Autonomous robot liability: the legal framework
Autonomous robots — self-driving machines, industrial manipulators, service robots — act in the physical world and can cause damage. Georgia has no statute specifically devoted to robots, and this does not mean a legal vacuum: such damage is assessed under the norms of the Georgian Civil Code on defective products, which regulate the producer's liability. This page examines how this framework works for devices in which decisions are taken by software.
The anchor norm is Article 1009 of the Civil Code: the producer of a defective product is liable for damage caused by that product, regardless of whether he was in a contractual relationship with the injured party. This is an important detail: the producer of a robot that caused damage may have no relationship with the injured person — liability still exists if the product is defective.
What a defective product is and what the concept of product includes
Under Article 1010, a product is deemed defective where it does not provide the safety which, taking all circumstances into account, was to be expected of it. The same article specifies: a product is not deemed defective merely because a better product was later put into circulation. For an autonomous robot, the assessment of safety is determined precisely by the functionality the device had at the relevant time.
Article 1011 defines the concept of product broadly: a product is every movable thing and service connected with a thing, even if that thing is a component part of another movable or immovable thing. This means that a software-controlled device, its components and the services connected with it fall together within this framework. A producer is deemed to be the person who manufactured the final product, a basic element or a part of the product; also everyone who presents himself as a producer under his own name or distinguishing mark.
Where establishing the identity of the producer is impossible, every supplier is deemed a producer, unless he presents the producer, or the person who supplied him the product, to the injured party within 1 month of the request.
When the producer is released from liability
The first paragraph of Article 1009 names five exceptions: the producer is not liable where he did not put the product into circulation; where it may be presumed that the defect did not exist at the time of putting into circulation; where the product was not manufactured for sale or within his professional activity; where the defect corresponded to the norms in force at the time the product was put into circulation; or where the defect could not have been discovered taking into account the state of science and technology at that time.
The last exception is particularly significant for autonomous systems: justifying a software error, algorithmic behaviour or sensor limitation works only if the defect was undiscoverable at the contemporary state of science and technology. In addition, the producer's obligation is reduced or excluded where the damage was caused by the culpable act of the injured party or of a person responsible for him — but it is not reduced where the damage was caused simultaneously by the defect of the product and by the act of a third party.
The burden of proof and the prohibition of pre-agreed exclusion
Article 1012 determines the burden of proof: in liability for damage caused by a defective product, the burden of proof lies on the injured party. This means that the injured person must prove both the damage and its connection with the defect of the product — and it is here that technical expertise and documentation become decisive.
Article 1016 is one of the strictest guarantees: the producer's liability for damage caused by a defective product may not be excluded or limited in advance. A contrary agreement is void. In other words, a clause of the type "the producer is not liable for software errors" written into a contract for the purchase of an autonomous robot acquires no legal force.
Frequently Asked Questions
Below are frequent questions on autonomous-robot liability.
Who is deemed a producer?
The person who produced the final product, a basic element or a part; also anyone presenting themselves as producer under their own name or trademark, and a person who supplies the product for sale, hiring or another form, for economic purposes. Where the producer cannot be identified, every supplier is deemed the producer unless, within 1 month of the demand, it presents the producer or its own supplier to the victim.
When is a product not defective?
Where, taking all circumstances into account, it provides the safety that could be expected of it; a product does not become defective merely because a better product was later put into circulation.
What if the harm results from the victim’s own fault?
The producer’s obligation to compensate is reduced or excluded; but where the harm is caused simultaneously by the defect of the product, the liability is not reduced.
How We Help on Legal.ge
The liability of individual components also deserves attention. Under the second paragraph of Article 1009, the liability of the producer of a part of a product is excluded where the defect is caused by the construction of the product of which that part became a component. In autonomous systems, where software, sensors and mechanics come from different producers, this norm sets the starting point for the distribution of liability: first it is established which component caused the defect, and then who its producer is under the interpretation of Article 1011. For producers: documenting what safety the product's purpose requires; recording testing experience; controlling updates. For consumers and businesses: timely fixing of damage, obtaining a technical conclusion and submitting a claim. The Legal.ge team will help both with preparing a damages claim and with defending the producer's position within the legal framework of defective products.