Insurance and Risk Management for Robotic Devices: Identifying the Problems

Abstract Robotic devices represent a promising emerging market, in particular for advanced economies. Relevant investment in research witnesses the desire of states and supranational authorities to acquire a leading role in the industry. However, at least as relevant – for the emergence of such a market – is the development of an adequate legal framework and of innovative risk-management solutions. The producer is in fact responsible for all damages deriving from the use of his product, hence managing that risk is of strategic relevance. Robotic products pose – to that end – some specific issues that are here analysed, both legal and material. With respect to the first, some uncertainty remains about what rules may apply to robots. Notably, the increasing interaction of man and machine that these devices bring about causes different liability schemes to overlap, stressing the limits of those sets of rules, increasing uncertainty both with respect to who should be held liable and upon which conditions. With respect to the second, because of the novelty of some devices, we do not possess sufficient data on what kind of damages this applications may cause, and their frequency. Both aspects call for the elaboration of alternative strategies, including legal reform, to adopt preferable liability rules and allow real-life-scenario testing. Some solutions are here briefly considered.

[1]  Andrea Bertolini,et al.  Robots as Products: The Case for a Realistic Analysis of Robotic Applications and Liability Rules , 2013 .

[2]  T Baurer,et al.  Contract Law , 2004, Protecting American Health Care Consumers.

[3]  Antígono Donati Trattato del diritto delle assicurazioni private , 1952 .

[4]  Andreas Matthias,et al.  From Coder to Creator: Responsibility Issues in Intelligent Artifact Design , 2009 .

[5]  Luciano Floridi,et al.  Philosophy and Computing: An Introduction , 1999 .

[6]  Andreas Matthias,et al.  The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata , 2004, Ethics and Information Technology.

[7]  David-Olivier Jaquet-Chiffelle,et al.  Bridging the Accountability Gap: Rights for New Entities in the Information Society? , 2010 .

[8]  Curtis E. A. Karnow The application of traditional tort theory to embodied machine intelligence , 2016 .

[9]  Silvestro Micera,et al.  Hybrid Bionic Systems for the Replacement of Hand Function , 2006, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[10]  Bryant Walker Smith Proximity-Driven Liability , 2013 .

[11]  Willem F. G. Haselager,et al.  Robotics, philosophy and the problems of autonomy , 2005 .

[12]  Monica N. Nicolescu,et al.  Robots as animals: A framework for liability and responsibility in human-robot interactions , 2009, RO-MAN 2009 - The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[13]  Andrea Bertolini Robots and liability: justifying a change in perspective , 2014 .

[14]  A. Bertolini,et al.  Robotic prostheses as products enhancing the rights of people with disabilities. Reconsidering the structure of liability rules , 2015 .

[15]  Andrea Bertolini,et al.  Regulating robotics : A challenge for Europe , 2014 .

[16]  Erica Palmerini,et al.  Liability and Risk Management in Robotics , 2016 .

[17]  David G. Owen,et al.  Products Liability Law , 2008 .

[18]  Marco Cempini,et al.  Guidelines on Regulating Robotics , 2014 .

[19]  Andreas Matthias,et al.  Automaten als Träger von Rechten , 2008 .

[20]  Ian Ayres,et al.  Filling gap in incomplete contracts: an economic theory of default rules , 1989 .

[21]  Product Liability and Moral Hazard: Evidence from General Aviation , 2008 .

[22]  Atsuo Takanishi,et al.  Intersection of “Tokku” Special Zone, Robots, and the Law: A Case Study on Legal Impacts to Humanoid Robots , 2015, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[23]  Joachim Hertzberg,et al.  AI Reasoning Methods for Robotics , 2008, Springer Handbook of Robotics, 2nd Ed..

[24]  T. T. Lee Intelligent vehicles , 2013, 2013 International Conference on System Science and Engineering (ICSSE).

[25]  Steven Shavell,et al.  The Uneasy Case for Product Liability , 2009 .

[26]  Alan Schwartz,et al.  Contract Interpretation Redux , 2009 .

[27]  Nassim Nicholas Taleb,et al.  The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable , 2007 .

[28]  A. Tabarrok,et al.  Product Liability and Moral Hazard: Evidence from General Aviation , 2008, The Journal of Law and Economics.