Abstract
Abstract
This is the second of two companion papers that discuss accidents caused by robots. In the first paper (Guerra et al., 2021), we presented the novel problems posed by robot accidents, and assessed the related legal approaches and institutional opportunities. In this paper, we build on the previous analysis to consider a novel liability regime, which we refer to as ‘manufacturer residual liability’ rule. This makes operators and victims liable for accidents due to their negligence – hence, incentivizing them to act diligently; and makes manufacturers residually liable for non-negligent accidents – hence, incentivizing them to make optimal investments in R&D for robots' safety. In turn, this rule will bring down the price of safer robots, driving unsafe technology out of the market. Thanks to the percolation effect of residual liability, operators will also be incentivized to adopt optimal activity levels in robots' usage.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
General Economics, Econometrics and Finance
Reference38 articles.
1. Ben-Shahar, O. (2016), ‘Should Carmakers be Liable When a Self-Driving Car Crashes’, Forbes, published online on Sep 22, 2016, available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2016/09/22/should-carmakers-be-liable-when-a-self-driving-car-crashes/ (last accessed Nov 2021).
2. On Robots and Insurance
3. Manufacturer Liability for Harms Caused by Consumers to Others
4. Who's Driving That Car: An Analysis of Regulatory and Potential Liability Frameworks for Driverless Cars;Roe;BCL Rev,2019
5. Robotic prostheses as products enhancing the rights of people with disabilities. Reconsidering the structure of liability rules
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献