Which Liability Laws for Robots?
This academic paper studies how different combinations of product liability law and tort law affect a monopoly manufacturer's incentives to invest in R&D and autonomy levels for AI-based robots that may cause accidental harm. The authors assume robots operate in either an autonomous mode (subject to product liability) or a human-driven mode (subject to tort law), requiring precautions from both manufacturers and users. Their findings show that while various liability combinations achieve efficient care and maintenance, market distortions in output and autonomy depend on market size, and strict liability never dominates across the board.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Researchers, legal scholars, and policymakers studying the economic impacts of liability frameworks on artificial intelligence and robotics.
What the document contains
The paper investigates the theoretical economic interactions between product liability law, tort law, and a monopoly manufacturer's R&D investments in robot autonomy. It analyzes dual-mode robots operating either autonomously within an Operational Design Domain (ODD) or manually by human drivers, evaluating accident risks, precautionary measures, and market equilibrium outcomes.
The text does not provide binding statutory rules, legislative enactments, or empirical case law enforcement mechanisms outside of a theoretical economic model.
- Combining product liability law and tort law effectively achieves efficient maintenance and care standards regardless of whether strict liability or negligence rules are used.
- The ranking of liability regime combinations regarding output and autonomy levels depends heavily on the size of the market.
- A universal application of strict liability in both product liability and tort law never dominates other legal designs.
- Monopolies generally produce suboptimal levels of output and robot autonomy due to regime-specific allocations of accident costs.
- Properties of the user distribution play a key role in determining whether a monopoly overinvests or underinvests in R&D and output.
1. Introduction 2. Literature 3. The Model 4. The Market for Robots and Liability Laws 5. The Monopoly Distortion and the Legal Framework 6. Discussion and Conclusion
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
4/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
This paper studies how the combination of product liability law and tort law affects a monopoly’s incentives to invest in R and D
Which Liability Laws for Robots ?
screening score · 2026-10-24
Fairness
0/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Dignity
0/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Oversight
3/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
We assume that the robot has two alternative modes of use: autonomous mode and human-driven mode.
Which Liability Laws for Robots ?
screening score · 2026-10-24
Privacy
0/5Protection of personal data and private life
screening score · 2026-10-24
Transparency
2/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
algorithm often functions as black boxes for the human brain, and its complexity makes it difficult for robot users to foresee and understand its operation
1. INTRODUCTION
screening score · 2026-10-24