Advertisement

Robots Liability or Liability for Products?

  • Sergey Petrovich BortnikovEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 908)

Abstract

The article studies the relationship of liability arising during production, acquisition and use of robots and software. It is necessary to create the minimum comfortable conditions from the economic, legal and administrative points of view to develop the robots market. This is first and foremost the creation of an environment open to innovation, which requires legal transparency. The issue of the need to adjust the legal regulation especially in the field of civil and business legislation is to be considered to create conditions for the robots implementation. The study analyzes the existing institutions and concepts of the long-term legal regulation. The issue of the means of communication between a human and machine is also to be considered including the impact on the legal principles of regulation of relations of liability. The definition of liable parties implies the possibility of giving the robot a special legal personality, for example, giving it the status of an electronic person. The current European legislation on liability in tort and damage is studied against the rules of Directive 85/374/EEC. Various mechanisms to ensure and protect the interests of consumers and users of electronic devices are considered. It is assumed the obligation of robots liability insurance, as it has been already implemented for vehicles, the creation of special funds, the establishment of a liability limit, etc. for the practical use of liability mechanisms.

Keywords

Autonomous systems and IoT-Devices Data economic Fault-based liability Liability for products Rules on Robotics Tort Law 

References

  1. 1.
    Von Bar C, Clive E et al (2009) Principles, definitions and model rules of European private law. Munich, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Von Bar C (2000) The common European law of torts. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Owen DG (201) Products liability law (3rd ed) West Academic PublishingGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Busnelli FD, Comandé G, Cousy H (2005) Principles of European tort law. Springer, Vienna.  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-211-27751-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Terre F, Simler Ph, Lequette Y (2013) Droit civil - Les obligations (11th ed). DallozGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schwartz GT (1981) Tort Law and the economy in nineteenth-century america: a reinterpretation. https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylj/vol90/iss8/1. Accessed 24 Oct 2018
  7. 7.
    Bruggemeier G (2015) Tort Law of the European Union. Wolters Kluwer, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Calabresi G (1970) The costs of accidents: a legal and economic analysis. Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kotz H (1991) Ist die Produkthaftung eine vom Verschulden unabhängige Haftung? In: Pfister B (ed) Festschrift für Werner Lorenz zum siebzigsten Geburtstag. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, GermanGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bernatz K (2015) Preserving human judgment in the age of machines. Westlaw J https://www.firstamtrust.com/trust/news?page=3. Accessed 24 Oct 2018
  11. 11.
    Li M (2018) Are robots goods fiduciaries? Regulating robo-advisors under the investment advisers Act of 1940. Columbia law review. https://columbialawreview.org/content/are-robots-good-fiduciaries-regulating-robo-advisors-under-the-investment-advisers-act-of-1940-2/. Accessed 24 Oct 2018
  12. 12.
    Horwitz MJ (1979) The Transformation of American Law, 1780–1860. Oxford UPGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Olaf von Gadow (2002) Die Zahmung des Automobilsdurch die Gefahrdungshaftung. Duncker & Humblot, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ben-Shahar O, White JJ (2006) Boilerplate and economic power in auto manufacturing contracts. 104 Michigan Law Review. http://home.uchicago.edu/omri/publications.html. Accessed 24 Oct 2018
  15. 15.
    Whittaker S (1985) The EEC Directive on product liability. Yearbook of European Law.  https://doi.org/10.1093/yel/5.1.233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Whittaker S (2005) Liability for products. Oxford UPGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shavell S (2004) Foundations of economic analysis of law. President and Fellows of Harvard College, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bernard TS (2016) The pros and cons of using a robot as an investment adviser. N.Y. Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/your-money/the-pros-and-cons-of-using-a-robot-as-an-investment-adviser.html. Accessed 24 Oct 2018
  19. 19.
    Wagner G (2012) Custodian’s liability. In: Basedow J, Hopt KJ, Zimmermann R, Stier A (ed) The max planck encyclopedia of European private law. Oxford UPGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    Schubert W (2000) Das Das Gesetz über den Verkehr mit Kraftfahrzeugen vom 3. 5. 1909.  https://doi.org/10.7767/zrgga.2000.117.1.238

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Samara State University of EconomicsSamaraRussia

Personalised recommendations