Torts Commons^™

The Road To Autonomy, Michelle Sellwood

San Diego Law Review

[T]his Comment discusses the background of AI and robotics, the technology behind the autonomous vehicle, and the evolution of products liability laws. Part III examines current regulations, the benefits of autonomous technology, and the need for a definitive liability framework. Part IV discusses why current tort liability laws will be ineffective in governing autonomous vehicle liability by examining the shift in liability from the driver to the owner and manufacturer. Part V proposes a short-term solution by attributing liability to the programmer, while software is still hard-coded. Finally, Part VI explores legal personhood, and proposes that the autonomous vehicle be …

"The Wrong Approach At The Wrong Time?": Maine Adopts Strict Liability For Abnormally Dangerous Activities In Dyer V. Maine Drilling And Blasting, Inc., Matthew M. Cobb

Maine Law Review

In 2009, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, held in Dyer v. Maine Drilling and Blasting, Inc. that strict liability should be applied to abnormally dangerous activities in accordance with the Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 519-20. In doing so, the court expressly overruled its decision in Reynolds v. W.H. Hinman Co., which had rejected a strict liability approach to blasting cases in favor of a negligence-based standard. In Dyer, a majority of the Law Court vacated the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for Maine Drilling and Blasting, Inc. (Maine Drilling) and held that strict …

Toward The Search For The Proper Liability Rule For Harms Resulting From Sources Of Risk: A Different Approach To The Choice Between Strict Liability And Fault-Based Regime, Wen-Hsuan Yang

Maurer Theses and Dissertations

An important issue in Taiwan today concerns the rising tension between strict liability and negligence. Article 191-3 of the Civil Code of Taiwan imposes a fault-based standard of liability on persons conducting dangerous activities. On the other hand, the majority of scholars believe that to afford greater protection, this rule should be changed into a strict liability rule.

Traditionally, three arguments make it preferable to impose strict liability under certain circumstances. First, strict liability induces more safety incentives on the part of the defendant. Second, fairness requires that one who benefits from conducting dangerous activities should bear the risk of …

The Jewel In The Crown: Can India’S Strict Liability Doctrine Deepen Our Understanding Of Tort Law Theory?, Deepa Badrinarayana

Deepa Badrinarayana