INTRODUCTION
The law speaks of “damages which arise due to the breach of a legal right.”[1] In other words, tortious claims seek to fasten civil liability on the wrongdoer to compensate the person whose legal right has been violated. This law applies to humans, but in this modern world of artificial intelligence, do its components: the robots also follow this rule?
The majority of robot-related cases have never made it into legal academia. Nonetheless, when viewed collectively, these cases depict the “assumptions” and “limitations” of the legal system.[2]“Today, robots are leaving the factory and theatre of war and entering our roads, skies, offices, and homes.”[3]
“We are currently in the midst of a robotic revolution.”[4] Billions of dollars are being invested in robotics and artificial intelligence by well-known technology companies. “Patent filings for robots are increasing rapidly.”[5] Thus, this piece of writing aims to elucidate the tortious liability faced by autonomous robots and how these elements composed of complex technology are viewed legally in this world through the use of case laws and logical reasoning based on them.
UNDERSTANDING ROBOTS WITH CASE LAWS
The Russian National Standard reads, “A robot is a drive mechanism that can be programmed along two or more axes and has autonomy in moving around its working area and accomplishing tasks.”[6]Further, Maja J. Matarić, an American computer scientist, “defines a robot as an autonomous system that exists in the physical world, which can sense its immediate surroundings, and act on them to achieve some goals.”[7]
To commence with the explanation, here is the case of Robert Nicholas Williams, an American factory worker at Ford’s who is the first known human to be killed by a robot in 1979. His family sued Litton Industries- the robot manufacturer, alleging negligence in design and operation. The Court awarded his estate fifteen million dollars; later, Litton settled for an unknown amount with his estate in exchange for not admitting the negligence. Thus, in Williams v. Litton Systems, Inc.,[8] the judgment ended with the decision of the Jury for settlement without mention of a law calling for a tortious liability on robots.
In Oscar Willhelm Nilsson v. General Motors Co.,[9] a lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District Court by a motorist named Nilsson. It represented a personal injury complaint after being hit by a self-driving car manufactured by General Motors. It is a unique case where the plaintiff desired to sue a robot and not the driver of the exact vehicle who had his hands off the steering. Previously it was said that the motorist was at fault since he tried to overtake a car at a speed which is against the law. After Nilsson made the complaint, it was clear that the autonomous vehicle had suddenly changed its path without warning, thereby injuring the latter. Further, both sides placed their arguments, countered them, and finally filed a joint settlement ending this lawsuit.
In 2018, Elaine Herzberg was pedalling a bicycle in Tempe, Arizona, when she was hit by an Uber test car in self-drive mode with a human safety backup driver. Herzberg was brought to the nearest hospital, where she died from her injuries. The case was winded up with a settlement.[10]She had become the first person to have died due to a driverless car. As a result, “Uber” ceased testing its autonomous vehicles.
These are a few cases that display fatal injuries caused by autonomous cars and, in general, such robots. Though these vehicles can help an individual and make one independent, the safety of the individuals on the road and the driver must be ensured.
From the above instances, it is observed that the Courts did not pass any such judgment pertaining to laws based on robots since the cases ended with a settlement. It can be assumed that robots cannot be sued, and the manufacturer bears the cost for any malfunction or harm caused by its products to individuals. There is no law erected for autonomous robots in many countries, and some are in the process of codifying.
There are several perceptions of this concept. “One could argue that we can make artificial intelligence predictable, for example, by integrating ground rules that will prevent the robot from making autonomous decisions, thereby eliminating chances of such incidents. We may be able to include certain fundamental concepts, such as a no-kill rule, as ground rules for robots. As a result, if we accept the desirability of artificial intelligence-based robots, we must also accept a high degree of unpredictability. This establishes the need to dispense laws for robots, creating a legal framework for this concept.”[11]
ROBOTS IN THE MEDICAL FIELD
“About thirty- four years ago, an industrial robot and computed tomography navigation were employed to implant a probe into the brain to acquire a biopsy specimen.”[12]Robots occupying the medical field form a reason for the manufacturers to ensure increased accuracy and performance.
In 2017, in Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical Inc.,[13]a patient’s intestines were nicked during an Inguinal Hernia Surgery utilizing the “da Vinci Robotic Technology.” This was discovered two days after the patient had been discharged from the hospital when he returned with abdominal pain and died the next day.
Similarly, in Mracek v. Bryn Mawr Hospital,[14] a patient sued the manufacturer of the surgical robot, the surgeon, and the facility for an injury caused by robotic surgery. The court ruled that the patient could not establish a claim for strict responsibility or breach of promise without an expert report or expert testimony.
A coroner hearing an inquest into the death of a sixty-nine-year-old man following a Robotic Heart Surgery that was amiss had decided that similar deaths are possible unless further safeguards are implemented. The coroner stated that the victim died due to complications of the disease performed with robotic assistance.
During a gallbladder removal surgery in 2016, one of the robotic arms allegedly moved independently, hurting the patient’s liver and causing it to bleed. The surgeon cauterized the wound using the same instrument, but it led to a table death. The manufacturer eventually blamed the mishap on the surgeon’s fault.[15] These are a few cases that were reported to the “U. S. Food and Drug Administration.”
Several kinds of research have shown that most of robotic surgery failures occur due to 30% of device failures. Thus, the tortious liability for damage caused by robots is questionable. Either the surgeons are sued, or the compensation from hospitals comes into the picture.
If people cannot adopt autonomous robots and this continues, there might even be a point where robots will disappear. This could be another perspective.
CONCLUSION
As a result, “The existence of robots has blurred the line between people and instruments, and faulty notions about robots which lead jurists to questionable or contradictory discussions.”[16] I believe that the society and its evolution go hand in hand with legality. Thus, legislation must be advocated with the emergence of various types of autonomous robots, such as cleaning bots, hospitality bots, autonomous drones, and self-driven cars.
While the European Union Parliament is debating directive principles for regulating robots, South Korea has released a robot ethics code. With advances in robotics, it is necessary to assess whether existing rules are adequate or if new legislation is required. India, specifically as a country, is more labour-intensive, and the influx of autonomous robots is relatively less compared to foreign countries. Still, with the rapid growth of technology, this needs a solution.
Author(s) Name: Simran Sethia (Symbiosis Law School, Noida)
Reference(s):
[1] B. M Gandhi, Law of Torts with Law of Statutory Compensation And Consumer Protection (Eastern Book Company, 2014)
[2] Ryan Calo, ‘Robots in American Law’ (2016), University of Washington School of Law Research Paper
<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2737598#> accessed 9 December 2023
[3] Eric Hilgendoef, Uwe Seidel, ‘Robotics, Autonomics, and the Law: Legal issues arising from the Autonomics for Industry 4.0 Technology Programme of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy’(Google Books, 2017)
<https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845284651-1> accessed 12 December 2023
[4]Gill A. Pratt, ‘Is a Cambrian explosion coming for robotics?’(2015), 29(3), Journal of Economic Perspectives
<https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.29.3.51> accessed 11 December 2023
[5]World Intellectual Property, Breakthrough Innovation and Economic Growth (120-35, 2015)
[6]Russian Gost, Robots and Robotic devices, (60.3.4.2-2017)
[7]Maja J Matarić. The Robotics Primer(MIT PRESS, 2007)
[8]Williams v Litton Systems, Inc, [1987] 416 NW2d 704
[9]Nilsson v General Motors LLC, [2018] 4:18 cv-00471, (N. D. Cal.)
[10]Tsai, Jui Tao, ‘An Analysis of Uber’s Self-Driving Software: The Case of The First Ever Self-Driving Car Accident’(University of Virginia Library, 2020)
<https://libraetd.lib.virginia.edu/public_view/dr26xz22f> accessed 12 December 2023
[11]RachumTwaig, ‘Whose robot is it anyway?: Liability For Artificial Intelligence-Based Robots’ (2020) Vol No. 4, University of Illinois Law Review.
<https://www.illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Rachum-Twaig.pdf> accessed on 12 December 2023
[12]C. Gyles, ‘Robots in Medicine’ (2019) Vol No. 60(9) The Canadian Veterinary Journal
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6625162/> accessed 12 December 2023
[13]Taylor v Intuitive Surgical, Inc., [2017] 187 Wn.2d 734,767,389 P.3d 517
[14]Mracek v Bryn Mawr Hospital, [E.D. Pa. 2009] 610 F. Supp. 2d 401
[15] ‘Caution With Robotically-Assisted Surgical Devices in Mastectomy’:(U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2021)
<https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/update-caution-robotically-assisted-surgical-devices-mastectomy-fda-safety-communication> accessed on 11 December 2023
[16]C. Gyles, ‘Robots in Medicine’ (2019) Vol No. 60(9) The Canadian Veterinary Journal
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6625162/> accessed 12 December 2023
