header-logo header-logo

11 August 2017 / David Kidman , Stephen Turner
Issue: 7758 / Categories: Features , Insurance surgery , Technology
printer mail-detail

Electronic persons: time for a new legal personality?

05_kidman

Product liability law has to get to grips with the emerging complexities of artificial intelligence, say David Kidman & Stephen Turner

  • Smart technology, with interconnected devices speaking to each other, makes it difficult to establish liability

In May 2017, the European Commission published the results of a public consultation on the fitness for purpose of the Product Liability Directive (enacted in the UK by the Consumer Protection Act 1987). Many questions set by the Commission related to the Directive’s application to smart objects, robots and new tech. Approximately two-thirds of respondents agreed that producers of software, apps and algorithms should potentially be held liable, but that there are difficulties allocating liability in respect of products interacting with other products or services (eg smartphone malfunction due to an app) and in respect of products operating on algorithms (eg cars with parking sensors), including self-learning algorithms (AI).

Crucially, 58.33% of respondents did not agree that there should be liability exemptions for innovative products under experimentation,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll