Activities of Therese COMODINI CACHIA related to 2015/2103(INL)
Plenary speeches (1)
Civil Law Rules on Robotics (debate)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics PDF (573 KB) DOC (118 KB)
Amendments (31)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 2 a (new)
Citation 2 a (new)
- having regard to the Product Liability Directive 85/374/EEC ;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas there is a need to create a generally accepted definition of robot and AI that is flexible and is not hindering innovation;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas according to the robotics sector researchers and innovators it might be too early to create a liability framework for robots and AI, adding that at this stage it could hinder innovation;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas in the short to medium term robotics and AI promise to bring benefits of efficiency and savings, not only in production and commerce, but also in areas such as transport, medical care, education and farming, while making it possible to avoid exposing humans to dangerous conditions, such as those faced when cleaning up toxically polluted sites; whereas in the longer term there is potential for virtually unbounded prosperity;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas at the same time the development of robotics and AI may result in a large part of the work now done by humans being taken over by robots, so raising concerns about the future of employment and the viability of social security systems if the current basis of taxation is maintained, creating the potential for increased inequality in the distribution of wealth and influenc; notes that robotics technology has the potential to transform lives and work practices, raise efficiency and safety levels, provide enhanced level of services. Its impact will grow over time as will the interaction between robots and people;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas at the same time the development of robotics and AI may result in a large part of the work now done by humans being taken over by robots, so raising concerns about the future of employment and the viability of social security systems if the current basis of taxation is maintained, creating the potential for increased inequality in the distribution of wealth and influence;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas the development of Robotics and AI will definitely influence the landscape of the workplace what may create new liability concerns and eliminate others; whereas the legal responsibility need to be clarified from both business sight model, as well as the workers design pattern, in case emergency or problems occur;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas, until such time, if ever, that robots become or are made self- aware, Asimov's Laws1 must be regarded as being directed at the designers, producers and operators of robots, since those laws cannot be converted into machine code; whereas the processes by which robots and AI are assigned built-in autonomy and the possibility of self- learning, should be subjected to Asimov's laws; __________________ 1 A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. (2) A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. (3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws (See Runabout, I. Asimov, 1943) and (0) A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
M. whereas, nevertheless, a series of rules, governing in particular liability and ethics and reflecting the intrinsically European and humanistic values that characterise Europe's contribution to society, are necessary;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital Q
Recital Q
Q. whereas, thanks to the impressive technological advances of the last decade, not only are today's robots able to perform activities which used to be typically and exclusively human, but the development of autonomous and cognitive features – e.g. the ability to learn from experience and take independent decisions – has made them more and more similar to agents that interact with their environment and are able to altercontribute to it significantly; whereas, in such a context, the legal responsibility arising from a robot’s harmful action becomes a crucial issue;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital S
Recital S
S. whereas the more autonomous robots are, the less they can be considered simple tools in the hands of other actors (such as the manufacturer, the owner, the user, etc.); whereas this, in turn, makesquestions whether the ordinary rules on liability inare sufficient and calls for new rules which focus on how a machine can be held – partly or entirely –or whether it calls for specific principles and rules to provide clarity on the legal liability of actors, their responsibleility for its acts orand omissions; whereas, as a consequence, it becomes more and more urgent to address the fundamental quest of robots the cause of which cannot be traced back to a specific human agent and whether the acts or omissions of whether robots should possess a legal statusrobots which have caused harm could have been foreseen and avoided;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital T
Recital T
T. whereas, ultimately, robots' autonomy raises the question of their nature in the light of the existing legal categories – of whether they should be regarded as natural persons, legal persons, animals or objects – or whether a new category should be created, with its own specific features and implications as regards the attribution of rights and duties, including liability for damagecharacteristics at law;
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital U
Recital U
U. whereas under the current legal framework robots cannot be held liable per se for acts or omissions that cause damage to third parties; whereas the existing rules on liability cover cases where the cause of the robot’s act or omission can be traced back to a specific human agent such as the manufacturer, the owner or the user and where that agent could have foreseen and avoided the robot’s harmful behaviour; whereas, in addition, manufacturers, owners or users could be held strictly liable for acts or omissions of a robot if, for example, the robot were categorised as a dangerous object or if it fell within product liability rules;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph U a (new)
Paragraph U a (new)
Ua. whereas according to the current legal framework product liability - where the producer of a product is liable for a malfunction- and rules governing liability for harmful actions -where the user of a product is liable for a behaviour that leads to harm- apply to damages caused by robots or AI;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital V
Recital V
V. whereas in the scenario where a robot can take autonomous decisions, the traditional rules willmay not suffice to activate a robot'slegal liability, since they would not make it possible to identify the party responsible for providing compensation and to require this party to make good the damage it has caused;
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital X
Recital X
X. whereas the shortcomings ofin the current legal framework armay become apparent in the area of contractual liability insofar as agents employ machines designed to choose their counterparts, negotiate contractual terms, conclude contracts and decide whether and how to implement them make the traditional rules inapplicable, which highlights the need for new, more up-to- date ones; whereas this highlights the need for reform of the current legal framework;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital Y
Recital Y
Y. whereas, as regards non-contractual liability, Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 19853 can only cover damage caused by a robot's manufacturing defects and on condition that the injured person is able to prove the actual damage, the defect in the product and the causal relationship between damage and defect (strict liability or liability without fault) framework may not be sufficient; __________________ 3 Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (OJ L 210, 7.8.1985, p. 29).
Amendment 257 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Underlines the importance of appropriate training and preparation for doctors and care assistants in order to secure the highest degree of professional competence possible, as well as to protect patients' health; underlines the need to define the minimum professional requirements that a surgeon must meet in order to be allowed tooperate or use surgical robots; emphasises the special importance of training for users to allow them to familiarise themselves with the technological requirements in this field; draws attention to the rising trend towards self-diagnosis using a mobile robot which 'which makes diagnoses and might take overconsequently of the need for doctors to be trained in dealing with self-diagnosed cases, with the use of these mobile robots and with developments the use of these mobile robots bring to the role of a doctors;
Amendment 259 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Believes that medicine robots continue to make inroads into the provision of high accuracy surgery and in performing repetitive procedures. They have the potential to improve outcomes in rehabilitation, and provide highly effective logistics support within hospitals;
Amendment 275 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20 a. Strongly believes that in the medium term robotics technology will have a far more influential effect on the competitiveness of non -manufacturing industries such as agriculture, transport, healthcare, security and utilities;
Amendment 288 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Bearing in mind the effects that the development and deployment of robotics and AI might have on employment and, consequently, on the viability of the social security systems of the Member States, consideration should be given to the possible need to introduce corporate reporting requirements on the extent and proportion of the contribution of robotics and AI to the economic results of a company for the purpose of taxation and social security contributions; takes the view that in the light of the possible effects on the labour market of robotics and AI a general basic income should be seriously considered, and invites all Member States to do so;
Amendment 297 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Considers that robots' civil liability is a crucial issue which needs to be addressed at EU level so as to ensure the same degree of transparency, consistency and legal certainty throughout the European Union for the benefit of consumers and businesses alikethe question of the possibility to grant civil liability to robots should be in depth analysed and consulted with all interested and relevant stakeholders;
Amendment 302 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24 a. Notes that development of robotics technology will require more understanding for the common ground needed around joint human-robot activity, which should be based on two core interdependence relationships as predictability and directability; points out that these two interdependence relationships are crucial for determining what information need to be shared between humans and robots and how a common basis between humans and robots can be achieved in order to enable smooth human-robot joint action;
Amendment 307 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Asks the Commission to submit, on the basis of Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a proposal for a legislative instrument on legal questions related to the development of robotics and artificial intelligence foreseeable in the next 10-15 years, followingtaking into consideration the detailed recommendations set out in the annex hereto; further calls on the Commission, once technological developments allow the possibility for robots whose degree of autonomy is higher than what is reasonably predictable at present to be developed, to propose an update of the relevant legislation in due time;
Amendment 318 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
Amendment 326 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Points out that a possible solution to the complexity of allocating responsibility for damage caused by increasingly autonomous robots could be an obligatory insurance scheme, as is already the case, for instance, with cars; notes, nevertheless, that unlike the insurance system for road traffic, where the insurance covers human acts and failures, an insurance system for robotics could be based on the obligation of the producer or owner or user to take out an insurance for the autonomous robots it produces;
Amendment 334 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 – introductory part
Paragraph 31 – introductory part
31. Calls on the Commission, when carrying out an impact assessment of its future legislative instrument, to explore, analyse and consult the implications of all possible legal solutions, such as:
Amendment 340 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 – point b
Paragraph 31 – point b
b) ensuring that a compensation fund would not only serve the purpose of guaranteeing compensation if the damage caused by a robot was not covered by an insurance – which would in any case remain its primary goal – but also that of allowing various financial operations in the interests of the robot, such as investments, donations or payments made to smart autonomous robots for their services, which could be transferred to the fund;
Amendment 345 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 – point c
Paragraph 31 – point c
c) allowing the manufacturer, the programmer, the owner or the user to benefit from limited liability insofar as smart autonomous robots would be endowed with a compensation fund – to which all parties could contribute in varying proportions –jointly take out insurance to guarantee compensation where damage is caused by a robot and to consequently benefit from limited liabilities as apportioned in such insurance policy, and damage to property could only be claimed for within the liremits of that fund,insurance policy while other types of damage will not being subject to such limits;
Amendment 353 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 – point f
Paragraph 31 – point f
f) possibility of creating a specific legal status for robots, so that at least the most sophisticated autonomous robots could be established as having the status of electronic persons with specific rights and obligations, including that of making good any damage they may cause, and possibility to applying electronic personality to cases where robots make smart autonomous decisions or otherwise interact with third parties independently;
Amendment 376 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex (after subheading ‘Disclosure of use of robots and artificial intelligence by undertakings’)
Annex (after subheading ‘Disclosure of use of robots and artificial intelligence by undertakings’)