Dr.

safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

The legal liability for autonomous Robotics

Dr. S.Fatouh Gomaa

Doctorate at private international Law

Faculty of law- Mansoura University
Faculty member in Law & policy faculty
Van Holland University
2020

1
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

Abstract
This paper review recently attempts by the specialist in artificial intelligence in
international societies to set the legal framework that controls artificial intelligence
development as Industrial Robotics.

This research focuses, generally, on the international and national legal rules for
artificial intelligence products as fourth industrial revolutions, which enhance
prohibition any harms on humanity, and prevent any aggression on humans' safety.
So, the current legal, national, and international regulations related to industrial
„productions have to try to enforce these regulations by setting the unified rules
between the concerned states. Nevertheless, the researcher will concentrate on
identifying the range of legal liability in civil law for partial, conditional, full
autonomous Industrial Robotics as one of AI‟s products.

This paper seeks to answer many questions; what are the kinds of autonomous
Industrial Robotics? What are the laws that related to robots? Do these laws handle
the entire Robots‟ issues? Can the current laws in Egypt govern entire matters that
related to artificial intelligence? What are the international conventions associated
with artificial intelligence products? Moreover, does the current Egyptian law need
modifications to solve the legal issues related to artificial intelligence development?

It hopes this research will inform the Ministry responsible for Egyptian industrial
production to set legal scope for artificial intelligence products

2
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

INTRODUCTION
This research will report some legal matters relating to the liability rules concerning
artificial intelligence products. Particularly, this paper will intend the problems
associated with liability for manufacturing Industrial Robotics, in another meaning, it
will help the researchers to understand the certain relevant legal rules may apply in
general to all AI products, in particular in industrial robots.

EU laws do not take account of any category of ad hoc requirements for robots and,
more generally, for AI. In line with the EU‟ Parliament „resolution that dated
February 16, 2017, robots cannot be accountable for deeds or errors that cause harm
to third parties. The current rules on responsibility involve cases where the cause of
the robot‟s actions or faux pas can be map out to a definite human agent such as the
builder, the machinist, the holder or the manager and where that representative could
have predicted and evaded the robot‟s dangerous conduct.

In another perspective, the EU Commission Working Document on Liability that hand

out on April 25, 2018, for evolving arithmetical equipment, for instance, robots
functioning via AI systems, highlights a regulatory gap. Indeed: Where a robot takes
independent decisions, according to the Resolution “the traditional rules” will not suit
to hold legal liability for damage caused by a robot since they would not create it
possible to recognize the party liable for providing reparations and to require that
party to make good the damage it has made happen.(1) Additionally, digital
technologies produce and procedure an unlimited quantity of (big) data. In this
respect, where damage caused by the amount of corrupted data, assigning liability
may turn into unclear, and claims possibly become problematic to put in force.
Finally, digital technologies modify simultaneously, attributable to, patches, updates
and software extensions. Any transformation to the software may affect the conducts
of the whole system mechanisms, in a way that can make impact on the protection of
these technologies. Consequently, it is decisive to identify responsibilities among the
several performers of the AI chain(1).

(1)
Initiating digital technologies are performed by inter-dependency among the various hardware,
software, and layers ‘components, such as; i) the touchable parts, devices (sensors, actuators,
hardware); ii) The Diverse software components and applications; iii) The data. iv) The data services
(i.e. collection, processing, curating, analyzing), and v) the connectivity features”, for more
information, see at, G. Olivi, Robots and Liability: who is to blame?,
https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/articles/2018/december/20/robots-and-liability , retrieved
1.2.2020.
Legal liability may be determined upon robots‟ industrialists according to the Product Liability
(1)

Directive No 85/374/EEC. This Directive depends on the strict liability of fabricators of imperfect
products also in the case of individual damage or damage to possessions. According to some
scholarships, there are foundations to debate that the Product Liability Directive may relate to robots
bringing about injuries to individuals/goods: for example, where the manufacturer did not accurately
notify the purchaser of risks related to the autonomous robots or the robot‟s safety systems were
imperfect. In addition, we footnote that in several civil law countries the “strict liability” doctrine is the
prevailing reference. The strict liability doctrine offers that it is essential to verify that (a) damage

3
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

Some unrestricted questions need yet to answer; who the authorized person liable for
the injury has been determined (the AI builder, the IT worker, the contractor, or the
operator), should his/her responsibility be relational to the degree of robot autonomy /
AI system? How can determine the degree of robot autonomy, AI system?

To sum up, some scholarship encourages for the conception of a legal personality for
robots, which could defend industrialists and managers against legal accountability
(likewise to the independent liability of corporations, which is dissimilar from the
liability of corporation‟s shareholders).

Based on the above, it is problematic to expect how the legislation on AI and liability
will go forward, even though most scholarships depend on the strict liability doctrine
as the main motivation to adoptive the continuing legislative development.

AI robots and liability is a captivating topic, so the searcher is alienated the paper into
three sections; section 1 is the historical, international, and legal framework for the
Robots. Then sections 2 coats the identification of legal responsibility for autonomous
Industrial Robotics. Finally, section 3 is the conclusions feeding. As following
structure:

Section 1: The historical, international and legal framework for the Robots

1.1 History of Robots

1.2 Law of Robots

1.3 The international laws for Robots

Section 2: The identification of legal responsibility for autonomous Industrial

Robotics

2.1 The level of automation for Robots

2.2 The personhood for Robots “full automation”

2.3 The legal responsibility for autonomous degree of Industrial Robotics
2.3.1 The legal responsibility for robots „producer or manufacturer
2.3.2 The legal responsibility for robots „designer or programmer

2.3.2.1The programmer
2.3.2.2 The user- programmer

2.3.3 The legal responsibility for robots‟ user

arisen, and (b) such damage has resulted from behavior, or omission of the damaging party, so that
there is no necessity to demonstrate the inattention / intentional misbehavior of the destructive party.
for more information, see at, G. Olivi, Robots and Liability: who is to blame?,Op.Cit.

4
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

2.3.4 Template for distribution‟s robots liability (TDRL)

2.3.4.1 key elements

2.3.4.2 The determination of responsibility according to (TDRL)

Section 3: conclusions

5
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

SECTION 1
THE HISTORICAL, INTERNATIONAL AND LEGAL
FRAMEWORK FOR THE ROBOTS
This section treaty with three points that related to the historical, international, and
legal framework for the Robots. Firstly, the researcher will define the history of
Robots, then what are the laws of Robots, finally, the researcher will determine the
international laws for Robots.

1.1 HISTORY OF ROBOTS

1.1.1 THE ANCIENT ERA FOR ROBOTS

Concepts of Robots started as legends. Many earliest myths comprised non-natural

people, such as the automated handmaidens constructed by the Greek god Hephaestus
(1)
. In ancient Egypt, statuettes of religions were prepared of rock, iron or lumber. The
statues were dynamic and occupied a vital role in religious ceremonials. In the New
Kingdom of Egypt, from the 16th century BC until the 11th century BC, olden
Egyptians would habitually refer to these statues for advice. The statues would
response with a movement of the head(2). In Early Chinese, The implications of
humanoid automatons were discussed in Liezi, a compilation of Daoist texts, which
went on to become a classic. In chapter 5 King Mu of Zhou is on tour of the West and
upon asking the artisan Master Yan "What can you do?" the royal court was
presented with an artificial man. The mechanization was indistinguishable from a
human and achieved various deceits for the king. Nevertheless, when the artificial
man seemingly started to trifle with the females in attendance, the artisan cut the
automation open and revealed the inner workings of the artificial man. The king is
captivated and experimentations with the functional interdependence of the
automation by removing different organ-like components. The king wondered, "Is it
then possible for human skill to achieve as much as the Creator?" and
confiscated the automation”(3)

The Indian Lokapannatti, a collection of legends produced in the 11th or 12th

centuries AD, states the story of how an automated soldier‟s army (bhuta vahana
yanta or "Spirit movement machines") were created to protect the relics of Buddha in
a secret stupa. According to the Lokapannatti, the royal leader Asoka catches the story
of the secret stupa and plans to find it. Following a battle between with the fierce
warrior automations, Asoka finds the long-lasting engineer who had built the
(1)
D.Levine Gera, Ancient Greek Ideas on Speech, Language, and Civilization, 2003, p.34
(2)
G. Maspero, Manual of Egyptian Archaeology: A Guide to the Studies of Antiquities in Egypt, BoD,
(2009) p. 108.
(3)
R. Littlejohn, J. Dippmann, Riding the Wind with Liezi: New Perspectives on the Daoist Classic.
SUNY Press. , 2011, pp.: 194–195.

6
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

automations and shows how to take to pieces and control them. Thus, Emperor Asoka
accomplishes to command a great army of automated fighters(1).

In ancient European era, Albertus Magnus supposed to have built an entire android,
which could act some domestic tasks. But, it was demolished by Albert's pupil
Thomas Aquinas for troubling his thought. The most well-known myth related to a
bronze head invented by Roger Bacon which was ruined or fought after he lost its
moment of operation. Automata similar to humans or animals were widespread in the
fantasy worlds of primitive literature. This legend inspired by European Christian(2)

Automated robots were built in the 10th century BC in the Western Zhou Dynasty.
The artisan Yan Shi made automata humanoid that could sing and dance. The device
is said to possess a life like organs, bones, muscles, and joints. (3) In the 4th century
BC the mathematician Archytas of Tarentum assumed a machine-driven bird he
called "The Pigeon", which was forced by vapor.(4)

When the Greeks dominated Egypt, a chain of engineers who could create automata
established themselves in Alexandria. Opening with the polymath Ctesibius (285-222
BC), Alexandrian engineers left over writings describing practical automata
motorized by hydraulics or steam. Ctesibius constructed human like automata, often
these were utilized in religious ceremonials and the adoration of idols. One of the last
Alexandrian engineers, Hero of Alexandria (10-70 BC) created an automata dummy
theater, were the statuettes and the stage dull moved by mechanical means.(5)

Byzantines inherent the knowledge on automata from the Alexandrians and

industrialized it further to build water clocks with gear mechanisms. The awareness
on how to make automata passed on to the Arabs. Harun al-Rashid manufactured
water clocks with complex hydraulic jacks and moving human figures. Arab
engineers such as Banu Musa and Al-Jazari issued thesis on hydraulics and extra
advanced the art of water clocks(6). Al-Jazari manufactured robotic moving peacocks
driven by hydropower. He also created the primary known automatic gates, which
were driven by hydropower, produced automatic doors as part of one of his elaborate

(1)
A. Mayor, Gods and Robots: Myths, Machines, and Ancient Dreams of Technology, Princeton
University Press, 2018, pp. 205–206.
(2)
A. Mayor, Gods and Robots: Myths, Machines, and Ancient Dreams of Technology,Op.Cit.,p.207
(3)
As. K. Hemal & M. Menon, Robotics in Genitourinary Surgery. Springer, 2018, p.7
(4)
C. Adam, "The History of Robotics", Archived from the original on 18 July 2006, p.78
(5)
K. LaGrandeur, Androids and Intelligent Networks in Early Modern Literature and Culture: Artificial
Slaves. Routledge. 2013, p. 24.
(6)
H.R. Turner, Science in Medieval Islam: An Illustrated Introduction, University of Texas Press,
(1997), p. 81

7
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

water clocks(1), and created water wheels with cams on their axle used to operate
automata. (2)

Mark E. Rosheim abridges the developments in robotics made by Muslim engineers,

especially al-Jazari, as follows: "Unlike the Greek designs, these Arab examples
reveal an interest, not only in dramatic illusion, but in manipulating the environment
for human comfort. Thus, the greatest contribution the Arabs made, besides
preserving, disseminating, and building on the work of the Greeks, was the concept of
practical application. This was the key element that was missing in Greek robotic
science”(3)

At the end of the 13th century, Robert II, Count of Artois, manufactured a garden at his
castle at Hesdin that merged a number of robots, humanoid and animal.(4) Automated
bell strikers, called JACQUEMART turn out to be popular in Europe in the 14th
century together with mechanical clocks(5). Among the principal supportable
automation is a humanoid drawn by Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) in around 1495.
Leonardo's notepads, revived in the 1950s, comprise comprehensive drawings of a
mechanical knight in shield, which was talented to sit up, wave its arms, and move its
head and jaw(6). In 1533, Johannes Müller von Königsberg generated an automaton
eagle and fly fabricated of iron; both could wing. John Dee is known for forming a
woody insect, talented of flying.(7) In 1747 Julien Offray de La Mettrie incognito
issued L'homme machine (Man a Machine), in which he called Vaucanson a "new
Prometheus" and meditated "the human body is a watch, a large watch constructed
with such skill and ingenuity" (8)

In the 1770s, the Swiss Pierre Jaquet-Droz produced moving automata that looked like
children, which pleased Mary Shelly, who went on to inscribe Frankenstein: The
Modern Prometheus. The final try at automation was The Turk by Wolfgang von
Kempelen, a cultured machine that could play chess against a human. When the
machine was brought to the new world, it prompted Edgar Allan Poe to pen an essay,
in which he concluded that it was impossible for mechanical devices to reason or
think(9). In 1898, Nikola Tesla established a model remote-controlled submarine at

(1)
D. Hill, "Mechanical Engineering in the Medieval Near East", Scientific American, May 1991, pp. 64-
69
(2)
H. R. Turner Science in Medieval Islam: An Illustrated Introduction, University of Texas Press, 1997,
p. 81
(3)
R. Mark E., Robot Evolution: The Development of Anthrobotics, Wiley-IEEE, 1994, p. 9
(4)
T. Elly R. "The Garden of Earthly Delights: Mahaut of Artois and the Automata at Hesdin". Iowa
Research Online, University of Iowa. 2018, p.56
(5)
L. Sylvia, The Medieval Garden. New York: Thames and Hudson edition, 1995,p. 22.
(6)
M. Michael E., ("The da Vinci robot". Journal of Endourology, 20 (12), December 2006,p. 986
(7)
As. K. Hemal , M. Menon, Robotics in Genitourinary Surgery, Springer edition, 2018, p. 6.
(8)
A. Mattelart, The Invention of Communication. University of Minnesota Press, 1996, p. 23.
(9)
T. N. Hornyak. Loving the Machine: The Art and Science of Japanese Robots, Kodansha
International,2006,p.89

8
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

Madison Square Garden, as "an automaton will perform as through controlled of

purpose and without any intentional governor from the outside."(1)

1.1.2 THE MODERN ERA FOR ROBOTS

In World War I remote control weapons were utilized, based on the work of Nikola
Tesla, who had built an electrical boat that could be remotely controlled by radio,(2)
Westinghouse Electric Corporation manufactured Televox in 1926; it was a cardboard
cutout coupled to various devices, which operators could turn on or turn off. In 1927,
Fritz Lang's Metropolis was launched; the Maschinenmensch ("machine-human"), a
gynoid humanoid robot, also called "Parody", "Futura", "Robotrix", or the "Maria
impersonator" (played by German actress Brigitte Helm), was the first robot ever to be
portrayed on film(3).

The most legendary Japanese robotic automata was offered to the public in 1927. The
Gakutensoku was made-up to have a diplomatic role. Set in motion by compressed air,
it could write fluidly and raise its eyelids(4). Many robots were constructed before the
dawn of computer-controlled servomechanisms, for the public relations purposes of
major firms. These were essentially equipment that could act a few aerobatics, like the
automata of the 18th century. In 1928, one of the principal humanoid robots exhibited
at the yearly exhibition of the Model Engineers Society in London. Invented by W. H.
Richards, the robot - named Eric - consisted of an aluminum suit of armor with eleven
electromagnets and one motor powered by a 12-volt power source, and could move its
hands and head controlled by remote control or voice control(5). The primary
enterprises of engineering robots were put into fabrication in the United States. These
manipulators had modeled- joints on human shoulder-arm-wrist kinetics to reproduce
human motions like pulling, pushing, pressing, and lifting. Motions could be controlled
through cam and switch programming (6).
In 1938, Willard V. Pollard marched the first patent application for such an arm, the
"Position Controlling Apparatus" with electronic controllers, pneumatic cylinder and
motors that powered six axes of motion. But the large drum memory made

(1)
L. Nocks, The Robot: The Life Story of a Technology. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006, p. 55.
(2)
L. Nocks, The Robot: The Life Story of a Technology, Op.Cit., p.55
(3)
M. Michael E., The da Vinci robot, Journal of Endourology, 20 (12) ,December 2006, pp.: 986–90....
the date of the design and possible construction of this robot was 1495 ... Beginning in the 1950s,
investigators at the University of California began to ponder the significance of some of Leonardo's
markings on what appeared to be technical drawings ... It is now known that da Vinci's robot would
have had the outer appearance of a Germanic knight.
(4)
As. K. Hemal , M. Menon, Robotics in Genitourinary Surgery,Op.Cit.,p.7
(5)
A.Goody, Technology, Literature and Culture: Themes in twentieth and twenty-first century
literature and culture, Polity edition, 2011, p. 163
(6)
A. Isaac, F.Karen, Robots: Machines in Man’s Image, New York: Harmony Books, 1985, p. 13.

9
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

programming time-consuming and difficult(1). In 1939, the humanoid robot known as

Elektro appeared at the World's Fair. Seven feet tall (2.1 m) and weighing 265 pounds
(120 kg), it could walk by voice command, speak about 700 words (using a 78-rpm
record player), smoke cigarettes, blow up balloons, and move its head and arms. The
body consisted of a steel gear cam and motor skeleton covered by an aluminum skin(2).
In 1939 Konrad Zuse built the paramount programmable electromechanical computer,
setting the basis for the production of a humanoid machine that is now considered a
robot (3). Claude Shannon had demonstrated the practical application of binary logic to
electric switches, but his calculator was not programmable(4).

In 1941 and 1942, Isaac Asimov articulated the Three Laws of Robotics, and in the
process coined the word "robotics”. In 1945, Vannevar Bush issued As We May
Think, an thesis that inspected the probable of electronic data processing. He was later
credited by inventor of hypertext” Ted Nelson,” In 1948; Norbert Wiener expressed
the ideologies of cybernetics. In 1951, Walter published the paper A Machine that
learns, documenting how his more advanced mechanical robots acted as intelligent
agent by demonstrating conditioned reflex learning.(5) The first numerically
functioned and programmable robot was designed by George Devol in 1954 and was
called as Unimate. This later set the grounds of the current robotics engineering.
In the primary 1970s smart weapons were developed. Weapons turn into robotic by
applying terminal direction. During the 1972 Sensors, permit cooperative robots
(cobots) to cooperate openly with humans in a communal workspace.(6) In 1981,
Takeo Kanade formed the first "direct drive arm" which was controlled within the
robot itself, removing long transmissions(7). In 1984 Wabot-2 was discovered; skilled
of playing the organ, had 10 fingers and two feet, and was able to read a score of
music and accompany a person.(8)

In 1994, the FDA made the successful robot surgery appliance; John R. Adler had
designed the Cyberknife that is the first installed system at Stanford University
depended on the radiosurgery system combined image-guided surgery with robotic
setting. The Cyberknife is now utilized to treat patients with brain or spine tumors. In
April 2001, the Canadarm2 is launched into orbit, attached to the International Space
Station, it is a superior, and more talented version of the arm utilized by the Space

(1)
A. Isaac, F.Karen, Robots: Machines in Man’s Image, New York: Harmony Books, 1985, p. 13.
(2)
A.Goody, Technology, Literature and Culture: Themes in twentieth and twenty-first century
literature and culture,Op.Cit.,p.164
(3)
A. Krishnan, Killer Robots: Legality and Ethicality of Autonomous Weapons, Routledge edition,
,2016, p. 15
(4)
A. Isaac, F.Karen, Robots: Machines in Man’s Image, Op.Cit., p.13
(5)
As. K. Hemal , M. Menon, Robotics in Genitourinary Surgery, Op.Cit., p.7
(6)
A. Isaac, F.Karen, Robots: Machines in Man’s Image,Op.Cit.,p.15
(7)
L. Nocks, The Robot: The Life Story of a Technology, Op.Cit., p.56
(8)
T. Kanade, Collection: Envisioning Robotics, Direct Drive Robotic Arms, 2007,p.66

10
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

Shuttle, and is addressed as "smarter. (1) In 2005, Cornell University discovered a

robot skilled of self-replication; a set of cubes capable of attaching and detaching, the
first robot capable of building copies of itself.(2)

On 25 October 2017 at the Future Investment Conference in Riyadh, a robot called

Sophia and mentioned to with womanly pronouns was established Saudi Arabian
residency, becoming the first robot ever to have a nationality(3). In 2019, engineers at
the University of Pennsylvania shaped millions of Nano robots in just a few weeks
using technology borrowed from semiconductors. These microscopic robots, minor
enough to be medically injected into the human body and organized wirelessly, could
one day provide medicines and achieve surgical treatment(4).

1.2 LAW OF ROBOTS:

Laws of Robotics are a base of laws, rulebooks, or philosophies, which considered as

an essential outline to reinforce the actions of robots designed to have a degree of
autonomy. The top recognized base of laws is those written by Isaac Asimov in the
1940s, The Isaac Asimov's laws are "Three Laws of Robotics.”. The Three Laws of
Robotics are:
 A robot may not harm a human being or, through inaction, permit a human being
to come to damage.
 A robot must comply with the commands given it by human beings excluding
where such missions would encounter with the First Law.
 A robot must shield its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict
with the First or Second Laws.(5)
A zeroth law introduced, rewritten as subordinate to it: A robot may not harm
humanity, or, by inaction, permit humanity to come to injury.
In 2011, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and the
Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) of Great Britain mutually issued a
base of five moral codes for designers, builders and users of robots;(6)

 Robots should not be designed exclusively or principally to destroy or harm

humans.
 Humans, not robots, are responsible agents. Robots are tools designed to
accomplish human goals.
 Robots should be designed in ways that guarantee their safety and security.
(1)
W. Martyn, Technology – Sony unveils prototype humanoid robot, 2000, CNN, Archived from the
original on 12 October 2007.
(2)
L. Nocks, The Robot: The Life Story of a Technology, Op.Cit., p.57
(3)
" Saudi Arabia gives citizenship to a non-Muslim, English-Speaking robot", Newsweek, 26 October
2017.
(4)
C. Nick , Researchers make a million tiny robots, Cosmos Magazine, 2019, p.78
(5)
A. Isaac, F.Karen, Robots: Machines in Man’s Image, Op.Cit., p.15
(6)
S. Jon , Ready for the robot revolution?, BBC News, Principles of robotics: Regulating Robots in the
Real World, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Retrieved 2011-10-03

11
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

 Robots are objects; they should not be designed to exploit susceptible users by
bringing to mind a sensitive response or dependency. It had better always be
probable to tell a robot from a human.
 It should always be possible to realize who is legally responsible for a robot.(1)

In June 2016, Satya Nadella, a CEO of Microsoft Corporation, had an interview with
the Slate magazine and approximately outlined five rules for artificial intelligences for
their designers:(2)
1- It must support the humanity.
2- It must be transparent that mean to enable humans to understand how they work.
3- It must capitalize on proficiencies without abolishing the dignity of human.
4- It must receive trust through protecting their information.
5- It must have algorithmic accountability that enables humans to unintended harm.
6- It must not discriminate against humans.

Mark W. Tilden as robotics physicist was a pioneer in developing simple robotics,(3)

and form-guiding rules for robots, these are:(4)
1- A robot must shield its being at all costs.
2- A robot must get and sustain right of entry to its own power birthplace.
3- A robot must frequently search for well power sources.(5)

1.3 THE INTERNATIONAL LAWS FOR ROBOTS

Many international conventions handle the problems of artificial intelligence

products. One of these conventions concerned to the liability for defective products,
such as; 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(6). Another one related to product safety, like; Directive
2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on
general product safety(7). These two-convention deals with Robots like a product that
has to have safety and liability for any defects in production process.

Other conventions deal with Robots as radio, electromagnetic equipment‟s, such as;
Directive 2014/53/EU of the European parliament on the harmonization of the laws of

(1)
W. Alan, "Five rob ethical principles for humans, New Scientist edition, 2011,p.88
(2)
A. Isaac, F.Karen, Robots: Machines in Man’s Image, Op.Cit., p.20
(3)
A. Isaac, F.Karen, Robots: Machines in Man’s Image, Op.Cit., p.21
(4)
P. Joseph F.,The Science Fiction of Isaac Asimov, Doubleday edition, 1974, p. 42
(5)
A. Isaac, In Joy Still Felt, Doubleday edition, 1980, p. 61
(6)
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, online at;
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A31985L0374
(7)
Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on
general product safety, online at; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX% 3A3
2001L0095

12
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

the member states relating to the making available on the market of radio
equipment(1), and Directive 2014/30/EU of the European parliament on the
harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to electromagnetic
compatibility.(2)

Another convention deal with artificial intelligence product as general data protection
matter, such as; regulation (eu) 2016/679 of the European parliament and of the
council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the
processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing
directive 95/46/ec. (3)

Therefore, there no international conventions handle artificial intelligence products

directly, the last convention considers the Robots as data that has to protect.

(1)
Directive 2014/53/eu of the European parliament on the harmonization of the laws of the member
states relating to the making available on the market of radio equipment, online at; https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?uri=celex:32014L0053
(2)
Directive 2014/30/eu of the European parliament on the harmonization of the laws of the Member
States relating to electromagnetic compatibility, online at; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32014L0030
(3)
regulation (eu) 2016/679 of the European parliament and of the council of 27 April 2016 on the
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free
movement of such data, and repealing directive 95/46/ec, online at; https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj

13
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

SECTION 2
THE IDENTIFICATION OF LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR
AUTONOMOUS INDUSTRIAL ROBOTICS

2.1 THE LEVEL OF AUTOMATION FOR ROBOTS

Artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics advance; it may be progressively trying to hire
automatic tools to achieve any progress in many fields. The rank of automated
mission, mentioned to as levels of automation (LOA). Thomas B. Sheridan, and W. L.
Verplank developed the most comprehensive list. (1). Levels of automation range from
complete human control to complete computer control are ten:

1- The first level of automation: The human operator fixes the mission and turns it
over to the computer to implement.
2- The second Level of automation: The computer aids by defining the options.
3- The third Level of automation: The computer helps define and proposes options.
The human operator can select to follow the recommendation.
4- The fourth Level of automation: The computer chooses the deed and the human
operator selects if it should or not do.
5- The fifth Level of automation: The computer chooses the deed and outfits it if
the human operator agrees the deed.
6- The sixth Level of automation: The computer decides on the deed and notifies
the human operator in case the operator desires to withdraw the action.
7- The seventh Level of automation: The computer fixes the action and
communicates the human operator what is done.
8- The eighth Level of automation: The computer fixes the action and
communicates the human only if the human operator requests.
9- The ninth Level of automation: The computer fixes the deed when
communicated and communicates the human operator, only if the computer
selects the operator should be told.
10- The tenth Level of automation: The computer fixes the action if it chooses it
should be done. The computer communicates the human operator only if it
decides the operator should be told.(2)

Parasuraman, Sheridan, and Wickenswent (3) announce the notion of correlating levels
of automation to functions. The four-platform model of human information
processing contains:

(1)
T. B.Sheridan, W. L. Verplank., Human, and computer control of undersea tele-operators,
Cambridge, Mass: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Man-Machine Systems Laboratory. 1978
www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA057655
(2)
see the annex 1
(3)
T. B.Sheridan, W. L. Verplank., Human, and computer control of undersea tele-operators,Op.Cit.

14
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

1-Sensory processing: Refers to the acquisition and registration of multiple sources

of information. This stage includes the positioning and orienting of sensory receptors,
sensory processing, initial pre-processing of data prior to full perception, and selective
attention.
2- Perception and/or working memory:(1)Involves conscious perception, and
manipulation of processed and retrieved information in working memory. This
includes cognitive operations such as rehearsal, integration, and inference, but these
operations occur prior to the point of decision.
3-Decision making: Decisions are reached based on such cognitive processing.
4-Response selection: Involves the implementation of a response or action consistent
with the decision choice.
These functions are based on a four-stage model of human information processing and
can be translated into equivalent system functions(2):Information acquisition,
Information analysis, Decision and action selection, Action implementation.The four
functions can provide an initial categorization for types of tasks in which automation
can support the human operator.
1- Information acquisition: Automation of information acquisition applies to the
sensing and registration of input data.
2- Information analysis: Automation of information analysis involves cognitive
functions such as working memory and inferential processes.
3- Decision and action selection: This stage, decision and action selection, involves
selection from among decision alternatives.
4- Action implementation: This final stage of action implementation refers to the
actual execution of the action choice.
Levels of automation across any of the above functional types do not need to be fixed
at the system design stage. Instead, the level of automation could be designed to vary
depending on production demands during operational use.(3) Consequently, it is
important to express that “the responsibility in automatous robots depends on two
points: the level of automation, and the type of fault, or harmful behavior, because the
level of automation determine the range of human intervention in Robots, and the type
of fault determine “who is responsible; builder, designer, or user?”

2.2 THE PERSONHOOD FOR ROBOTS “FULL AUTOMATION”:

When deliberating the notion of personhood for Robots, mean considering the matter
similar to company personhood, so the making an electronic person, is a legal
literature rather than a philosophical declaration(4).

(1)
A. D. Baddeley, Working memory, Oxford Clarendon Press, 1986, p. 90
(2)
C. E. Billings, Aviation automation: The search for a human-centered approach, Mahwah, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers , 1997,p.78
(3)
T. B.Sheridan, W. L. Verplank., Human, and computer control of undersea tele-operators,Op.Cit.
(4)
J. Vincent, Giving robots ‘personhood’ is actually about making corporations accountable, online:
https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/19/14322334/robot-electronic-persons-eu-report-liability-civil-
suits , retrieved 29.2.2020

15
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

At any rate, “electronic personhood” explains the legal liability for autonomous
systems, and it considered as a baseline to establish “a causal link between the
harmful behavior of the robot and the damage suffered by the injured party” to be able
to claim compensation from a company. This is planned to discontinue companies
from shifting responsibility onto the autonomous systems themselves. So, for
example, the makers of a self-driving car can‟t claim they‟re not responsible if it
crashes just because it was driving itself at the time.(1) However, the autonomous
robots agents become so unpredictable to interrupt the causal link. So some scientists
suggests creating a legal system where robot liability is balanced with autonomy, in
another meaning; the more self-directed any system is, the more it assumes
responsibility. Nevertheless, that just raises more inquiries, as if how do you measure
autonomy in the first place, such as; if a self-driving car is taught bad driving
habits by its owner and crashes, is that still the manufacturer’s fault?, as
resolution for this question; Some of scholars recommend creating a mandatory
insurance system for autonomous robots. If a robot, or the software that controls it,
make damage, the responsible will pay into this system. If an accident occurs, the
offended party then receives compensation from the fund. That way there is less
motivation for corporations to attempt to escape responsibility(2).

2.3 THE LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR AUTONOMOUS DEGREE OF

INDUSTRIAL ROBOTICS

Acts and accountability are two adjacent conceptions; we are accountable for all of
our engagements because our conduct is directed by motives. The parallel something
happens with robots. The Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Union
expressed that the more autonomous robots considered as simple tools in the hands of
manufacturers, owners, or users. Consequently, the usual rules on liability are
inadequate.(3) This matter is fully managed by proposing two work lines. The first
one is to found a direct linkage between the robot conduct and the learned knowledge
from the owner. In this context, the owner acts an instructor role, so the extensive a
robot‟s instruction has continued, the more the accountability of its owner should be.
The second one is the opportunity to make a particular legal position for the
electronic persons, or sophisticated robots, by applying electronic personality to
suitcases where robots create smart autonomous decisions or else work together with
the third parties. (4)
Although the Committee highlights that robot, require exceptional rules, but they still
are industrial and smart mechanical tools. Therefore, Robots are machines, and all
machines can generate harms because they are poorly controlled or because they are
defecting products(5).

(1)
J. Vincent, Giving robots ‘personhood’ is actually about making corporations accountable,Op.Cit.
(2)
J. Vincent, Giving robots ‘personhood’ is actually about making corporations accountable,Op.Cit.
(3)
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0005_EN.html
(4)
G. Dekoulis, Robotics,Legal, Ethical and Socioeconomic Impacts, Intec publishing, 2017, p.63
(5)
G. Dekoulis, Robotics,Legal, Ethical and Socioeconomic Impacts,Op.Cit.,p.63

16
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

The concept of defect considers as a fundamental significance in the real decision-

making(1). So a summary of legal aspects in many regimes about liability considers
robots as products, then the introduction for diverse liability regimes relies on the
subject, concentrate on suitcases of communal liability for making for manufacturer,
designer, or the user.(2) To treat with the contests pretended by autonomous robots,
the report creates a number of proposals. These contain the following:
- Legitimately describe what “smart autonomous robots” are, so each person
identifies what we‟re talking about
- Make a central register of these robots, so everyone can know who controls and
who possesses specific robots
- Set a code of ethics for robot industrialists and scholars that reflects the respect
human rights, the privacy right, anti-discrimination, and so on
- Fund a new EU agency for AI and robotics research
- Set a new legal status for robots (electronic persons) that would bring them into
the current scheme of civil liability. (3)

Based on the above, the interrogation is; if something goes wrong with an
autonomous system, who is responsible; user “operator”, builder “manufacturer”, or
designer, and how are they held liable under existing legal schemes?, If recognizing
of “electronic persons”, or personhood for robots might essentially solve some of
these problems(4).

2.3.1 THE LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ROBOTS „PRODUCER OR

MANUFACTURER ”:
The manufacturer, or producer, as named 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(5), can mean:

1. The producer of a raw material and the manufacturer of a finished product or of a

component part
2. The importer of the product
3. Any person putting their name, trademark, or other distinguishing features on the
product
4. Any person supplying a product whose producer or importer cannot be identified
(1)
S. Whittaker, Liability for products. English Law, French Law, and European Harmonization, 1st ed.
Oxford University Press, New York, 2005. 752 p
(2)
A. Zornoza, J. C. Moreno, J. L. Guzmán, F.Rodríguez , J. Sánchez-Hermosilla, Robots Liability: A Use
Case and a Potential Solution, online: https://www.intechopen.com/books/robotics-legal-ethical-and-
socioeconomic-impacts/robots-liability-a-use-case-an, retrieved 29.2.2020
(3)
S. Whittaker, Liability for products. English Law, French Law, and European Harmonization,
Op.Cit.,p 753
(4)
A. Zornoza, J. C. Moreno, J. L. Guzmán, F.Rodríguez , J. Sánchez-Hermosilla, Robots Liability: A Use
Case and a Potential Solution,Op.Cit.,p.12
(5)
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, online;
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31985L0374

17
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

The previous diverse-identity state for “manufacturer, or producer concept,” is a

consequence of pro consummation doctrine: a mysterious manufacturer concept has
not lead to the damage for consumer caused by his products. Therefore, it has to set
the high protection for consumer against the unidentified producer. From a scientific
perspective, the robot worked through two main things: software and hardware. In
operation, it should differentiate between producer and programmer, being the first
one accountable for the completely electronic (sensors and actuators) and mechanical
parts and the second one responsible for the intern development of the robot
(education skill, decision-making procedure, image treatment,…, etc.)(1).

Formerly, and in light of the outlines of responsibility drawing by Directive

85/374/EEC, the dissimilarity between both is unrelated for the damaged person, but
for propose; setting an original type that considers; occasionally, the user can be the
programmer, the classification of the Directive could not be sufficient. The producer
can be accountable on two conducts: founded on harmful abilities of his products
(defective product); or the negligence‟ producer .A product become defective when it
does not deliver the safety which a somebody is authorized to expect, taking all
circumstances into account, including:(2)

(1) The exhibition of the product; is not promotion and packaging merely; it is how to
use the product manually, the info about components, features, manner of
utilization, and contraindications as well.
(2) The utilization to which the product could rationally be expected to work for; in
the lawful practice, this also contains designing the product to avert unsuitable
usage of conditions. As a result, it is not possible to evade the defect product
classification just conforming to the current European and national regulations
(e.g., ISO rules).
(3) The time when the product was circulated(3);

The presentation of product must be perfect and comprehensive. The injured user
must verify that the injury is actually and make happen by a deficiency in the product,
but the user does not have to demonstrate the inattention or fault of the manufacturer;
a causative relation between the damage and the defect is sufficient. Applying the
law, there are three classifications of deficiencies: first, the product does not match
up to those of its same series of manufacturing (manufacturing defect).The second
one involves of products that have a fault in its conception, so the deficiencies affect

(1)
S. Whittaker, Liability for products. English Law, French Law, and European Harmonization,
Op.Cit.,p 753
(2)
A. Zornoza, J. C. Moreno, J. L. Guzmán, F.Rodríguez , J. Sánchez-Hermosilla, Robots Liability: A Use
Case and a Potential Solution,Op.Cit.,p.12
(3)
S. Whittaker, Liability for products. English Law, French Law, and European Harmonization,
Op.Cit.,p 753

18
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

the whole series (design fault). Furthermore, third, the products have a faultless
design and manufacturing but could be possibly unsafe if the operator does not have
suitable information to use it (defect of information)(1).

Accordingly, the Council of European Convention in 1977(2) disallowed the

implementation of a private liability regime for risky products. This standard applied
later in the regulations. The dangerous product does not go to unsafe product: the
safety is concerning the treatment and consequences rising from its usage. A product
can be hazardous and safe together. Spotting this categorization, a new classification
of accountability for damages generated by a robot is not necessary. Robots will be as
insecure as manufacturers want to make them(3). Based on above; the producer create
two things; hardware “tangible parts,” software “intangible parts,”, so any defect
in manufacturing in tangible, or intangible parts hold responsibility for producer, or
manufacturer.

2.3.2 THE LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ROBOTS „DESIGNER OR

PROGRAMMER:

It required differentiating between two categories of programmers: the designer or

programmer in the appropriate sense, whose mission is to formulate the robot to be
used by the customer, and the user-programmer, who is an operator that programs
the robot with the restrictions established by the producer.

2.3.2.1 THE PROGRAMMER:

The programmer or designer will be accountable for damages make happen by robots
when the damage associated with software failures; faults or errors. A failure is an
occurrence that arises from deviation in correct service, because it does not fulfill with
the functional requirement. The error is a part of a system‟s state that may lead to a
failure. Therefore, the cause of the error is called fault(4). If an operator or user
attained a robot, any damage made by the machine is the liability of programmer.
The producer takes responsibility to own all actions and omissions by his/her staffs,
which happen during the development of their engagements. If the manufacturer hires
the programmer or designer, the assumption of liability for one or the other, but if the
programmer is exterior, the producer take responsibility his/her acts, because one of
both contributes to generate the final consequences but it has a procedural abilities:

(1)
A. Zornoza, J. C. Moreno, J. L. Guzmán, F.Rodríguez , J. Sánchez-Hermosilla, Robots Liability: A Use
Case and a Potential Solution,Op.Cit.,p.12
(2)
European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, online;
http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/COETS/1977/1.html
(3)
S. Whittaker, Liability for products. English Law, French Law, and European Harmonization,
Op.Cit.,p 753
(4)
A. Avizienis, JC. Lapire, B. Randell, C.Landwehr, Basic concepts, and taxonomy of dependable and
secure computing, IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 1(1) 2004, pp.11-33.

19
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

the producer can file an compensation cause for damages to the external
programmer(1).

2.3.2.2 THE USER-PROGRAMMER

The personalization robot is a cause for displacement of liability of risk by the user,
but this displacement does not mean an unconditional release of producer
accountability; the responsibility of producer in personalization robot, should be the
assumption that the user is not an skilled on robotics and he/she only uses the
machinery that others generate. Contrariwise, the assumption of risk by the producer
is limited to the risk that user may know. So it can say; the obligation of information
about the conditions and mode of utilization by user has a vital role hold the
responsibility for producer, or user(2).

The customized robots have a minimum knowledge on which to work, given by the
factory software. The determination responsibility for producer or programmer
requires differentiation between wrong customization-calibration and wrong basis
programming. In the case of injury caused by a personalized robot, the user would be
accountable if the damage has initiated in mistaken final programming merely.
However, if the injury had happened in any way, because of the problem in software
factory, the user would not be responsible. So the responsibility for producer or user
holds when unreasonable conduct in risk-taking exists “negligence”. Negligence is the
giving up the duty to take care, causing damage or injury to another person(3).

2.3.3 THE LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ROBOTS‟ USER

According to Directive 2011/38/EU of the European Parliament on consumer rights;

consumer means any natural person who is acting for purposes, which are outside his
trade, business, craft, or profession, and trader means any natural person or any legal
person who is acting for purposes relating to his trade, business, craft, or profession(4).
Accordingly, the consumer who got robot is involved by Consumer protection Law if
the robot damages him/her, and there is no guilt or carelessness in his/her conducts.
The liability of the owner required differentiation between the two concepts; owner
and user. The owner is the one that has bought the product. An owner has obligations

(1)
A. Avizienis, JC. Lapire, B. Randell, C.Landwehr, Basic concepts, and taxonomy of dependable and
secure computing,Op.Cit.
(2)
J. Vincent, Giving robots ‘personhood’ is actually about making corporations accountable, Op.Cit.
(3)
J. Vincent, Giving robots ‘personhood’ is actually about making corporations accountable, Op.Cit.
(4)
Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on
consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council Text with EEA relevance, online; https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32011L0083

20
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

that take account of maintenance for machine, safeguarding, and upgrading. The user
is the one who can utilize the product. Mutually can be the same one or not(1).

According to above, the previous regime explained the dependence between the
responsibility for producer, programmer, and the third party suffer a injury make
happen by the user‟s mistake, the damaged person can file the compensation cause
against the owner, and the owner can repeat the cause against the user later. Based on
the previous explanation, the owner will be always responsible for negligence.
Negligence shapes the liability regimes. Therefore, the injuries originated by robots
because of faults in design, assembly, or manufacturing usually are manufacturer‟s
accountability, but automated failures can be make happen by not maintaining the
robot in well environments, as example for negligence condition, and that is a
accountability of the owner or user; as mentioned before(2).

The previously explanation for injuries make happen by wrong customization is a

necessary requirements from user/owner-programmer, About it, the Committee marks
that abilities causing from given education to a robot should not be mixed up with
abilities depending firmly on its self-learning skills when looking for to determine the
one to whom the robot‟s injurious behavior is actually due. In this point, the
Committee attempts to direct its worry about the corrupt philosophies that the
designer has and that states through a robot. The designer is the person who provides
the instruction to the robot. Therefore, the designer is not necessarily programmer, or
user. So the “outlawed actions” for a robot should be identified as application for
Safety and legality principles that all producers have to observe, so, it must be
determined “the executed order by the robot, and the purpose for these related order.
A robot must avoid dangerous situations of abuse by the user, and the absence of
limitations at the education ability hold programmer liability, because it considers a
sign of design deficiency(3).

2.3.4 TEMPLATE FOR DISTRIBUTION‟S ROBOTS LIABILITY (TDRL):

The robots can have diverse stages of autonomy, from a low one for tele-operated
robots, to another high one for robots with the ability to learn from the atmosphere
and respond suitably. Therefore, a robot can be automated in a specific mission (e.g.,
a typical industrial missions) and has no education ability (e.g., the classical robots),
or has complete education ability and not be autonomous. Based on this suggestion,
our objective is to display a sharing liability regime that permits the wide application
to any category of automated robot, with an education capacity or not.

(1)
J. Vincent, Giving robots ‘personhood’ is actually about making corporations accountable, Op.Cit.
(2)
S. Whittaker, Liability for products. English Law, French Law, and European Harmonization, Op.Cit.,p
753
(3)
A. Zornoza, J. C. Moreno, J. L. Guzmán, F.Rodríguez , J. Sánchez-Hermosilla, Robots Liability: A Use
Case and a Potential Solution,Op.Cit.,p.12

21
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

2.3.4.1 KEY ELEMENTS:

With the intention of certify dependable outcomes, the following elements have been
determined as satisfactory and forceful to draw the template for distribution‟s robots
liability:

(1) The environmental conditions; the environmental condition that means the
certain condition in which a robot is extant, effects on the manner in which
accountability is distributed. The more sophisticated it is, the more carefulness the
producer supposes, and the more attention the owner must take. The first step, the
environmental conditions have to classify as following: determinately
environment: A determinately environment is if the subsequent state is faultlessly
expectable given the awareness of the former state and the agent‟s action.
Statically environment: Static one does not change. Knowledgeable environments:
An apparent environment is one in which the agent has contact to all info in the
environment related to its mission. Agential environment: If there is as a minimum
one other agent in the surroundings, it is a multiple-agent environment. Law
awareness environment: An environment is the agent comprehends the legal rules
that manage the environment‟s comportment. Sequential environment: Sequential
environments have need of memorial of previous actions to define the next action,
and it is opposite for discontinuous environments are a chain of one-time actions,
continuously environments: A disconnected environment has immobile locations
or time breaks. Simulation environment: In a simulated environment, a program is
used to act out an environment, provide percepts to agents, assess enactment…
etc. (1)
(2) Black box; Soundtrack method aboard of the robot is essential.
(3) Measuring device; it is pertinent to evaluate the hazards; the dissimilarity
between authoritarian liability and negligence of producer relies on the type of
chosen sensors. So, the robot‟ design must be entirely satisfactory for the odd
jobs. It is not about the excellence only but is about safety too.
(4) Machine-driven configuration; is the structure of the robot, Safety doesn‟t not a
rquired to different parts of robots merely, but it required to entire package also. A
dangerous design, such as sharp edges, may influence the hazard and injury
assessment.
(5) Education skill; the real education is the capability to obtain data and elaborate
information for achieving its missions.
(6) Levels of automation; There are numerous descriptions for levels of automation
as mentioned before.
(7) Human intervention; this elements must be observed carefully.(2)

(1)
S.J. Russell, P. Norvig, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. 2nd ed,New Jersey: Prentice Hall;
2010, p.1132
(2)
S.J. Russell, P. Norvig, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. 2nd ed,New Jersey: Prentice Hall;
2010, p.1132

22
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

Diverse categories of liability can be qualified to different elements, focusing on the

sort of injury and the environmental condition of the accident.In certain suitcases, the
last injury can be created by a chain of neglectful facts, so it will be essential to define
how considerably responsibility each has, and likewise take into attention the
autonomy of the device. The previous template hold the responsibility of the
producer, the programmer, the owner, or the user using the previous factors(1).

2.3.4.2 THE DETERMINATION OF ROBOTS RESPONSIBILITY ACCORDING

TO (TDRL):

The TDRL acts with determined and separated accidential conditions, measuring the
level of association of each elements in the accident. The accidential situation is not
an inaccessible fact, but is united with different facts whose consequence is the last
accidential event. Each of one of these factial stages, must be investigated and
measured independently. This examination for each fact permits us to differentiate
between tangible failure “hardware”, and intangible failure”software” and human
fault (2).

Sofia Robot that was in World Youth Forum 2020, is a perfect example to explain the
Robots responsibility according to (TLDR), taking in account the Sofia has the tenth
level in automation:
If any tangible parts or “ hardware” hurt anyone from audience, maybe the
manufacturer is responsible if the user doesn‟t commit any fault during the usage
stage, but if the user commit fault, such as keep the Sofia in bad environmental
condition, the user will be accountable, in this case, the level of automation doesn‟t
influence on manufacturing defects for hard parts.so the responsibility will be
between the manufacturer and user.
If any intangible parts or “software” make a damage for anyone in audience, such as
Swearing and slandering, or insulting for someone, there is a responsibility for two;
maybe program designer if he design the programs to insult and hurt the humans,
maybe program user, if he orders Sofia to insult others, in this case, the level of
automation influence the design defects, more of human intervention, more
accountability for program user, On the contrary, less of human intervention, more
user for program designer.
If Sofia makes a fault that resulted in missing the sensor that avoids risky matter, the
manufacturer will be accountable, because he must make Robots in safe status.
If Sofia misses the ability to obtain the information, or act the mission, the
accountability may be held for program designer or program user.

(1)
S.J. Russell, P. Norvig, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. 2nd ed,New Jersey: Prentice Hall;
2010, p.1132
(2)
S.J. Russell, P. Norvig, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. 2nd ed,New Jersey: Prentice Hall;
2010, p.1132

23
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

So, the more human function holds the accountability for manufacturer and user than
the program designer, otherwise, more the computer function holds the accountability
for program designer, or program user than the manufacturer, or user. Besides, any
defect in environmental conditions may hold the responsibility for a manufacturer, or
user, and missing the measuring device, such as sensor, hold responsibility for the
manufacturer directly, but bad usage for this device hold responsibility for user, but
any defect in education skill hold responsibility for program designer or program user.
finally, the black box enables us to determine” who is responsible for any defect” by
tracing the orders and the actions that work out from Robots. Based on previous, Key
elements are the main factors for determining how is responsible compensation before
the injured person.

24
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

SECTION 3
CONCLUSIONs
1- The historical frame proves that the Robots were known in the ancient, modern
era, so, it was not new, ancient people utilized the robots to serve daily work, and
govern them with ethics code.
2- The first known legal rule is those documented by Isaac Asimov in the 1940s.
3- There no international conventions concern Robots directly, the latest convention
thinks through the Robots as data that has to care for.
4- Ten levels of automation range from complete human control to complete
computer control
5- The Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Union stated that the robots
represented as outfits in the hands of users, designers,or manufacturers.
6- The producer generates two belongings; “tangible parts “intangible parts,”, so any
fault in manufacturing in tangible, or intangible ones hold responsibility for
producer, or manufacturer.
7- The differentiation between two categories of programmers is required: the
program-designer, who design the programs for robots to act the missions, and the
user-programmer, who is a machinist that programs of a robot with the restrictions
established by the producer.
8- A robot must evade risky situations by the user, and the miss of limits at the
education ability hold program-designer liability because it considers a sign of
design defects.
9- There are seven key elements have been determined as satisfactory and forceful
factors to draw the template for distribution‟s robots liability, and enable the legal
researchers to determine “who is responsible before damaged person”?, these
elements are; The environmental conditions, Black box, Measuring device,
Machine-driven configuration, Education skill, Levels of automation, Human
intervention.
10- Varied classes of liability can be qualified to diverse key-elements, concentrating
on the type of injury and the atmosphere of the accident. In some suitcases, the
latest damage can be formed by a series of careless facts, so it will be critical to
outline how considerably responsibility each has, and likewise take into attention
the autonomy of the device.
11- The template for distribution‟s robot liability (TDRL): hold the responsibility of
the producer, the programmer, the owner, or the user using the previous factors.
The TDRL acts with determined and separated accidental conditions, measuring
the level of association of each element in the accident.

25
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

Annex 1
The level of automation Human functions
Level one 1- Attain options
2- choose action
3- begin action
Level two 1- Attain options
3- choose action
4-begin action
Level three 1- Attain options
3-demand ,choose action
5-begin actions
Computer functions
4- perform commands
2- Acquire options
5- perform commands
2-Acquire options
4-choose actions
6- perform commands

Level four 1- Attain options 2- acquire options

3-demand, choose action 4- choose actions
5-confirm, choose actions 7- perform commands
6- begin actions “ if the
human confirm”
Level five 1- Attain options 2-Acquire options
2- Demand, choose action 4- choose actions
5-confirm ,choose actions 6- begin action if the human
aconfirm
Level six 1- Attain options 2-acquire options
3- demand, choose action 4- choose actions
5-confirm, choose actions 6- begin action if the human
rejected in a set time
Level seven 1- demand ,choose action 2- Acquire options
3- choose actions
4- begin action
5- expresses action to
human
Level eight 1- demand, choose action 2-Acquire options
5-demand express actions 3-choose actions
4-begin action
6-express action to human, if
human demand
Level nine 1-demand ,choose action 2-Acquire options
3-choose actions
4-begin action
5-express action to human, if
computer confirms
Level ten 1- demand, choose action 2-Acquire options
3-choose actions
4-begin action, if computer
confirms
5-tells action to human, if
computer approves

26
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

REFERENCES
(1) The Articles:

A. Avizienis, JC. Lapire, B. Randell, C.Landwehr

- Basic concepts, and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing, IEEE
Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 1(1) 2004
A. D. Baddeley
- Working memory, Oxford Clarendon Press, 1986
A. Isaac, F.Karen
- Robots: Machines in Man‟s Image, New York: Harmony Books, 1985
- In Joy Still Felt, Doubleday edition, 1980

A.Goody
- Technology, Literature and Culture: Themes in twentieth and twenty-first century
literature and culture, Polity edition, 2011
A. Mattelart
- The Invention of Communication. University of Minnesota Press, 1996
A. Mayor
- Gods and Robots: Myths, Machines, and Ancient Dreams of Technology,
Princeton University Press, 2018.
A. Krishnan, Killer Robots
- Legality and Ethicality of Autonomous Weapons, Routledge edition, ,2016
As. K. Hemal & M. Menon
- Robotics in Genitourinary Surgery. Springer, 2018
A. Zornoza, J. C. Moreno, J. L. Guzmán, F.Rodríguez , J. Sánchez-Hermosilla
- Robots Liability: A Use Case and a Potential Solution, online:
https://www.intechopen.com/books/robotics-legal-ethical-and socioeconomic-
impacts/robots-liability-a-use-case-an
C. Adam
- The History of Robotics, Archived from the original on 18 July 2006
C. Nick
- Researchers make a million tiny robots, Cosmos Magazine, 2019

C. E. Billings
- Aviation automation: The search for a human-centered approach, Mahwah,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers , 1997

D.Levine Gera
- Ancient Greek Ideas on Speech, Language, and Civilization, 2003

D. Hill
- Mechanical Engineering in the Medieval Near East", Scientific American, May,
1991

27
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

G. Dekoulis
- Robotics,Legal, Ethical and Socioeconomic Impacts, Intec publishing, 2017

G. Maspero
- Manual of Egyptian Archaeology: A Guide to the Studies of Antiquities in Egypt,
BoD, 2009

G. Olivi
- Robots and Liability: who is to blame?,
https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/articles/2018/december/20/robots-and-
liability , retrieved 1.2.2020.
H.R. Turner
- Science in Medieval Islam: An Illustrated Introduction, University of Texas Press,
1997
J. Vincent
- Giving robots „personhood‟ is actually about making corporations accountable,
online https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/19/14322334/ robot-electronic-persons-
eu-report-liability-civil-suits , retrieved 29.2.2020

K. LaGrandeur
- Androids and Intelligent Networks in Early Modern Literature and Culture:
Artificial Slaves. Routledge. 2013
L. Nocks
- The Robot: The Life Story of a Technology. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006
L. Sylvia
- The Medieval Garden. New York: Thames and Hudson edition, 1995
M. Michael E.
- The da Vinci robot". Journal of Endourology, 20 (12), December 2006
P. Joseph F.
- The Science Fiction of Isaac Asimov, Doubleday edition, 1974
R. Littlejohn, J. Dippmann
- Riding the Wind with Liezi: New Perspectives on the Daoist Classic. SUNY
Press. , 2011.
R. Mark E.
- Robot Evolution: The Development of Anthrobotics, Wiley-IEEE, 1994
S. Jon
- Ready for the robot revolution?, BBC News, Principles of robotics: Regulating
Robots in the Real World, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council,
Retrieved 2011-10-03
S.J. Russell, P. Norvig
- Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. 2nd ed,New Jersey: Prentice Hall;
2010
S. Whittaker
- Liability for products. English Law, French Law, and European Harmonization,
1st ed. Oxford University Press, New York, 2005

28
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

T. B.Sheridan, W. L. Verplank.
- Human, and computer control of undersea tele-operators, Cambridge, Mass:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Man-Machine Systems Laboratory. 1978
www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA057655
T. Elly R.
- The Garden of Earthly Delights: Mahaut of Artois and the Automata at Hesdin".
Iowa Research Online, University of Iowa. 2018.

T. Kanade
- Collection: Envisioning Robotics, Direct Drive Robotic Arms, 2007.
T. N. Hornyak.
- Loving the Machine: The Art and Science of Japanese Robots, Kodansha
International,2006.
W. Martyn
- Technology – Sony unveils prototype humanoid robot, 2000, CNN, Archived
from the original on 12 October 2007.
W. Alan
- Five rob ethical principles for humans, New Scientist edition, 2011

(2) The Directives:

- 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, online at; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal
- Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3
December 2001 on general product safety, online at; https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-
- Directive 2014/53/eu of the European parliament on the harmonization of the laws
of the member states relating to the making available on the market of radio
equipment, online at; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/GA/TXT/?uri=celex:32014L0053
- Directive 2014/30/eu of the European parliament on the harmonization of the
laws of the Member States relating to electromagnetic compatibility, online at;
https://eur-lex.europa.eu
- 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, online; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/GA/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31985L0374
- Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25
October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and
Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and
repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council Text with EEA relevance, online; https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32011L0083

(3) The regulations:

- regulation (eu) 2016/679 of the European parliament and of the council of 27
April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of
personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing directive
95/46/ec, online at; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj

29
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa Faculty member in Law & policy faculty Van Holland University

(4) The international conventions:

- European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, online;

http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/COETS/1977/1.html

(5) The websites:

- https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0005 _EN .html

(6) The Journals

- Saudi Arabia gives citizenship to a non-Muslim, English-Speaking robot",

Newsweek, 26 October 2017.

30