Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics

Editor-in-Chief: Schöner, Gregor


Covered by SCOPUS


CiteScore 2018: 2.17

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.336
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.707

ICV 2017: 99.90

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2081-4836
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Liability for Autonomous and Artificially Intelligent Robots

Woodrow Barfield
Published Online: 2018-08-25 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2018-0018

Abstract

In the backdrop of increasingly intelligent machines, important issues of law have been raised by the use of robots that operate autonomous from human supervisory control. In particular, when systems operating with autonomous robot’s damage property or injure humans, it may be difficult to determinewho’s at fault and therefore liable under current legal schemes. This paper reviews product liability and negligence tort law which may be used to allocate liability for robots that damage property or cause injury. Further, the paper concludes with a discussion of different approaches to allocating liability in an age of increasingly intelligent and autonomous robots directed by sophisticated algorithms, analytical, and computational techniques

Keywords: robot; negligence; products liability; artificial intelligence; autonomy; algorithm

References

  • [1] A. Tutt, An FDA for Algorithms, Administrative Law Review, 2017, 69, 83-123, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2747994CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [2] G. S. Cole, Tort liability for artificial intelligence and expert systems, Computer/Law Journal, 1990, 10(2), 127-231Google Scholar

  • [3] M. Santoro, D. Marino, G. Tamburrini, Learning robots interacting with humans: from epistemic risk to responsibility, AI & Society, 2008, 22, 301-314CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [4] A. Matthias, The responsibility gap: ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata, Ethics and Information Technology, 2004, 6, 175-193CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [5] Z. C. Lipton, The mythos of model interpretability, 2016 ICML Workshop on Human Interpretability in Machine Learning (WHI 2016), New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar

  • [6] C. E. A. Karnow, The application of traditional tort theory to embodiedmachine intelligence, In: R. Calo, A. M. Froompkin, I. Ker (Eds.), Robot Law, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783476732CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [7] Greenman v. Yuba Power Prod. Inc., 59 Cal.2d 50, 1963Google Scholar

  • [8] W. Knight, Google’s AI masters the game of Go a decade earlier than expected, MIT Technology Review, https://www.technologyreview.com/s/546066/googlesai-masters-the-game-of-go-a-decade-earlier-than-expected/Google Scholar

  • [9] G. Gina, M. Gina, M.Somalvico, Deterministic and nondeterministic programming in robot systems, Cybernetics and Systems, 1981, 12, 345-362CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [10] I. Lenz, H. L. Lee, A. Saxena, Deep learning for detecting robotic grasps, deep-learning robot takes 10 days to teach itself to grasp, MIT Technology Review, 2015, https://www.technologyreview.com/s/542076/deep-learningrobot-takes-10-days-to-teach-itself-to-grasp/Google Scholar

  • [11] K. S. Abraham, The forms and functions of tort law, Foundation Press, 1997Google Scholar

  • [12] C. Karnow, The opinion of machines, Bepress, The Selected Works of Curtis Karnow, 2017Google Scholar

  • [13] Deep Learning for Detecting Robotic Grasps, http://pr.cs.cornell.edu/deepgrasping/Google Scholar

  • [14] J. Beckett, NVIDIA, Deep learning helps robot learn to walk the way humans do, 2016, https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2016/01/15/deep-learning-robot-walk/Google Scholar

  • [15] Flour Corp. v. Jeppesen (170 Cal. App. 3d, 468, 215 Cal. Rptr. 68, 1985)Google Scholar

  • [16] R. Kelley, E. Schaerer, M. Gomez, M. Nicolescu, “Liability in robotics” An international perspective on robotics as animals, Advanced Robotics, 2010, https://www.cse.unr.edu/~monica/Research/Publications/Journals/KelleyEtAl_AR_10.pdfGoogle Scholar

  • [17] Mracek v. Bryn Mawr Hospital, 610 F.Supp.2d 401, 2009Google Scholar

  • [18] Jones v. W + M Automation, Inc., 818 N.Y.S.2d 396 (App. Div. 2006)Google Scholar

  • [19] Payne v. ABB Flexible Automation, Inc., 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 13571 (8th Cir. Jun. 9, 1997)Google Scholar

  • [20] Miller v. Rubbermaid Inc., 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 2672 (Jun. 13, 2007)Google Scholar

  • [21] Behurst v. Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24922 (D. Ore. Mar. 30, 2007)Google Scholar

  • [22] The Sad State of Software Liability Law (Bad Code Part 4), https://newrepublic.com/article/115402/sad-state-softwareliability-law-bad-code-part-4.Google Scholar

  • [23] J. Chong, We need strict laws if we want more secure software, 2013, https://newrepublic.com/article/115402/sadstate-software-liability-law-bad-code-part-4Google Scholar

  • [24] F. P. Hubbard, ‘Sophisticated Robots’ Balancing Liability, Regulation, and Innovation, Florida Law Review, 2014, 66(5), 1803-1872Google Scholar

  • [25] Brouse v. United States, 83 F. Supp. 373 (N.D. Ohio 1949)Google Scholar

  • [26] C. E. A. Karnow , The encrypted self: fleshing out the rights of electronic personalities, The John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law, 1994, 13Google Scholar

  • [27] G. Prodhan, Europe’s robots to become ’electronic persons’ under draft plan, Science News, 2016, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-robotics-lawmaking-idUSKCN0Z72AY.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2018-02-10

Accepted: 2018-07-12

Published Online: 2018-08-25


Citation Information: Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages 193–203, ISSN (Online) 2081-4836, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2018-0018.

Export Citation

© by Woodrow Barfield, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in