scholarly journals Liability for Intelligent Robots from the Viewpoint of the Strict Liability Rule of the Hungarian Civil Code

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 213-230
Author(s):  
Réka Pusztahelyi
Keyword(s):  
Autonomous Robots ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Product Liability ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Management Approach ◽  
Liability Rule ◽  
Liability Rules ◽  
Intelligent Robots ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Dangerous Activity

The European Parliament resolution of 16 February 2017 on Civil Law Rules on Robotics proposed that the strict liability and the risk management approach are alternative legal instruments to achieve the goals set out by this instrument. The evolution of strict liability is parallel with technological change; our question here is whether the elaborated rules are appropriate for managing new problems. For establishing accountability, the question arises: who is to be held liable for damages and based on which form of liability? Setting aside the issues of product liability and setting aside the independent liability of the most sophisticated autonomous robots having ‘electronic personality’, this essay concentrates on liability questions of the user, and it examines the strict liability rules instituted by the Hungarian Civil Code and their application in practice. According to the results of our previous research, the judicial practice regarding the general clause of liability for dangerous activity (Section 6:535. HCC) is quite flexible and covers the liability issues of damage caused by artificial intelligence. We observed also that the criterion ‘dangerous’ means less and less risk of damage within normal circumstances, and this statement of fact in practice also successfully competes with other strict liability rules (i.e. product liability for malfunctioning medical devices, liability for dangerous animals, etc.). The capacity of the ‘keeper’ or ‘operator’ of the robot and the emerging new types of risks are also touched upon.

scholarly journals Liability for Autonomous and Artificially Intelligent Robots

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 193-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Woodrow Barfield
Keyword(s):  
Supervisory Control ◽  
Autonomous Robots ◽  
Product Liability ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Computational Techniques ◽  
Intelligent Machines ◽  
Intelligent Robots ◽  
Human Supervisory Control

Abstract In the backdrop of increasingly intelligent machines, important issues of law have been raised by the use of robots that operate autonomous from human supervisory control. In particular, when systems operating with autonomous robot’s damage property or injure humans, it may be difficult to determinewho’s at fault and therefore liable under current legal schemes. This paper reviews product liability and negligence tort law which may be used to allocate liability for robots that damage property or cause injury. Further, the paper concludes with a discussion of different approaches to allocating liability in an age of increasingly intelligent and autonomous robots directed by sophisticated algorithms, analytical, and computational techniques

On the Choice of Liability Rules

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rajendra P. Kundu ◽  
Debabrata Pal
Keyword(s):  
Binary Relation ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
The Other ◽  
Pairwise Comparisons ◽  
Negative Externalities ◽  
Liability Rule ◽  
Liability Rules ◽  
Efficient Outcome ◽  
Contributory Negligence

AbstractLegal assignment of liabilities for losses arising out of interactions involving negative externalities usually depend on which of the interacting parties are negligent and which are not. It has been established in the literature that, if negligence is defined as failure to take some cost-justified precaution then there is no liability rule which can always lead to an efficient outcome. The objective of this paper is to try and understand if it is still possible to make pairwise comparisons between rules on the basis of efficiency and to use such a method to explain/evaluate choices from a given set of rules. We focus on a set of five of the most widely analyzed rules (no liability, strict liability, negligence, negligence with the defense of contributory negligence and strict liability with the defense of contributory negligence), and use a binary relation according to which a rule in the set is considered to be at least as efficient as another if and only if the set of applications for which it is inefficient is a subset of the set of applications for which the other one is inefficient. We show that, with respect to the above mentioned relation, pairwise comparisons between rules in this set fail. The paper, thus, demonstrates that an efficiency based explanation for any choice from these five rules is not consistent with the notion of negligence defined as failure to take some cost-justified precaution.

Compensation for Infringement of Copyright and Related Rights: Essence and Primary Functions

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 34-40
Author(s):  
N. V. Buzova ◽  
◽  
R. L. Lukyanov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
Exclusive Right

The Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides an opportunity to the rightholder in case of infringement of his exclusive copyright and related rights to demand in court instead of compensation for damages incurred by him to pay compensation. In most cases, when the rightholder applies for judicial protection of his violated rights, he requires the recovery of compensation. This article discusses the legal nature of compensation as a legal remedy of an exclusive right and its primary functions. When writing an article, a comparative law research method is used. As a result of the analysis of russian and foreign legislation, as well as judicial practice, it was found that compensation, in addition to restorative, also has a preventive function and can be considered an analogue of statutory damages.

An Experimental Investigation of Auditors' Liability: Implications for Social Welfare and Exploration of Deviations from Theoretical Predictions

2000 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 429-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald R. King ◽  
Rachel Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Investigation ◽  
Social Welfare ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Liability Rule ◽  
Optimal Response ◽  
Legal Regimes ◽  
Theoretical Predictions ◽  
Best Responses

This paper reports the results of an experiment designed to investigate how legal regimes affect social welfare. We investigate four legal regimes, each consisting of a liability rule (strict or negligence) and a damage measure (out-of-pocket or independent-of-investment). The results of the experiment are for the most part consistent with the qualitative predictions of Schwartz's (1997) model; however, subjects' actual choices deviate from the point predictions of the model. We explore whether these deviations arise because: (1) subjects form faulty anticipations of their counterparts' actions and/or (2) subjects do not choose the optimal responses given their anticipations. We find that subjects behave differently under the four regimes in terms of anticipation errors and departures from best responses. For example, subjects playing the role of auditors anticipate investments most accurately under the regime with strict liability combined with out-of-pocket damages, but are least likely to choose the optimal response given their anticipations. This finding implies that noneconomic factors likely play a role in determining subjects' choices.

scholarly journals Economic Analysis of Accident Law: A New Liability Rule that Induces Socially Optimal Behaviour in Case of Limited Information

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Astha Srivastava ◽  
Ankur Srivastava
Keyword(s):  
Nash Equilibrium ◽  
Economic Analysis ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Limited Information ◽  
Liability Rule ◽  
Rule Based ◽  
Liability Rules ◽  
Levels Of Care ◽  
Unique Nash Equilibrium ◽  
Optimal Behaviour

AbstractIn accident law, we seek a liability rule that will induce both the parties to adopt socially optimal levels of precaution. Economic analysis, however, shows that none of the commonly used liability rules induce both parties to adopt optimal levels, if courts have access only to ‘Limited Information’ on. In such a case, it has also been established (K. (2006). Efficiency of liability rules: a reconsideration. J. Int. Trade Econ. Dev. 15: 359–373) that no liability rule based on cost justified untaken precaution as a standard of care can be efficient. In this paper, we describe a two-step liability rule: the rule of negligence with the defence of relative negligence. We prove that this rule has a unique Nash equilibrium at socially optimal levels of care for the non-cooperative game, and therefore induces both parties to adopt socially optimal behaviour even in case of limited information.

Scientific Commentary on the Review of Judicial Practice on Some Issues of the Application of Legislation on Business Entities

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 27-32
Author(s):  
V. K. Andreev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Business Entities ◽  
Law Making

The article discusses the forms of clarification on matters of judicial practice by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the Presidium of the Supreme Court, as well as in the Review of judicial practice on some issues of the application of legislation on business companies dated December 25, 2019. Clarifications of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on issues of judicial practice are characterized as the positions of the courts identified in the course of studying and summarizing the judicial practice of the corresponding category of cases, which are acts of individual regulation of public relations. Focusing on Art. 6 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Section 6, Art. 12 of the APC RF shows the validity of dividing wrong into two types of wrong: the «moderate» type of «judicial law-making and the position of the court» and the «radical» type of «judicial law-making», when the court develops the rule of law, which contradicts the constitutional principle of separation of powers. When resolving corporate disputes, it is necessary to investigate whether the charter of a non-public company does not contain the rights and obligations of its participants, which they themselves created by making a unanimous decision and including them in the charter of the company (paragraph 3 of Art. 66.3 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph 3 of Art. 14 of the Law about LLC).

Product Liability

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fairgrieve Duncan ◽  
Richard Goldberg
Keyword(s):  
Strict Liability ◽  
Product Liability ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Financial Loss ◽  
Liability Law ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

Product Liability is a recognised authority in the field and covers the product liability laws through which manufacturers, retailers, and others may be held liable to compensate persons who are injured, or who incur financial loss, when the products which they manufacture or sell are defective or not fit for their purpose. Product defects may originate in the production process, be one of design, or be grounded in a failure to issue an adequate warning or directions for safe use and practitioners advising business clients or claimants will find this book provides all the necessary information for practitioners to manage a product liability claim. This new edition has been fully updated to take account of 10 years of development in case law and regulation, and the increasing impact of cross-border and transnational sale of goods. The Court of Justice of the European Union handed down major rulings concerning the Product Liability Directive which affect the application of the Directive and national arrangements and Fairgrieve and Goldberg examines this in detail. For any legal practitioner operating in areas which require knowledge of European product liability law, an understanding of the impact of recent developments is essential and this work is an essential resource for practitioners working on product liability, sale of goods, personal injury and negligence. The work provides comprehensive coverage of the law of negligence as it applies to product liability, of the strict liability provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and of the EU's Product Liability Directive on which the Act is based. Although the majority of cases involve pharmaceuticals and medical devices, in recent English cases the allegedly defective products have been as diverse as a child's buggy, an All Terrain Vehicle, and even a coffee cup. Many cases are brought as group actions, and the book examines the rights of those who are injured by defective products. As well as considering the perspective of the law as it has developed in the UK, this edition contains detailed discussion of case law from other jurisdictions including the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, France and Germany. The coverage in the work is complemented by a full analysis of issues which arise in transnational litigation involving problems of jurisdiction and the choice of laws.

scholarly journals URGENSI PENGATURAN STRICT LIABILITY DALAM RANCANGAN AMANDEMEN UNDANG-UNDANG PERLINDUNGAN KONSUMEN

2011 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Ari Wahyudi Hertanto
Keyword(s):  
Strict Liability ◽  
Product Liability ◽  
Caveat Emptor

AbstrakInti dari product liability adalah pelaku bertanggungjawab atas kerusakan, kecacatan,penjelasan, ketidaknyamanan dan penderitaan yang dialami oleh konsumen karenapemakaian atau mengkonsumsi barang atau jasa yang dihasilkannya. Product Liabilityumumnya disebut juga dengan istilah tanggung jawab produk, tanggung gugat produk, atautanggung jawab produsen. Di dalam praktek pun, adagium yang menyatakan bahwa konsumen selaku pembeli harus hati-hati (caveat emptor) masihlah sangat relevan. Banyak kendala-kendala yang dihadapi dalam mewujudkan prinsip tersebut agar dapat diterapkansecara adil dan tepat.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document