ISO 13482:2014 and Its Confusing Categories. Building a Bridge Between Law and Robotics

  • Eduard Fosch VillarongaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Mechanisms and Machine Science book series (Mechan. Machine Science, volume 39)


Because of the fast technological development of the past few years, understandable bridges between the technical and the legal domains are urgently needed. In this respect, this paper pioneers the identification and examination of confusing categories among ISO 13482:2014 ‘Robots and Robotics Devices—Safety Requirements for Personal Care Robots’. It aims to make roboticists aware of the importance of clearer definitions for legal compliance purposes: although clarity may be missing in the legal domain, robot creators are still legally liable for their creations. The choice of the robot category is also controversial: a robot should be assigned to a category if it does not fully fit in it, as this may even lead to an abuse of the Law. A precise categorization is necessary and based on the robot category specific regulations and laws should be taken into consideration and respected.


Personal care robot Legal compliance Confusing categories Robotics Law 



I would like to thank my supervisor Antoni Roig Batalla to be with me in this passionate journey and also Giorgio Schirripa who helped me to edit the wording, the sense and the purpose of this article.


  1. 1.
    Scott, N.: Ambiguity versus precision: the changing role of terminology in conference diplomacy. In: Kurbalija, J., Slavik, H.(eds.) Language and Diplomacy, p. 153 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hoeflich, M.H.: Roman and Civil Law and the Development of Anglo-American Jurisprudence in the Nineteenth Century, pp. 9–30. University of Georgia Press (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chapin, F.S.: Definition of definitions of concepts. Soc. Forces 18(2), 153–160 (1939)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fetzer, J.H., Schlesinger, G.N., Shatz, D.: Definitions and definability philosophical perspectives. In: Synthese Library Studies in Epistemology, Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, vol. 216 (1991)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Lessig, L.: Code Version 2.0, p. 121. Basic Books, NY (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dworkin, R.: Taking Rights Seriously, p. 295. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1977)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ISO 13482:2014. Robots and Robotics Devices—Safety Requirements for Personal Care Robots, 3.13Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shelton, D.: Commitment and Compliance: The Role of Non-binding Norms in the International Legal System, p. 292. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Lawton, M.P., Brody, E.M.: Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist 9(3), 179–186 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mondada, F., et al.: The e-puck, a robot designed for education in engineering. In: Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Autonomous Robot Systems and Competitions, vol. 1, no. LIS-CONF-2009-004, pp. 59−65. IPCB: Instituto Politécnico de Castelo Branco (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schweikardt, E.: Modular robotics studio. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, pp. 353–356 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bartneck, C., Suzuki, T., Kanda, T., Nomura, T.: The influence of people’s culture and prior experiences with Aibo on their attitude towards robots. AI Soc. 21(1–2), 217 (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tamura, T., Yonemitsu, S., Itoh, A., Oikawa, D., Kawakami, A., Higashi, Y., Nakajima, K.: Is an entertainment robot useful in the care of elderly people with severe dementia? J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 59(1), M83−M85 (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kravetz, A.M.: Toys cars offer mobility to children with disabilities. Live Science (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Galloway, J.C., Ryu, J., Agrawal, S.K.: Babies driving robots: self-generated mobility in very young infants. Intel. Serv. Robotics 1, 123–134 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Toth, A.: Domeo project. AAL-2008-1-159, R-BME-1_0-D4.3 D4.3 Risk Assessment/ISOGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carlson, T., Millán, J.R.: Brain-Controlled wheelchairs: a robotic architecture. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 20(1), 65–73 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    HULC: An exoskeleton in Berkeley Robotics and human engineering laboratory.
  21. 21.
    Marti, P., et al.: A robotic toy for children with special needs: from requirements to design. In: IEEE 11th International Conference on Rehab Robotics. Kyoto International Conference Center (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Special Eurobarometer 382’s report Public attitudes towards robots, Wave EB77.1—TNS Opinion and Social (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Beales, H.: The value of behavioral targeting. Network Advertising Initiative (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Roig Batalla, A.: Privacy and social networks. In: From Data Protection to Pervasive Computing, pp. 146–149. AAAI Publications (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Panasonic Global News Exclusive: Care service robot is the first in the world to obtain ISO 13482.
  26. 26.
    Fosch-Villaronga, E.: Creation of a care robot impact assessment. In: XVII International Conference on Social Robotics (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
    Griffin, R.L.: Changing the Culture for Dementia Care—The Path to a Better Quality of Life for People with Alzheimer’s Disease. PESI Healthcare Publishing Group (2012)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tergesen, A., Inada, M.: It is not a stuffed animal, it is a $6000 medical device. paro the robo-seal aims to comfort elderly, but is it ethical? Wall Street J (2010).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.IDT-UABUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations