Can I Sue My Roomba? The New Frontier of Liability in Robotics

I’m sure all of us alive at the time remember the astoundingly mediocre 2004 Will  Smith vehicle “i, Robot.” In the movie, consumer grade AI powered humaniod robots are ubiquitous features in American homes. However, after circumventing their guardrails, they wreak havoc on society. That’s pretty standard plot for a science fiction popcorn film. However, after leaving a trail of destruction in their wake, the movie didn’t address the most important part of any Hollywood plot: tort liability. Cutting-edge consumer-grade humanoid robots, like those bravely fought by Will Smith, are now nascent in the market. There are many unanswered questions about liability in robotics. Much like AI, courts may be caught unprepared to handle these issues. A recent Wilson Elser memo dives into these liability concerns:

“Many of these are not prototypes but rather consumer products being used in homes today. Goldman Sachs now projects the humanoid robot market will reach $38 billion by 2035, a sixfold increase from its prior estimate.

The uncomfortable truth for everyone in the liability chain, however, is that no coherent US regulatory framework governs these devices. Existing regulations were developed with Roombas and robot arms in mind, not autonomous humanoids that learn, adapt, and operate continuously inside private homes.”

Liability in robotics spans multiple areas of law. The memo names products liability, privacy, and insurance agreements as a few areas of concern implicated by the technology. While A personal injury case involving a humanoid robot may sound far-fetched, there is a real-world example from the headlines. Last June, a humanoid robot at a martial arts show in China accidentally kicked a child during a demonstration. Luckily, the child suffered no injuries.

Consider what would happen if someone did sustain injuries. How would liability be spread under U.S. law? Would the park that hosted the event be liable for allowing a child near a dangerous piece of equipment? Would it be the robot’s operator who programmed the movement sequence? Or would it fall to the manufacturer of the robot for not putting in safeguards to prevent such an injury? It would likely be some combination of the three, but robotics introduces a layer of separation between the act and the actor that muddies the waters.

Additionally, the above example gets even more difficult if a semi-autonomous AI agent controls the robot at the time of the accident. Widespread adoption of humanoid robots is several years away at best. However, if and when it comes, it will be at a pace rivaling the AI movement. Thinking through risk mitigation early puts companies in a better place to capitalize on opportunities later.