Affiliation:
1. Universitatea din Miskolc, Facultatea de Drept (Miskolc, Ungaria)
Abstract
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.
Publisher
Universitatea Sapientia din municipiul Cluj-Napoca
Reference30 articles.
1. "1. BAKER, T. 2005. Liability Insurance as Tort Regulation: Six Ways That Liability Insurance Shapes Tort Law in Action. Connecticut Insurance Law Journal 12(1): 1–16.
2. 2. BATTESINI, E. 2005. Tort Law and Economic Development: Strict Liability in Legal Practice. The Latin American and Iberian Journal of Law and Economics 1: 7–9.
3. 3. BORGHETTI, J. 2019. How Can Artificial Intelligence Be Defective? In: Liability for Artificial Intelligence and the Internet of Things: Münster Colloquia on EU Law and the Digital Economy. Baden-Baden. 63–76.
4. 4. DE GRAAF, R. 2017. Concurrent Claims in Contract and Tort: A Comparative Perspective. European Review of Private Law 4: 701–726.
5. 5. DEZSŐ, Gy. 1932. A kártérítési kötelezettség különféle alapjairól. In: Glossza Grosschmid Béni. Fejezetek kötelmi jogunk köréből című művéhez. Budapest.