Liability of Artificial Intelligence; the Reflection of Developments in the Liability Rules

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Assistant Professor of Law,University of Tehran – Farabi Campus, Qom,Iran

Abstract

In the history of the law of torts, there is damages arising out of things. Some of these damages are because of things’ actions, such as buildings collapses, animals' behaviors, and cars accidents and so on. At the first, who have liability for the victim’s injuries and damages are the proprietor and possessors; but in pursuit of technical developments of the era, we shouldn’t ignore liability of producers and designers of these products.
We all know that the technological progress of humankind is the cause of unbelievable innovations. One of this human incredible ingenuity is making of object acting similar to mankinds. For example, it can be a human-assisted robot, such as cleaning and cooking, or specializing in medicine, and the like. So there is a legal problem asking about legal situations of these creations.
Now, the smart object may not be a common issue in the community, but events show that we will have to confront with difficult issues in the near future. So, today we need to think about its legal dimensions and solve the problems arising from the personality, ownership, contract and responsibility of these digital age objects. Moreover, studying the emerging institutions sheds light on current issues in the light of which we can illuminate the dim dimensions of many current and traditional problems and illustrate the ways we have gone wrong.
The objects that are armed with a will, can have ownership on others objects and conclude a contract with persons and may harm others, either voluntarily or by the will of people realized in the object. For example, active home-based artificial intelligence can provide harm to guests or surgery or treatment robots can harm patients, or a driverless car may cause harms to pedestrian and create financial losses with accidents.
If the basis of liability is fault, the owner of the objects would be liable as much as it was at fault. A master is someone who has effective supervision or guidance on an object at the time of the crash, such as a car driver. In Iranian law, the responsibility of the owner is based on fault, whether living, inanimate, movable or immovable property. In addition to the owner and possessor, sometimes the creator and designer of the object is responsible for the caused damage.
With all of the foregoing, we may still be considering new and separate AI. But first, we need to know that AI has three features: it understands the world, analyzes the information received, and then acts on it.
Machines are planned elsewhere and do not have means to act in the sense of freedom of the human will; now, is it right to hold them responsible? Today, it appears that there is less of a means to perceive, think and act independently. In fact, most machines are not independent and cannot think and decide.
The object may be autonomous in performing certain tasks, so people associated with the object, such as the artificial intelligence manager or the author of the program and its software, will be responsible for compensating for the resulting damage. Apart from that, we may have a personality for artificial intelligence and recognize him or her as a right-doer; in this case, in addition to being a person's representative and subject to responsibility, the robot may be itself responsible for its actions. In this situation, the robot knows the true meaning of 'act' and truly is realized.
The machine has many different types of autonomy and power. Some tools are human instrument and others have the power to act. Among the latter category, some may be in control of their affairs, and some are still involved in the determinacy of algorithms. Artificial intelligence is the criterion of self-responsibility, that is, the robot is able to manage its financial affairs. In that case, civil liability can be borne. Otherwise, the person is responsible for its actions and if it is damaged by a third party, the person responsible may be the owner or the developer or the creator.
Given the fact that there is still theoretically independent of the robots, it is necessary in the present circumstances to consider it a tool and hold others responsible for its actions. However, the legislator is supposed to prescribe rules on the personality and responsibility of artificial intelligence, and this is impossible unless the unknown dimensions of the presence of these electronic persons in society have been explored by lawyers.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. A. Books

    1. Elsan, Mostafa (2012), Law of Electronic Commerce, 1st ed., Samt, Tehran.
    2. Jafaritabar, Hassan (1996), Civil Liability of Producers & Sellers, 1st ed., Dadgostar pub., Tehran.
    3. Katouziain, AmirNasser (2002), Civil Law: Extra-contractual Obligations & Tort Law, University of Tehran pub center, 2nd ed., Tehran.
    4. Katouziain, AmirNasser (2001), Civil Law: Product Liability, University of Tehran pub center, 1st ed., Tehran.
    5. le Tourneau, Philippe (1972), La Responsabilité Civile, Tome 1, Dalloz.
    6. Mazeaud, Henri, Léon et Jean (1998), Leçons de Droit Civile, Tome II, Premier Volume, 9e édition, Par François Chabas, Montchrestien.
    7. Rahpeik, Hassan (2017), Tort Law & Compensations, Khorsandi, 1st ed., Tehran.
    8. Safaie, Sayyed Hossein & Habibollah Rahimi (2015), Law of Torts: Extra-contractual Obligations, Samt, 1st ed., Tehran.
    9. Warburton, Nigel (2014), A Little History of Philosophy, translated to Persian by Maryam Taghdisi, Ghoghnoos, 1st ed., Tehran.

     

    B. Articles 

    10. Ahmadzadeh Bazzaz, Sayyed Abdolmotalleb & Mohammad Mehryar (2017), “Civil Liability arising out of Ownership and its excluding Causes”, Journal of Comparative Law, Mofid University, issue 108, vol. 13, no. 2, p. 73-88.

    11. Balkin, Jack M., (2015), "The Path of Robotics Law", California Law Review, vol. 6, pp. 45-60.

    12. Barikloo, AliReza (2017), “Analysis of the Basis of Liability based on Production”, JOLT, Farabi Colledge of Tehran University, issue 15, no. 1, 21-44.

    13. Bridy, Annemarie, (2012), "Coding Creativity: Copyright and the Artificially Intelligent Author", Stanford Technology Law Review, No. 5, pp. 1-28.

    14. Brożek, Bartosz & Bartosz Janik (2018), “Can artificial intelligences be moral agents?”, New Ideas in Psychology, p. 1- 6.

    15. Cerka, Paulius, Jurgita Grigiene & Gintare Sirbikyte (2017), “Is it possible to grant legal personality to artificial intelligence software systems?”, Computer Law & Security Review, 33, p. 685-699.

    16. Cerka, Paulius, Jurgita Grigiene & Gintare Sirbikyte (2015), “Liability for damages caused by artificial intelligence”, Computer Law & Security Review, 31, p. 376-389.

    17. Calo, Ryan, 2015, "Robotics and the Lessons of Cyberlaw", California Law Review, Vol. 103, No. 3 , pp. 513-563.

    18. Grimmelmann, James (2016), "There’s No Such Thing as a Computer-Authored Work—And It’s a Good Thing, Too", Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, vol. 3, pp. 403-416.

    19. Haji Deh Abadi, Mohammad Ali, Fatemeh Behzadinia & Saleh Esmaili (2014), “An Introduction to Vicarious Liability of Robots from a Techological Point of View and Islamic Law”, CSIW, issue 1, no. 2, pp. 59-78.

    20. Johnson, Deborah G. & Mario Verdicchio (2018), "Why Robots should not be treated like Animals", Ethics and Information Technology, no. 20, pp. 291-301.

    21. Mackie, Tom (2018), “Proving Liability for highly and fully automated Vehicle Accidents in Australia”, Computer Law & Security Law, 34, p. 1314-1332.

    22. Mohammadi, Mahdi, Mehrzad Abdali, Parvin Akbarineh (2018), “The Basis of Civil Liability of harms caused bt one’s property (Building and Animal) In Iranian and french law according to 2016 France civil law”, Comparative Law Researches, vol 22, issue 1, pp. 107-135.

    23. Müller, Melinda Florina (2016), “Liability Issues Concerning Self-Driving Vehicles”, EJRR Special Issue on the Man and the Machine, n. 2.

    24. Müller, Melinda Florina (2017), “Roboter als Wundertüten – eine zivilrechtliche Haftungsanalyse”, PJA 2, p. 152.

    25. Rajabi, Abdollah (2017), “Auto-generated Works in Iranian Law: Commentaries on the Current Laws and Criticism of Intellectual Property Bill”, JOLT, Farabi Colledge of Tehran University, vol. 14, no. 2, p. 241-265.

    26. Simmler, Monika & Nora Markwalder (2018), “Guilty Robots? - Rethinking the Nature of Culpability and Legal Personhood in an age of Artificial Intelligence”, Criminal Law Forum, Springer Nature.

    27. Solum, Lawrence B. (1992), "Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligences", North Carolina Law Review, vol. 70, no. 4, 1231-1287.

    28. Vladeck, David C. (2014), “Machines without Principales: Liability Rules and Artificial Intelligence”, Wash L Rev, n. 89, pp. 117-150.

    29. Wildhaber, Isabelle & Melinda Florina Müller (2017), “Roboterrecht – eine Einleitung”, PJA 2, pp. 135-140.

    30. Yazdanian, Alireza (2017), “the statement of principle of civil liability resulting from objects at Iranian and French Laws”, JLQ, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 379-397.

    31. Yazdanian, Alireza, Seyyed Mohammad Hadi Mahdavi, Reza Abbasian & Niusha Mosallanezhad (2016), “A comparative study of objects realms in the civil liability resulting from objects at Iranian and French Laws”, JCL, issue 7, no. 1, p. 367-383.

Comparative Law Review
Volume 10, Issue 2
Autumn & Winter
October 2019
Pages 449-466

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics