Vicarious Liability of Artificial Intelligence

Authors

  • Sachin Dubey Student, Faculty of Law, National Law University Odisha Cuttack, Odisha, India

Keywords:

Artificial intelligence (AI), financial algorithms, legal frameworks, Vicarious liability

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become an integral part of numerous industries, transforming the way tasks are performed and decisions are made. However, this technological advancement raises important legal and ethical questions, particularly concerning the acts performed by the AI machines. There may come some instances where AI can perform activities in a manner which deviate from what was expected. There have been potential scenarios where AI systems have caused harm, such as accidents involving autonomous vehicles or erroneous decisions made by AI-powered financial algorithms. It presents various challenges in determining liability and assesses existing legal frameworks’ effectiveness in addressing AI-related incidents. One of them is the question of liability for
the wrongful acts committed by AI. The concept of vicarious liability comes handy in such situations. Vicarious liability refers to the legal responsibility imposed on an entity for the actions or omissions of another party. In the context of AI, determining who should be held liable when an AI system causes harm or makes a mistake is a complex challenge. The current legal framework for vicarious liability was developed in a world where human actors were the primary agents responsible for their actions. With the rise of AI, assigning liability becomes more complicated, as AI systems operate autonomously and can make decisions without direct human intervention. Although AI machines operate autonomously, there are various stakeholders present in designing, manufacturing, or using it for the purpose for which it was designed. Although a bit complex but still the concept of vicarious liability can be utilised to share the responsibility among various stakeholders who were there from designing
to putting it into use.

References

1. Bangia RK. Law of Torts. New Delhi: Allahabad Law Agency; 2017.

2. Ormod v. Crosville Motor Service Ltd., W.L.R. 1120 (January 1953).

3. State Bank of India v. Shyama Devi, S.C. 1263 (Supreme Court 1978).

4. Master and Servant: Tests of Independent Contract. Michigan Law Review. 1931; 519–520.

5. Dhrangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra, LLJ 477 (Supreme Court 1957).

6. Collins v. Hertfordshire, E.R. 633 (1947).

7. Stevenson, Jordan and Harrison Ltd. v. Macdonald and Evans, TLR 101 (1952).

8. Montreal v. Montreal Locomotive Works Ltd., UKPC 44 (1944).

9. Thomas T. (2020). AI in Medical Diagnostics: Determining the Legal liability from the Indian Perspective. Available at: SCC Online: http://www.scconline.com/.

10. Rachum-Twaig O. (2020). Whose Robot is it anyway?: Liability for Artificial -Intelligence-Based Robots. Available at: HeinOnline: heinonline.org.

11. Lior A. (2020). AI entities as AI agents: Artificial intelligence liability and the AI respondeat superior analogy. Available at: HeinOnline: heinonline.org.

12. Reilly J. (2018). Gratuitous Agent. Available at: RealTown: https://www.realtown.com/.

13. Diamantis M. (2021). Vicarious liability for AI. Available at: https://www.ssrn.com/index.cfm/en/.

Downloads

Published

2023-08-08