Abstract
AbstractThis is the second of two companion papers that discuss accidents caused by robots. In the first paper (Guerraet al., 2021), we presented the novel problems posed by robot accidents, and assessed the related legal approaches and institutional opportunities. In this paper, we build on the previous analysis to consider a novel liability regime, which we refer to as ‘manufacturer residual liability’ rule. This makes operators and victims liable for accidents due to their negligence – hence, incentivizing them to act diligently; and makes manufacturers residually liable for non-negligent accidents – hence, incentivizing them to make optimal investments in R&D for robots' safety. In turn, this rule will bring down the price of safer robots, driving unsafe technology out of the market. Thanks to the percolation effect of residual liability, operators will also be incentivized to adopt optimal activity levels in robots' usage.
Highlights
Machine decision-making reduces the impact of human error but does not entirely eliminate the risk of accidents, creating fresh dangers in the form of machine malfunctions and design limitations (Bertolini, 2015; Bertolini et al, 2016; De Chiara et al, 2021; European Commission, 2020)
In the companion paper (Guerra et al, 2021), we have detailed the novel, legal problems posed by robot accidents, and extensively discussed the reasons why existing tort rules – standard negligence law and products liability – do not adequately address the multi-dimensional incentive issues that arise in this novel setting
To date, there exists no general formulation of liability in case of robot accidents, and the proposed solutions differ across jurisdictions
Summary
Machine decision-making reduces the impact of human error but does not entirely eliminate the risk of accidents, creating fresh dangers in the form of machine malfunctions and design limitations (Bertolini, 2015; Bertolini et al, 2016; De Chiara et al, 2021; European Commission, 2020). We build on these legal challenges and propose – through a formal economic model – a novel liability regime, which we refer to as ‘manufacturer residual liability’ (‘MRL’, hereinafter). This regime applies to robots operated with human intervention, and shifts liability to manufacturers provided that operators and third-party victims have invested in due care.. This regime applies to robots operated with human intervention, and shifts liability to manufacturers provided that operators and third-party victims have invested in due care.1 This rule is the three-way analog of a.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
