Robotics Reference
In-Depth Information
safety implications for humans, for example autopilots in aircraft. Au-
topilots are flying robots, controlling the flaps and ailerons on aircraft.
The legal issue at stake in a number of court cases revolves around the
question of who (or what) has the better judgement, robots or human
pilots, in certain situations that arise during a flight? In one case in the
U.S.A., the court found that although a pilot is not
required
to use the
autopilot when landing, his failure to do so may be inconsistent with
good operating procedure and may be evidence of a failure of due care.
In another case the court inferred negligence on the part of the human
pilot because he switched from using the automatic pilot and took over
manual control in a crisis situation. These cases are based on the recog-
nition that robot judgment can be superior to human judgment in any
legal capacity. In both these cases human pilots were deemed negligent
for not following the advice of the robot and for not surrendering control
of the aircraft to it.
The legal system in the U.S.A. was first put to the test in its ability
to deal with the apportionment of responsibility for such offences more
than a quarter of a century ago. On 25 January 1979 Robert Williams,
an employee of the Ford Motor Company's Flat Rock casting plant in
Michigan, was one of three men who operated an electronic system for
retrieving motor car parts from a storage area for use in an assembly
process. The robot system was made by a company called Unit Han-
dling, which was a division of Litton Industries. Williams was asked to
climb into a storage rack to retrieve some parts because the robotic sys-
tem was malfunctioning at the time and not operating fast enough. But
the robot continued to move its arm and a protruding segment of its arm
smashed into Williams' head, killing him instantly. The robot continued
to operate for a further 30 minutes while Williams lay dead, until his
body was discovered by his fellow workers.
The robot in this case had apparently not been programmed to take
human frailty into account, nor did it appear to have a sufficient sense
of sight to detect Williams' proximity to it. Robotic law might require
something similar to Asimov's First Law of Robotics to be programmed
into all robots, or even implemented in their hardware, in order to avoid
the possibility of erasing this safety net. When the case came to court,
Williams' family was awarded $10 million in damages, believed at the
time to be the largest personal injury award ever in the state of Michigan.
Once robots begin to program themselves and to re-program them-
selves according to what they observe going on around them, or as a
