crossed the centerline of a two-lane highway. At the time, he was traveling 88-98 mph—33-43 mph above the posted 55-mph speed limit. He struck a pickup head-on, tragically killing himself and a family of eight. The NTSB’s recommendations address two problematic aspects of this driver’s conduct that account for significant societal harm in the U.S.: impaired driving and speeding.

Is this anything new? And does it signify a potential move towards strict products liability by auto manufacturers for driver fault via illegal activity? This two-part post will address those questions. In short, the answers are (a) kind of, but not really, and (b) not quite—these technologies are nascent, not state of the art.
Continue Reading Products Liability and Regulatory Implications of the NTSB’s Recent Recommendations on Blood Alcohol Monitoring and Intelligent Speed Assistance [Part II]

Part One of Two – Passive Blood-Alcohol Monitoring

Last week, the National Transportation Safety Board recommended that all new vehicles be equipped with (a) passive blood-alcohol monitoring and (b) intelligent speed adaptation advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS). The NTSB issued these two recommendations after investigating a horrific New Year’s Day 2021 crash that killed nine people in Avenal, California. That crash occurred when an intoxicated driver crossed the centerline of a two-lane highway. At the time, he was traveling 88-98 mph—33-43 mph above the posted 55-mph speed limit. He struck a pickup head-on, tragically killing himself and a family of eight. The NTSB’s recommendations address two problematic aspects of this driver’s conduct that account for significant societal harm in the U.S.: impaired driving and speeding.

Is this anything new? And does it signify a potential move towards strict products liability by auto manufacturers for driver fault via illegal activity? This two-part post will address those questions. In short, the answers are (a) kind of, but not really, and (b) not quite—these technologies are nascent, not state of the art.
Continue Reading Products Liability and Regulatory Implications of the NTSB’s Recent Recommendations on Blood Alcohol Monitoring and Intelligent Speed Assistance [Part I]

Are autonomous vehicles safe? Are they safer than vehicles driven by people? Is one type of autonomous vehicle safer than another? Last week NHTSA released the data it gathered over the last year pursuant to last summer’s Standing General Order requiring autonomous vehicle manufacturers and operators to report crashes in which autonomous driving systems were in use. NHTSA reported separately on data involving (a) advanced driver assistance systems (“ADAS,” i.e. SAE Level 2) and (b) automated driving systems (“ADS,” i.e. SAE levels 3-5). What’s the upshot from NHTSA’s data drop? Well, it’s complicated.
Continue Reading Are Autonomous Vehicles Safe? NHTSA Releases Murky Data on 2021-2022 AV Crashes

On March 10, 2022, Deputy NHTSA Administrator Steven Cliff signed a “first-of-its-kind” final rule revising occupant protection standards for automated vehicles. The rule “updates the occupant protection Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards [“FMVSS”] to account for vehicles that do not have traditional manual controls associated with a human driver because they are equipped with automated driving systems [“ADS”].” This is essentially NHTSA’s first attempt to address the effects of vehicle automation on crashworthiness systems.
Continue Reading NHTSA Issues “First-Of-Its-Kind” Final Crashworthiness Rule for Automated Vehicles