This article is written by Srujan Nirkhee of MNLU
ABSTRACT
As the reliance on technology has become very obvious the discussions regarding the same have been at the forefront since lately. Concepts that were unimaginable back in the 90s or so are being mooted with strong presentations of stances of both sides. Whether robots should be accorded rights, if yes, then to what extent? And if it were to have rights then it must have a distinct identity and then liability would also have to be determined. These brain-teaser have to be resolved very soon and before complicated legal disputes owing to the robots. This piece will put forth the standpoint of various scholars and the summary of liability cases of robots and the judgments thereof as to the rights & liabilities respectively.
INTRODUCTION
The word Robot refers to a machine, maybe humanoid, industrial, stationary, remote-control, military, or household for that matter which is conscious and can act against the backdrop of the environment in which it’s placed. ‘Robotics’ is a subject that deals with designing, constructing, operating, and utilizing those with computer systems for control, sensory feedback, and information handling. [1]Robots, the word was used in, purportedly, in ‘runaround’ a short story written by Isaac Asimov. The advent of robots in the lives of humans has been a boon in disguise, as it replaces humans where the human intellect is replaceable and performs the menial work to lessen the burden. The word the ‘Robot’, was first used in a play known as ‘ROR’ and credited to ‘Karel Čapek’ in the year 1920.[2] In this decade, the word has lost its dramatic connotations, as in, it is seriously pronounced referring to the robots used in self-driven cars, Drones, inter alia, since the inception of self-driven boats using the sheet-to-tiller system. Besides, the benefits of self-driven vehicles, the possibilities of an accident due to the glitches in the robots have fomented the quest for legal rights and liabilities of the Robots. Questions like are robots ought to be considered humans or quasi-humans or corporations or some entirely non-living objects are creating dilemmas, furthermore, when accounting in the probability of Robots getting equipped with the ability to form intentions and to differentiate between good and bad and ethical and unethical, has all the more, convoluted the debate.
LEGAL RIGHTS OF ROBOTS
The incident of a humanoid robot called Sophia made headlines when Saudi Arabia granted citizenship to it, though it may be termed as a PR stunt, however, it takes us to the debate of whether the legal rights of humans could equally be applied to the Robots. Andrew Sherman, an attorney practicing in the business and Intellectual property laws though his article supported the stance that as human workers have rights at workplaces, so should robots have them. Also, this assumes that Robot’s violations of rights at workplaces would irk them, and fictitiously, there would be revenge games. The robots rights issue did again resurface in the year 2017 when the recommendations regarding the civil law rules of Robotics were out which were given by the European Parliament.[3] Section 56 could be aligned with the current status of the rights thereof, it states that the owners of the robot should bear the responsibility proportional to the robot’s ability to be autonomous or the training of the robot. However, section 59(f) appears to grant them the status of electronic persons or corporate personhood, as laid down in the case of Santa Clara County v. southern pacific railroad co., to some robots which can act, in a limited though, using their discretionary powers. Another perspective is offered by David Gunkel of ‘Relational turn’, in his words “The relational turn puts the how before the what. As we encounter and interact with others—whether they are humans, animals, the natural environment, or robots — these other entities are first and foremost situated in relationship to us. Consequently, the question of social and moral status does not necessarily depend on what the other is but on how she/he/it stands before us and how we decide, in “the face of the other,” to respond. Importantly, this alternative is not offered as the ultimate solution or as a kind of 'moral theory of everything.' It is put forward as a kind of counterweight to provide new ways of thinking about our moral and legal obligations to others.” This could help us elicit answers from social and moral perspectives, but would not be able to be dovetailed with the responsibilities of robots under the torts and criminal laws.
According to some scholars, it is useful if were to formulate some principles based on ethics and philosophy. To have a better insight, the opinions of some scholars is ought to be esteemed. Ravina Shamdasani, Spokesperson for the United Nations Human Rights Office, believes that howsoever the importance of granting certain rights to robots, it can’t be said that robots should be given all the human rights by any stretch of the imagination. Hussein A. Abbass, Professor at the School of Engineering & IT at the University of South Wales-Canberra, believes that robots even if were to outsmart humans cannot replace humans completely. Nonetheless, they should be granted some rights, one of getting the protection by legal and moral system and another one of getting itself manufactured in a manner that the robot serves its purpose and compatible with rationale and society. Dautenhahn, Professor of artificial intelligence school of computer science at the University of Hertfordshire, summarizes in her Tedx speech that robots will never be able to transform into sentient beings, who deserve rights exclusively. There seem to be slight chances of robots becoming outperformers to humans, being the reason that robots can never be able to have human sympathy, that sentience and the aspects of humanity unless humans program them and if humans are programming them then they certainly should be subservient to humans.
LIABILITY OF ROBOTS
This paper would strive to put forth all the perspectives so far on the robot’s liabilities, to have an understanding of the topic, it is thus called for that a certain example of Robot applied is examined. In the instance of self-driven cars or autonomous cars for that matter, even though they are likely to be better and faster than humans at work, it cannot be said that they are infallible, nothing can vouch for the same. In some hypothetical cases such as a self-driven car runs over someone or barges into a shop at the corner of the street, the robots will not be exempted or allowed to evade the liability qua robots as the harm on the person of the victim would remain the same though not being inflicted by some human alike, the legal issue is whether the self-driven car or that robot ought to held culpable or the owner of the robot, which in this instance is the car. This legal quagmire is pretty much difficult to resolve, as in, self-driven cars rely partially on pre-set algorithms and partially on their own experience and robotic judgment and skillset. It would be near to impossible for humans to predict the outcome of the robotic judgment. Under the law of torts, a liability would easily be able to be imposed on the intelligent agents themselves applying the principle of no-fault liability, which holds the intention on the part of the agent immaterial. The remedy, under torts, for the victim will be to request compensation from the owner of robots, unless in the future the robots can pay the damages. Under the criminal law, it would be generally very difficult to hold robots liable as the pre-requisite of ‘men’s rea’ is never satisfied because robots can nor sentient beings. However, the United States has begun to hold non-human legal entities liable for their acts under criminal laws.
The technical defaults in the robot’s software can cause major damages. A real instance of an accident of 2015, wherein a workman had had to lose his life at a car manufacturing factory in Germany.[4]When the industrial self-learning robots are employed on a lease can make them behave destructive as they may be accustomed to a prior environment. This could potentially raise some alarming issues of whether the manufacturer or the lessee is to be held liable, both sides having strong arguments for their sakes. Whether the vicarious liability could be applied hinges on the test of reasonability. As these are robots and their behavior is uncertain the manufacturer can evade liability claiming ‘unforeseeability’. Not that, absolute liability will be easy to avail of in such cases.
SUMMARY OF LIABILITY CASES
1. CASES PERTAINING ON PRODUCT LIABILITY ISSUES
- Strict liability and negligent design
Jones v. W + M Automation, Inc., 818 N.Y.S.2d 396 (App. Div. 2006), appeal denied, 862 N.E.2d 790 (N.Y. 2007) is a quintessential product’s liability case wherein the equipment sold by the manufacturers was a robotic gantry loading system used in a plant, a part thereof hit the plaintiff behind the fence within the danger zone. The question arose as to whether the manufacturers could be held liable implying a defect in the product when it was being sold to the plant. The court while issuing a summary judgment in the favour of the manufacturers applying the ‘component part doctrine’ meant that a manufacturer cannot be made liable unless the plaintiff has incorporated the part into some other product that might be defective, thereby making it seem that product of manufacturer is defective. There is also the onus on plaintiffs to adduce evidence implying something contradictory to the summary judgment. . Payne v. ABB Flexible Automation, Inc., 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 13571 (8th Cir. Jun. 9, 1997) (The decedent was, unfortunately, lethally injured by an arm of the Robot in an auto wheel plant while working. There were a few evidences of the error or mishandling on the part of user). In this, the court emphasized on what caused the accident, was the fault of the defendant, which is the manufacturer.
Again, this points toward the onus on the plaintiff to adduce the evidence, as in the case aforementioned.
- Failure to warn
Jones v. W + M Automation, Inc., 818 N.Y.S.2d at 399, in the same instance, court said that the possibility of harm was obvious if someone were to go behind the safety fences within the danger. Therefore, it was held by the court that summary judgment should have been meted out to the defendants applying the failure to warn theory.
- Causation issues
In the case of Leister v. Schwans Sales Enters., Inc., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4627 (D. Kan. Mar. 3, 1993), the defendant’s employee hit the truck’s driver when fencing materials were brought in for the defendant’s pizza facility to construct a fence around the robot. Even though the plaintiff had sued the manufacturer claiming that the robot was the cause of the accident and but for the robot, he was present there to build the fence. However, this claim would most probably fail as the robot was not the direct cause of the accident and did not meaningfully contribute to the accident.
IN THE INDIAN CONTEXT
The incredible growth of sale and use of Robots in india has passed a threshold. According to the estimates, 4,771 new units were set up in the year of 2018. The leap has been by 39 % vis-a-vie the previous year of 2017. India happens to rank eleventh in the world in terms of annual installation, three places higher vis-a-vie previous years. India is ahead of Singapore, Canada and Thailand.
The robot installation rate growth is astounding in the case of India, between 2013 and 2018 India witnessed a compound annual growth rate of 20%. The growth of robots in India is inevitable and deserves contemplation regarding the issues of liabilities and rights thereof. [5]
CONCLUSION
As an afterthought, it could be said that this legal debate needs a lot of contemplation as multiple issues are at stake, as in, if some legal rights, let alone human rights, are accorded to robots, then it cannot be said that the robots can deny any liability should they have rights. Therefore, legal rights and legal liability cannot be mutually exclusive or rather are interdependent. There are two different things, one is granting human rights and another one is recognizing human rights. Formers refers to when human rights are granted by some government or people or the law or the society, but isn’t this contradictory to the term human rights itself?? Human rights are never granted, everyone meeting certain criteria are entitled to them, only the need is of recognizing them. Admittedly, the robots, Artificial intelligence, etc. that can be utilized is not at par with human’s level of aptitude, so this discussion of recognizing their rights might seem far-fetched at first instance, but in the future, as a group of scholars would agree, the technological singularity will be reached in 2045. Before the time when many robot liability cases pile up before the courts, some precise laws are highly urged to be formulated.
REFERENCES
[1] "German National Library". International classification system of the German National Library (GND). [2] Kurfess, Thomas R. (1 January 2005). Robotics and Automation Handbook. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9780849318047. Archived from the original on 4 December 2016. Retrieved 5 July 2016 – via Google Books. [3] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0005_EN.html [4] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/worker-killed-by-robot-at-volkswagen-car-factory-10359557.htm [5] https://ifr.org/ifr-press-releases/news/indias-robot-wonder
SUMMARY OF SELECTED ROBOTIC LIABILITY CASES BY COOKE KOBRICK & WU LLP, ATTORNEYS AT LAW.
New Criminal Law Review: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal Vol. 19, No. 3 (SUMMER 2016), pp. 412-436
Do Robots Deserve Human Rights? Discover asked the experts, By Lauren Sigfusson Published on www.discovermagazine.com
Asimov, Isaac (1950). "Runaround". I, Robot (The Isaac Asimov Collection ed.). New York City: Doubleday. p. 40. ISBN 978-0-385-42304-5. This is an exact transcription of the laws. They also appear in the front of the book, and in both places, there is no "to" in the 2nd law.
Quite Insightful!