3 ms·

Very interesting. Why should the liability be any different if its a robot's fault or a human's fault? These are hard externalities that turn into political an

• davismwfl 5y ago
  Today if a robot is misaligned it is still almost certainly a humans fault. The robot was design, machined, assembled and tested at least in part by a human. And the robots maintenance and operation is overseen by a person. Hence at this point a human is still likely at fault, not that I am suggesting we find the person and blame them. Just understand that people are the weak link here not the machine. Not sure that will ever not be the case, at least in my lifetime. People make mistakes, which by name are unintended and unwanted. As for why liability should be any different, it shouldn't. Except IMO a company making efforts to find, address and make the situation right (without being compelled by govt) should be immune to non-injury based claims against them. e.g. the family that had a love one die in a fire caused by the issue can sue and get reasonable damages, but just owning the car doesn't entitle you to sue for "suffering", or "distress" or any of the other 100 excuses attorneys find to sue.