About this service
Artificial-intelligence systems are steadily entering financial, medical, industrial, transport and everyday processes, and this naturally raises a practical question: who answers, and under which rules, for the harm such a system causes to a person, their property or their business. Georgian law does not yet have a separate statute governing harm caused by artificial intelligence, so disputes of this kind are assessed under the general norms of the Civil Code — the rules on tort liability, employer liability for employees, joint and several liability, and producer liability for defective products. It is from these norms that the answers flow: who is obliged to compensate the damage, which circumstances release that party from the obligation, and how responsibility is allocated among several participants in the system's lifecycle. Our team assists both injured parties in preparing a compensation claim and technology companies in assessing damage risks and building a defence position.
General tort liability — the foundation of every claim
Article 992 of the Civil Code states the basic rule: a person who causes damage to another person by an unlawful, intentional or negligent act is obliged to compensate that damage. In the context of artificial intelligence this means that where the operator or user of a system acts unlawfully in deploying it and another person suffers harm as a result, an obligation to compensate arises. The law recognises the act both in intentional and in negligent form, which is especially important for technology cases: most technology-related damage arises precisely through carelessness — improper use of the system, leaving outputs unverified, or ignoring an obvious risk. That is why, in litigating such disputes, the decisive questions are who used the system, in what manner, and with what kind of verification of its results.
Liability for the acts of an employee — when a person uses the system in the course of employment
Article 997 of the Civil Code governs the situation where the harm is caused not by the organisation itself but by its worker: a person is obliged to compensate damage inflicted on a third party by the unlawful act of its worker in the performance of that worker's labour (service) duties. This rule directly affects the workplace use of artificial intelligence: if an employee relies on the system's output when making a decision and a third party consequently suffers harm, the claim may be brought against the employing organisation itself. At the same time the law draws an important boundary: liability is not established if the worker acted without fault. Proving this point often becomes the most contested part of the dispute and requires assembling facts showing to what extent the employee could have foreseen the outcome and what degree of verification the situation demanded of them.