Details
Originalsprache | Englisch |
---|---|
Titel des Sammelwerks | Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation |
Seiten | 57-79 |
Seitenumfang | 23 |
ISBN (elektronisch) | 978-981-13-2874-9 |
Publikationsstatus | Veröffentlicht - 2018 |
Publikationsreihe
Name | Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation |
---|---|
ISSN (Print) | 2520-1875 |
ISSN (elektronisch) | 2520-1883 |
Abstract
This chapter focuses on the extra-contractual liability of robots. It shows that robot-specific difficulties facing the legal system can be found in other areas of the law, and that the law has successfully addressed the difficulties. As such, a specific “(Liability) Law of the Robot” is not needed. Moreover, robots are too diverse a category to permit a uniform approach of dealing with the liability of their acts. Robots, and the underlying Artificial Intelligence, will need to be assessed against their purposes and capabilities, respectively. The contribution does not intend to offer a detailed answer on how exactly the problem of extra-contractual liability of robots shall be addressed, considering that such a discussion goes beyond a book chapter. It represents a first effort to explore the methodological particularities of the problem. It will, therefore, only include detailed insights to the extent necessary for the relevant methodological discussion. Without any intention of oversimplifying the problem of the civil accountability of robots, as the detailed nuances of the probable solutions definitely need further refinement, the chapter assumes that the traditional risk distribution mechanisms of civil liability systems can provide for a solid framework that can be processed further in order to adequately meet the particularities of robots. Drawing from the “Law of the Horse” debate, the chapter neither pleads for technological insensitivity nor does it proclaim that technological utopianism shall be the method to replace it, but it suggests that the lessons from regulating the Internet might point to a creative synthesis of technological advancements and traditional regulatory mechanisms, so that both are represented equally in the new set of rules that is meant to regulate new and disruptive phenomena, such as the social and economic impact of robots.
ASJC Scopus Sachgebiete
- Sozialwissenschaften (insg.)
- Recht
- Betriebswirtschaft, Management und Rechnungswesen (insg.)
- Technologie- und Innovationsmanagement
Zitieren
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTex
- RIS
Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation. 2018. S. 57-79 (Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation).
Publikation: Beitrag in Buch/Bericht/Sammelwerk/Konferenzband › Beitrag in Buch/Sammelwerk › Forschung › Peer-Review
}
TY - CHAP
T1 - The peculiar case of the mushroom picking robot
T2 - Extra-contractual liability in robotics
AU - Revolidis, Ioannis
AU - Dahi, Alan
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd 2018.
PY - 2018
Y1 - 2018
N2 - This chapter focuses on the extra-contractual liability of robots. It shows that robot-specific difficulties facing the legal system can be found in other areas of the law, and that the law has successfully addressed the difficulties. As such, a specific “(Liability) Law of the Robot” is not needed. Moreover, robots are too diverse a category to permit a uniform approach of dealing with the liability of their acts. Robots, and the underlying Artificial Intelligence, will need to be assessed against their purposes and capabilities, respectively. The contribution does not intend to offer a detailed answer on how exactly the problem of extra-contractual liability of robots shall be addressed, considering that such a discussion goes beyond a book chapter. It represents a first effort to explore the methodological particularities of the problem. It will, therefore, only include detailed insights to the extent necessary for the relevant methodological discussion. Without any intention of oversimplifying the problem of the civil accountability of robots, as the detailed nuances of the probable solutions definitely need further refinement, the chapter assumes that the traditional risk distribution mechanisms of civil liability systems can provide for a solid framework that can be processed further in order to adequately meet the particularities of robots. Drawing from the “Law of the Horse” debate, the chapter neither pleads for technological insensitivity nor does it proclaim that technological utopianism shall be the method to replace it, but it suggests that the lessons from regulating the Internet might point to a creative synthesis of technological advancements and traditional regulatory mechanisms, so that both are represented equally in the new set of rules that is meant to regulate new and disruptive phenomena, such as the social and economic impact of robots.
AB - This chapter focuses on the extra-contractual liability of robots. It shows that robot-specific difficulties facing the legal system can be found in other areas of the law, and that the law has successfully addressed the difficulties. As such, a specific “(Liability) Law of the Robot” is not needed. Moreover, robots are too diverse a category to permit a uniform approach of dealing with the liability of their acts. Robots, and the underlying Artificial Intelligence, will need to be assessed against their purposes and capabilities, respectively. The contribution does not intend to offer a detailed answer on how exactly the problem of extra-contractual liability of robots shall be addressed, considering that such a discussion goes beyond a book chapter. It represents a first effort to explore the methodological particularities of the problem. It will, therefore, only include detailed insights to the extent necessary for the relevant methodological discussion. Without any intention of oversimplifying the problem of the civil accountability of robots, as the detailed nuances of the probable solutions definitely need further refinement, the chapter assumes that the traditional risk distribution mechanisms of civil liability systems can provide for a solid framework that can be processed further in order to adequately meet the particularities of robots. Drawing from the “Law of the Horse” debate, the chapter neither pleads for technological insensitivity nor does it proclaim that technological utopianism shall be the method to replace it, but it suggests that the lessons from regulating the Internet might point to a creative synthesis of technological advancements and traditional regulatory mechanisms, so that both are represented equally in the new set of rules that is meant to regulate new and disruptive phenomena, such as the social and economic impact of robots.
KW - Agency
KW - Civil liability
KW - Legal personhood
KW - Robots
KW - Torts
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85076115123&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/978-981-13-2874-9_3
DO - 10.1007/978-981-13-2874-9_3
M3 - Contribution to book/anthology
AN - SCOPUS:85076115123
SN - 978-981-13-2873-2
T3 - Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation
SP - 57
EP - 79
BT - Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation
ER -