Abstract
This paper examines some of the possible legal implications of the production, marketing and use of expert systems. The relevance of a legally useful definition of expert systems, comprising systems designed for use both by laymen and professionals, is related to the distinctions inherent in the legal doctrine underlying provision of goods and provision of services. The liability of the sellers and users of, and contributors to, expert systems are examined in terms of professional malpractice as well as product liability. A recurring theme indicates that legislators may be inclined to restrict possibilities of liability suits in order to avoid disincentives to the creation of expert systems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References and Notes
Niblett, B. (1981). Expert Systems for Lawyers,Computers and Law 29 (August): 3.
Ibid. p. 4.
See, for example, decision in La Rossa v. Scientific Design Co.: Professional services do not ordinarily lend themselves to the doctrine of tort liability without fault because they lack the elements which give rise to the doctrine. There is no mass production of goods or a large body of distant customers whom it would be unfair to require to trace the article they used along the channels of trade to the original manufacturer and there to pinpoint an act of negligence remote from their knowledge and even from their ability to inquire. Thus, professional services form a marked contrast to consumer product cases and even in those jurisdictions which have adopted a rule of strict products liability a majority of decisions have declined to apply it to professional services. (402 F.2d 937, 942 (3rd Cir. 1968). For a concise outline of the applicable parts of the US law of tort see Scott M. D. (1985) Negligence and Related Tort Remedies for Hardware and Software Malfunctions.Computer Law and Practice 1(5): 165–168.
Susskind, R. E. (1986). Expert Systems in Law: A Jurisprudential Approach to Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning.Modern Law Review March, p. 178.
Willick, M. S. (1986). Professional Malpractice and the Unauthorized Practice of Professions: Some Legal and Ethical Aspects of the Use of Computers as Decision-Aids.Rutgers Computers and Technology Law Journal. Vol 12: 1–32
See, for example, Leith's pessimism over the prospects of legal expert systems: “I would like to suggest that we are no nearer to producing computer-based intelligent legal expert systems than we were before the introduction of the computer itself”. Leith P. (1986) Legal Expert Systems: Misunderstanding the Legal Process.Computers and Law 49 (September).
E.g. Books like Zagone, F. (1979).How to Adopt Your Stepchild in California. Kits like Grumet, R. (1982).How to Do Your Own Divorce in Nevada. Willick, M. S., op. cit. p. 27.
At least one company has already entered this promising market. Lassen Software, Inc., of Chico, California, marketsThe Home Attorney a set of programs that generates documents, such as wills and promissory notes, on the basis of answers to a series of yes/no questions put to the program's non-professional users. Ibid.
Insofar as management and other corporate executives may be described as “non-professionals”. There has traditionally been a great deal of argument as to who can call himself a professional, and some have even advocated the categorization of occupations into professions, quasi-professions and non-professions. For our purposes here, what is important is that this system is not intended to be used by legal practitioners to seek expert advice but rather by non-lawers. “Employment Law: Clarifying Dismissal is aimed primarily at company executives who do not have immediate access to full-time personnel professionals”.Computers and Law (1986) 49 (September): 4.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Willick, M. S., op. cit. p. 31.
Ibid. p. 5.
Nimmer, R. and Krauthaus, P. A. (1986). Computer Error and User Liability Risk.Jurimetrics 26(2): 123–124.
Gagne vs.Gertran, 43 Cal.2d 481, 489 275 P.2d 15, 21 (1954). US.
Campbell, J. A. (1984). The expert computer and professional negligence: who is liable? In Yazdani, M. and Narayanan, A.Artificial Intelligence: Human Effects. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, p. 47.
Willick, M. S., op. cit. p. 13.
Ibid. p. 21.
Scott, M., op. cit. pp. 167–168.
Mylott, T. R. (1986). Computer Professional Malpractice.Santa Clara Computer and High-Technology Law Journal 2: 239.
Willick, M. S., op. cit. ( p. 20.
Ibid.
Campbell, J.A., op. cit. ( p. 49.
See for example exposition in Scott, M., op. cit. ( p. 166.
Brown, C. M. (1986). Liability for the Supply of Defective Software.Computer Law and Practice September/October, p. 5.
Ibid. p. 10.
Department of Trade and Industry (1985). Implementation of EEC Directive on Product Liability. An Explanatory and Consultative Note. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.
Ibid.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cannataci, J.A. Law, liability and expert systems. AI & Soc 3, 169–183 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01891428
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01891428