While I was reading, there was a part which said whether liability could be

attributed to the principal for the machine's conduct as an agent. The

Restatement
provides two general concepts for such liability: direct and vicarious. Mam I
understood the direct liability part to apply, it must be established that the
agent's acts are tortious, that if they had been performed by the principal, they
would have been considered tortious, or that the principal was negligent in
selecting, supervising, or controlling the agent.
For vicarious liability to apply it was said that, it must be established that the
agent is an employee of the principal, acting within the scope of employment?
It is questionable whether a robot can be considered an employee and yes
robots replace people as service providers, effectively acting as employees,
there surely may be various circumstances in which robots cannot be even
remotely considered as employees?
The Restatement defines an employee for these purposes as "an agent whose
principal controls or has the right to control the manner and means of the agent's
performance of work."
So, mam I have a question that is this article written keeping in mind only the
humanoid robots. Because mam if I basically categorise type of robots there are
humanoid robots and rover robots or what we say mobile robots. And mam
according to the definition of employee that the article conveyed was that an
agent whose principal controls or has the right to control so mam in rover
robots, it needs to be controlled and mam even if I enable it of working on its
own using AI it still needs commands and programs from external source. So,
mam rover robots must be considered employees but the article didn’t talk about
it so I just thought if the article was written on the basis of Humanoid robot or
articulated robot or delta robots.

Actually, I myself has made an AI based Rover robot known as The Shrimp
rover and it is under the process of getting a patent on the behalf of Chandigarh
University and Atal Tinkering Lab of my school as they kind of sponsored me.

When considering AI-based robots, this becomes a challenge. When do we

assume that the principal has control over the robot? If we believe that some
acts of the robot are based on AI that is unpredictable and perhaps
unexplainable by the principal, can we reasonably portray this dynamic as
control over the robot's performance?