"But open robots also present the potential for inestimable legal liability, which may lead entrepreneurs and investors to abandon open robots in favor of products with more limited functionality . . . therefore recommends a selective immunity for manufacturers of open robotic platforms for what end users do with these platforms, akin to the immunity enjoyed under federal law by firearms manufacturers."
Source: Open Robotics by Ryan Calo, a senior research fellow at Stanford Law School and expert in robots and the law. Also see, “When Good Robots Do Bad Things: Responsibility and Liability in an Era of Personal and Service Robotics”
Comments
I support our troops. It is the politicians that send them where they don't belong that I don't support. Give the scumbags in Washington guns and send them over if they think it is so important.
Only cowards send others where they are afraid to go.
As far as I know, there have been no domestic torts nor criminal charges filed regarding 9/11.
The problem with out of court settlements is there is only a record of a filing. No facts, no judgement, no precedent set. As I said, many big companies simply sue their small competitors into bankrupcy. Status Qu in the USA.
Another point I should have made in my previous post is that the Judges (or jury's) decision is irrelevant in most product liability negligence torts. Once you're named in a suit your defence costs (time and money) are usually enough to bring a small company to its knees, irrespective of the decision.
Regarding 9/11 and the aircraft manufacturers, do you know they haven't been sued? Many times they will settle out of court and noone will know what happened (except their insurance agents!)
I would love to ride the TTE and the Trans-Siberian, the latter being the closest to the now defunct Orient Express.
I have the PA RR museum an hour away but it isn't the same.
@Gary,
Not only have I been on a Steam Train, I've took a cruise on "The Sudan" a Steam boat gifted from the King thereof to the then King of Egypt. Indeed, I walking "through" the engine, though I couldn't stay long because they had to get back to swabbing the engine. Ain't no one gonna fly that thing into a building.
One of the main factors is the use of highly volatile Jet A when there are less volatile fuels that could be used like JP-8. The contractors and designers of the world trade buildings are also responsible for negligence in making a building that rises high into one of the most heavily trafficked airspaces on the planet that completely disintegrates on impact (regardless of terrorist, accidents do happen).
Let us recall that in 1945 a B-25 crashed into the Empire State Building with relatively little damage and only 14 fatalities.
The devastation of 9-11 was foreseeable (considering that terrorists had set off a car bomb in the WTC basement a couple years prior, it was well known that it was a prime target) and points toward the negligence of several parties. Had this been an accident instead of an attack there would have been several people, companies and politicians in the hot seat. Sadly, nothing gets looked into or changed when it can all be blamed on terrorists.
@Duane,
II'm of the mind that Boeing should have been found liable - in part - for making an aircraft that big which could be mis-directed.
I think big planes should be designed to pull up automatically if they are being misdirected.
They should have safe maps which include weird landings, but they should not in my opinion be allowed "just anywhere".
Certainly trains aren't allowed to go - just anywhere, and no one has flown a train into a large building.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next