Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Legal aspects of decision-enhancing technologies

  • Feature Articles
  • Published:
Knowledge and Policy

Abstract

As advances in computer-based systems (CBS) have continued, development problems can occur which can adversely affect systems developers and users of these technologies, especially those designed to improve or affect decision making. One major difficulty concerns the legal liability that can occur as a result of defective or flawed systems development efforts. This article discusses several types of decision-enhancing technologies and how problems associated with the adequacy of testing of system design and appropriateness of warnings and directions/instructions dealing with CBS could adversely affect CBS developers from a legal perspective. Several propositions and suggested research perspectives are also presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Jeppesen & Co., 642 F.2d 339, 342, (9th Cir. 1981).

  • Birnbaum, L.N. (1988). Strict products liability and computer software.Computer/Law Journal, VIII, 135–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonczek, R.H., Holsapple, C., and Whinston, A. (1981).Foundations of decision support systems. New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brannigan, A. and Dayhoff, J. (1981). Liability for personal injuries caused by defective medical computer programs.American Journal of Law and Medicine, 7:123–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brocklesby v. United States, 767 F.2d 1288 (1985).

  • Cancer patients received wrong therapy, inquiry finds. (September 30, 1993). Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, Section A, 12.

  • Cole, G.S. (1990). Tort liability for artificial intelligence and expert systems.Computer/Law Journal, X(2), 127–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp., 104 Cal. Rptr. 437 (1972).

  • DeSanctis, G. (1984). Computer graphics as decision aids: Directions for research.Decision Sciences, 15 (4), 463–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis, G. and Gallupe, R.B. (1987). A foundation for the study of group decision support systems.Management Science, 33 (5), 589–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, H.L. and Dreyfus, S.E. (1986).Mind over machine—The power of human intuition and expertise. New York, NY: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gemignani, M.C. (1989).A legal guide to EDP management. New York, NY: Quorum Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagendorf, W. (1990). Bulls & bears & bugs: Computer investment advisory programs that go awry.Computer/Law Journal, X(1), 47–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helling v. Carey, 83 Wash. 2d 514, 519, 519 P.2d 981, 983 (1974).

  • Holtzman, S. (1989).Intelligent decision systems. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G.F. (1983). Cognitive style as a basis for MIS and DSS designs: Much ado about nothing.Management Science, 29 (5), 567–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyce, E. (1987). Software bugs: A matter of life and liability.Datamation, 33 (10), 6–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamberti, D. and Wallace W. (1990). Intelligent interface design: An empirical assessment of knowledge presentation in expert systems.MIS Quarterly, 14 (3), 279–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lautsch, J.C. (1985).American standard handbook of software law. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madden, M.S. (1988). The duty to warn in products liability: Contours and criticism.Journal of Products Liability, 11:103–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messina, J. (1983). The human factors expert.Trial Lawyers Quarterly 15 (12), 56–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Micallef v. Miehle Co., 348 N.E.2d 571 (N.Y. 1976)

  • Moran v. Faberge, Inc. 332 A.2d 11 (Md. 1975).

  • Mykytyn, K., Mykytyn, P., and Lunce, S. (1993).Expert identification and selection: Issues and ramifications. Proceedings of the Decision Sciences Institute Annual Meeting. Washington, D.C.: Decision Sciences Institute, 639–641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mykytyn, K., Mykytyn, P., and Slinkman, C. (1990). Expert systems: A question of liability?MIS Quarterly, 14 (1), 27–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nycum, S. (1979). Liability for malfunction of a computer program.Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal, 7 (1), 11–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragsdale Bros., Inc. v. Magro, 693 S.W.2d 530 (Tex. Civ. App. 1985).

  • Restatement (Second) of Torts. (1965). American Law Institute, St. Paul, MN.

  • Samuelson, P. (1993). Liability for defective electronic information.Communications of the ACM, 36 (1), 21–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schell v. AMF, Inc., 567 F.2d 1259 (3d Cir. 1977).

  • Silver, M.S. (1991). Decisional guidance for computer-based decision support.MIS Quarterly, 15 (1), 105–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spruill v. Boyle-Midway Inc., 308 F.2d 79 (4th Cir. 1962).

  • Stapleton v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Ltd., 608 F.2d 571 (5th Cir. 1979).

  • Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. v. Day, 594 P.2d 38 (Alaska 1979).

  • Taylor, R. (1984).Behavioral decision making. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torres v. North American Van Lines, Inc., 135 Ariz. 35, 658 P.2d 835 (Ct. App. 1982).

  • Turban, E. and Watkins, P. (1986). Integrating expert systems and decision support systems.MIS Quarterly, 10 (2), 121–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyde, J. (1990). Medical computer software: RX for deadly errors.Software Law Journal, IV (1), 117–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vitalari, N. and Schenk, K. (1989).An examination of the cognitive limits of novice systems analysts. Working Paper, Irvine, CA: Graduate School of Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallinger v. Martin Stamping and Stove Cp., 236 N.E.2d 755 (Ill. App. 1968).

  • 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 Computer and Technology Law Journal, 12 (1), 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Texas at Arlington, Box 19437, 76019, Arlington, TX

    Peter P. Mykytyn (associate professor of information systems)

Authors
  1. Peter P. Mykytyn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kathleen Mykytyn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

He received his Ph.D. in computer information systems from Arizona State University. His research interests include the impact on organizations and individuals of information systems and the potential legal liability to systems developers brought about by defective computer-based systems. His research has appeared inMIS Quarterly, Information & Management, AI Expert, AI & Society, Educational andPsychological Measurement andInformation Resources Management Journal.

Kathleen Mykytyn is a consultant and research specializing in the impact of information systems and technologies on individuals and organizations. Her research has been published inMIS Quarterly, AI & Society, AI Expert, andInformation & Management.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mykytyn, P.P., Mykytyn, K. Legal aspects of decision-enhancing technologies. Knowledge and Policy 7, 3–17 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02692768

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02692768

Keywords

Search

Navigation