Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 4 - Forms of Robot Liability

  • from Part I - Human–Robot Interactions and Substantive Law
  • Edited by Sabine Gless, Universität Basel, Switzerland, Helena Whalen-Bridge, National University of Singapore
  • Book:
    Human–Robot Interaction in Law and Its Narratives
    Published online:
    03 October 2024
    Print publication:
    29 August 2024, pp 73-86
    • Chapter
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • Summary

    This chapter deals with two possible ways of closing the “responsibility gap” that can occur when AI devices cause harm: holding the device itself criminally responsible and punishing the corporation that employs the device. Robots can at present not be subject to criminal liability because they do not fit into the general scheme of criminal law and cannot feel punishment. But the present scope of corporate criminal responsibility could be expanded to cover harm caused by AI devices controlled by corporations and operating for their benefit. Corporate liability for AI devices should, however, at least require an element of negligence in programming, testing, or supervising the robot.