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.
Joint and several liability — when several persons participate in causing the damage
An artificial-intelligence system is rarely the product and the operation of a single person: its creation typically involves the developer, the party operating the model, an integration partner and the end user. Article 998 of the Civil Code gives this situation a clear answer: where several persons participate in causing the damage, they answer as joint and several debtors. Liability for the damage falls not only on the person who directly caused it, but also on the one who instigated or facilitated it, as well as on the one who knowingly took advantage of the damage caused to another. For the injured party this means that full compensation may be demanded from any one of the participants, who in turn retains the possibility of settling accounts with the others. For companies deploying such systems, the rule demands an honest risk assessment: involvement in the chain does not, by itself, shield them from damage caused by others.
Producer liability for a defective product
A special rule applies where the harm is caused by a flaw in the system itself. Under Article 1009 of the Civil Code, the producer of a defective product is liable for damage caused by that product regardless of whether it stood in a contractual relationship with the injured party. Where an artificial-intelligence system, or the software embedded in it, is placed on the market, this norm significantly protects the injured person: a direct contract with the system's creator often does not exist, yet the claim may still be directed against the producer. At the same time, the law enumerates the circumstances that release the producer from liability.
The producer is released from liability if:
- it has not put the product into circulation;
- it may be presumed from the circumstances of the case that the defect which caused the damage was not present in the product when it was put into circulation;
- the producer neither manufactured the product for sale or another commercial purpose nor within the framework of its professional activity;
- the defect of the product corresponded, at the moment it was put into circulation, to the norms in force at that time;
- it was impossible to discover the defect given the state of scientific and technical knowledge existing when the product was put into circulation.
A separate provision addresses the position of the producer of a component part: that producer's liability is likewise excluded where the defect is caused by the construction of the product into which the component was incorporated. For artificial-intelligence systems this question is particularly sensitive, because a system often operates through the integration of one model into another service, and the source of the harm may be precisely the integration architecture or a defect in the assembly of the final product rather than the individual component.
When the obligation to compensate is reduced or excluded
The producer's obligation to compensate damage is reduced or entirely excluded where the damage was caused by the culpable conduct of the injured party or of the person responsible for them. In other words, if the injured party itself violated the rules of use of the system or acted in the face of a known risk, this may affect the amount of compensation or the very existence of the obligation. The law nonetheless contains one significant limitation: the producer's liability is not reduced where the damage is caused simultaneously by a defect of the product and by the act of a third party. In such cases of concurrence of causes the producer continues to answer in full, which strengthens the injured party's position.
How we can help
Our specialists will help you examine the factual circumstances of the damage, identify the responsible party and select the appropriate legal basis — from the general tort rule to producer liability for a defective product. We will prepare a formal claim or a statement of claim for the court, assist in systematising the evidence and in substantiating the amount of the damage. For technology companies we conduct damage-risk assessments, explain which contractual and operational constructions trigger which form of liability, and offer recommendations on structuring agreements and internal processes. Contact us and at the very first meeting you will receive a concrete legal assessment of your situation.