Intersection of artificial intelligence and medicine: tort liability in the technological age

Kyle T. Jorstad

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/jmai-20-57

2020-12-01

Journal of Medical Artificial Intelligence

Abstract:Intersection of artificial intelligence and medicine: tort liability in the technological age

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Are Current Tort Liability Doctrines Adequate for Addressing Injury Caused by AI?

Hannah R Sullivan,Scott J Schweikart

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2019.160

2019-02-01

AMA Journal of Ethics

Abstract:As capabilities of predictive algorithms improve, machine learning will become an important element of physician practice and patient care. Implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) raises complex legal questions regarding health care professionals' and technology manufacturers' liability, particularly if they cannot explain recommendations generated by AI technology. The limited literature on liability for innovation provides opportunities to consider possible implications of AI for medical malpractice and products liability and new legal solutions for addressing liability issues surrounding "black-box" medicine.
Liability for harm caused by AI in healthcare: an overview of the core legal concepts

Dane Bottomley,Donrich Thaldar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2023.1297353

2023-12-14

Abstract:The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into healthcare in Africa presents transformative opportunities but also raises profound legal challenges, especially concerning liability. As AI becomes more autonomous, determining who or what is responsible when things go wrong becomes ambiguous. This article aims to review the legal concepts relevant to the issue of liability for harm caused by AI in healthcare. While some suggest attributing legal personhood to AI as a potential solution, the feasibility of this remains controversial. The principal-agent relationship, where the physician is held responsible for AI decisions, risks reducing the adoption of AI tools due to potential liabilities. Similarly, using product law to establish liability is problematic because of the dynamic learning nature of AI, which deviates from static products. This fluidity complicates traditional definitions of product defects and, by extension, where responsibility lies. Exploring alternatives, risk-based determinations of liability, which focus on potential hazards rather than on specific fault assignments, emerges as a potential pathway. However, these, too, present challenges in assigning accountability. Strict liability has been proposed as another avenue. It can simplify the compensation process for victims by focusing on the harm rather than on the fault. Yet, concerns arise over the economic impact on stakeholders, the potential for unjust reputational damage, and the feasibility of a global application. Instead of approaches based on liability, reconciliation holds much promise to facilitate regulatory sandboxes. In conclusion, while the integration of AI systems into healthcare holds vast potential, it necessitates a re-evaluation of our legal frameworks. The central challenge is how to adapt traditional concepts of liability to the novel and unpredictable nature of AI-or to move away from liability towards reconciliation. Future discussions and research must navigate these complex waters and seek solutions that ensure both progress and protection.
The difficult role of Artificial Intelligence in Medical Liability: to err is not only human

P Tozzo,F Angiola,A Gabbin,C Politi,L Caenazzo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7417/CT.2021.2372

2021-11-22

Abstract:The entrance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a new actor in the doctor-patient relationship has encouraged important legal and ethi-cal considerations among the experts. On the one hand, there is the request to establish a new and dedicated legal background involving AI and AI-related technologies, while others believe there is no need to add new laws in the attempt to define AI's role in healthcare. The aim of this paper is to analyse the possible role of AI in civil liability in healthcare practice, underlining its limits of autonomy in a field where the attribution of liability cannot be uncertain.
The future of artificial intelligence in medicine: Medical-legal considerations for health leaders

Sunam Jassar,Scott J. Adams,Amy Zarzeczny,Brent E. Burbridge

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/08404704221082069

2022-03-31

Healthcare Management Forum

Abstract:Artificial Intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly common in healthcare and has potential to improve the efficiency and quality of healthcare services. As the utility of AI expands, medical-legal questions arise regarding the possible legal implications of incorporating AI into clinical practice. Particularly, the unique black box nature of AI brings distinct challenges. There is limited guidance addressing liability when AI is used in clinical practice, and traditional legal principles present limitations when applied to novel uses of AI. Comprehensive solutions to address the challenges of AI have not been well established in North America. As AI continues to evolve in healthcare, appropriate guidance from professional regulatory bodies may help the medical field realize AI’s utility and encourage its safe use. As the options for AI in medicine evolve, physicians and health leaders would be prudent to consider the evolving medical-legal context regarding use of AI in clinical practices and facilities.
Liability of Health Professionals Using Sensors, Telemedicine and Artificial Intelligence for Remote Healthcare

Marie Geny,Emmanuel Andres,Samy Talha,Bernard Geny

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/s24113491

IF: 3.9

2024-05-29

Sensors

Abstract:In the last few decades, there has been an ongoing transformation of our healthcare system with larger use of sensors for remote care and artificial intelligence (AI) tools. In particular, sensors improved by new algorithms with learning capabilities have proven their value for better patient care. Sensors and AI systems are no longer only non-autonomous devices such as the ones used in radiology or surgical robots; there are novel tools with a certain degree of autonomy aiming to largely modulate the medical decision. Thus, there will be situations in which the doctor is the one making the decision and has the final say and other cases in which the doctor might only apply the decision presented by the autonomous device. As those are two hugely different situations, they should not be treated the same way, and different liability rules should apply. Despite a real interest in the promise of sensors and AI in medicine, doctors and patients are reluctant to use it. One important reason is a lack clear definition of liability. Nobody wants to be at fault, or even prosecuted, because they followed the advice from an AI system, notably when it has not been perfectly adapted to a specific patient. Fears are present even with simple sensors and AI use, such as during telemedicine visits based on very useful, clinically pertinent sensors; with the risk of missing an important parameter; and, of course, when AI appears "intelligent", potentially replacing the doctors' judgment. This paper aims to provide an overview of the liability of the health professional in the context of the use of sensors and AI tools in remote healthcare, analyzing four regimes: the contract-based approach, the approach based on breach of duty to inform, the fault-based approach, and the approach related to the good itself. We will also discuss future challenges and opportunities in the promising domain of sensors and AI use in medicine.

engineering, electrical & electronic,instruments & instrumentation,chemistry, analytical
Doctor, Bot, or Both: Questioning the Medicolegal Liability of Artificial Intelligence in Indian Healthcare

Satvik N Pai,Madhan Jeyaraman,Naveen Jeyaraman,Sankalp Yadav

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.69230

2024-09-11

Cureus

Abstract:Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming the landscape of healthcare, with its applications ranging from diagnostics to robotic surgery. As India swiftly integrates AI into its healthcare system, a critical question arises: who bears the liability when AI-driven medical decisions go wrong? This article explores the complexities of assigning legal responsibility for AI in healthcare, particularly within the Indian context. While India's legal framework, including the Information Technology Act, intersects with AI usage, it lacks specific provisions addressing AI liability. The National Strategy for AI, although a step forward, does not resolve the ambiguities surrounding accountability. The article also examines how other countries, particularly the European Union and the United States, are beginning to tackle these challenges through proposed directives and regulations. However, the absence of clear, comprehensive laws worldwide reflects the inherent difficulties in legislating AI stemming from its autonomous nature, the "black box" problem, and the multifaceted roles of stakeholders. Until robust legal frameworks are established, the article cautions healthcare professionals to exercise vigilance when using AI tools, recognizing that they may still bear significant liability. This evolving legal landscape underscores the need for continued deliberations in AI regulations.
Autonomous Cars and Tort Liability

Kyle J. Colonna

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2325879

2012-09-22

Abstract:With the passing of time, cars are becoming more autonomous and independent of human intervention. However, with this shift in control from humans to technology, there also comes a shift in liability. While autonomous cars will eliminate many accidents caused by human error, many others will result due to technological malfunctions. In order to ensure that autonomous cars enter the marketplace in a timely fashion, the liability of autonomous car manufacturers requires mitigation. This Note examines the legal issues surrounding autonomous cars, including tort liability, and proposes a means by which the liability issues surrounding autonomous cars may be fashioned in order to effectuate a timely implementation of autonomous cars in the marketplace.

Engineering,Business,Law
A study on civil liability of Artificial Intelligence

Sookyoung Lee,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.52554/kjcl.2024.107.225

2024-06-30

The Korean Association of Civil Law

Abstract:The recent development of artificial intelligence (AI) technology is bringing about changes at a faster pace and on a larger scale than any other period in human history. With technological advancements overcoming the limitations of medical AI through training with databases, AI technology has made remarkable progress since the inception of deep learning for image processing with convolutional neural networks (CNN) in 2012. The recent advancements in natural language processing (NLP) have accelerated the utilization of AI through sophisticated natural language processing, enabling machines to identify and understand data regardless of the complexity of the language. This has laid the foundation for the rapid and precise development of generative AI. In the era where generative AI is being utilized without pausing in its developmental speed, we considered the civil liability of AI in our civil law principles, taking into account the inherent characteristics of AI such as unpredictability, opacity, and the black box effect. To do this, we first examined the legal liability considering the stages of AI technology development in discussing the tort liability caused by AI. Even “Weak AI,” created by AI developers, may fall under “Gefahr,” and while not all types, some may apply to strict liability in terms of risk liability. Furthermore, while reviewing civil liability applicable to AI under fault-based and no-fault liability, we also looked at the trends in the EU comparatively. In discussing no-fault liability, particularly under the Product Liability Act, we examined the possibility and implications of applying risk liability to pharmaceutical manufacturing using generative AI technology as a representative example to overcome the limitations of the existing Product Liability Act. Humanity currently lives in an era of rapid technological development and exploding big data, enjoying numerous benefits due to these advancements. As user convenience improves and massive added value is created through technological progress, the meaning of risk liability in the realm of civil liability can gain more significance. Generative AI has already drastically reduced the costs and time required for new drug development, providing substantial profits to pharmaceutical companies. However, even if the existing Product Liability Act is applied, it may be difficult to adequately remedy the harm to victims due to the reasonable alternative possibility defense regarding design defects. In the era of generative AI, we examined the possibility of applying enhanced risk liability by assuming the case of pharmaceutical manufacturing.
Autonomous AI systems in the face of liability, regulations and costs

Agustina D Saenz,Zach Harned,Oishi Banerjee,Michael D Abràmoff,Pranav Rajpurkar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-023-00929-1

2023-10-06

Abstract:Autonomous AI systems in medicine promise improved outcomes but raise concerns about liability, regulation, and costs. With the advent of large-language models, which can understand and generate medical text, the urgency for addressing these concerns increases as they create opportunities for more sophisticated autonomous AI systems. This perspective explores the liability implications for physicians, hospitals, and creators of AI technology, as well as the evolving regulatory landscape and payment models. Physicians may be favored in malpractice cases if they follow rigorously validated AI recommendations. However, AI developers may face liability for failing to adhere to industry-standard best practices during development and implementation. The evolving regulatory landscape, led by the FDA, seeks to ensure transparency, evaluation, and real-world monitoring of AI systems, while payment models such as MPFS, NTAP, and commercial payers adapt to accommodate them. The widespread adoption of autonomous AI systems can potentially streamline workflows and allow doctors to concentrate on the human aspects of healthcare.
Fault–Based Liability for Medical Malpractice in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: Α Comparative Analysis of German and Greek Medical Liability Law in View of the Challenges Posed by AI Systems

Vasileios P. Maroudas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31743/recl.17223

2024-06-28

Review of European and Comparative Law

Abstract:The rapid developments in the field of AI pose intractable problems for the law of civil liability. The main question that arises in this context is whether a fault-based liability regime can provide sufficient protection to victims of harm caused by the use of ΑΙ. This article addresses this question specifically in relation to medical malpractice liability. Its main purpose is to outline the problems that autonomous systems pose for medical liability law, but more importantly, to determine whether and to what extent a fault-based system of medical liability can adequately address them. In order to approach this issue, a comparative examination of German and Greek law will be undertaken. These two systems, while similar in substantive terms, differ significantly at the level of the burden of proof. In this sense, their comparison serves as a good example to “test” the adequacy of the fault principle in relation to AI systems in the field of medicine, but also to illustrate the practical importance that rules on the allocation of the burden of proof can have in cases of damage caused by the use of AI. As will eventually become apparent, the main problem appears to lie not in the fault principle itself, which, for the time being, at least in the form of objectified negligence, seems to protect the patient adequately, but mainly in the general rule for the allocation of the burden of proof, which is precisely why the fault principle ends up working to the detriment of the patient.
Medical malpractice liability in large language model artificial intelligence: legal review and policy recommendations

David O. Shumway,Hayes J. Hartman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jom-2023-0229

2024-01-31

Journal of Osteopathic Medicine

Abstract:Abstract The emergence of generative large language model (LLM) artificial intelligence (AI) represents one of the most profound developments in healthcare in decades, with the potential to create revolutionary and seismic changes in the practice of medicine as we know it. However, significant concerns have arisen over questions of liability for bad outcomes associated with LLM AI-influenced medical decision making. Although the authors were not able to identify a case in the United States that has been adjudicated on medical malpractice in the context of LLM AI at this time, sufficient precedent exists to interpret how analogous situations might be applied to these cases when they inevitably come to trial in the future. This commentary will discuss areas of potential legal vulnerability for clinicians utilizing LLM AI through review of past case law pertaining to third-party medical guidance and review the patchwork of current regulations relating to medical malpractice liability in AI. Finally, we will propose proactive policy recommendations including creating an enforcement duty at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require algorithmic transparency, recommend reliance on peer-reviewed data and rigorous validation testing when LLMs are utilized in clinical settings, and encourage tort reform to share liability between physicians and LLM developers.
Artificial intelligence in clinical decision-making: Rethinking liability

Helen Smith,Kit Fotheringham

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0968533220945766

2020-06-01

Medical Law International

Abstract:This article theorises, within the context of the law of England and Wales, the potential outcomes in negligence claims against clinicians and software development companies (SDCs) by patients injured due to AI system (AIS) use with human clinical supervision. Currently, a clinician will likely shoulder liability via a negligence claim for allowing defects in an AIS’s outputs to reach patients. We question if this is ‘fair, just and reasonable’ to clinical users: we argue that a duty of care to patients ought to be recognised on the part of SDCs as well as clinicians. As an alternative to negligence claims, we propose ‘risk pooling’ which utilises insurance. Here, a fairer construct of shared responsibility for AIS use could be created between the clinician and the SDC; thus, allowing a rapid mechanism of compensation to injured patients via insurance.
Defining medical liability when artificial intelligence is applied on diagnostic algorithms: a systematic review

Clara Cestonaro,Arianna Delicati,Beatrice Marcante,Luciana Caenazzo,Pamela Tozzo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2023.1305756

2023-11-27

Abstract:Artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine is an increasingly studied and widespread phenomenon, applied in multiple clinical settings. Alongside its many potential advantages, such as easing clinicians' workload and improving diagnostic accuracy, the use of AI raises ethical and legal concerns, to which there is still no unanimous response. A systematic literature review on medical professional liability related to the use of AI-based diagnostic algorithms was conducted using the public electronic database PubMed selecting studies published from 2020 to 2023. The systematic review was performed according to 2020 PRISMA guidelines. The literature review highlights how the issue of liability in case of AI-related error and patient's damage has received growing attention in recent years. The application of AI and diagnostic algorithm moreover raises questions about the risks of using unrepresentative populations during the development and about the completeness of information given to the patient. Concerns about the impact on the fiduciary relationship between physician and patient and on the subject of empathy have also been raised. The use of AI in medical field and the application of diagnostic algorithms introduced a revolution in the doctor-patient relationship resulting in multiple possible medico-legal consequences. The regulatory framework on medical liability when AI is applied is therefore inadequate and requires urgent intervention, as there is no single and specific regulation governing the liability of various parties involved in the AI supply chain, nor on end-users. Greater attention should be paid to inherent risk in AI and the consequent need for regulations regarding product safety as well as the maintenance of minimum safety standards through appropriate updates.
Research on Infringement of Artificial Intelligence Medical Robot

Chen Mingtsung,Qian Wei

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200826.099

2020-01-01

Abstract:with the rapid development of artificial intelligence, intelligent medical robots have been used in the medical field to assist medical staff in diagnosing and treating diseases. Due to the lag of legislation, the current liability for medical damage and product liability in China is difficult to solve the liability of infringement of intelligent medical...
Accidental injustice: Healthcare AI legal responsibility must be prospectively planned prior to its adoption

Kit Fotheringham,Helen Smith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fhj.2024.100181

2024-09-19

Abstract:This article contributes to the ongoing debate about legal liability and responsibility for patient harm in scenarios where artificial intelligence (AI) is used in healthcare.We note that due to the structure of negligence liability in England and Wales, it is likely that clinicians would be held solely negligent for patient harms arising from software defects, even though AI algorithms will share the decision-making space with clinicians.Drawing on previous research, we argue that the traditional model of negligence liability for clinical malpractice cannot be relied upon to offer justice for clinicians and patients. There is a pressing need for law reform to consider the use of risk pooling, alongside detailed professional guidance for the use of AI in healthcare spaces.
Digital health technology-specific risks for medical malpractice liability

Simon P Rowland,J. Edward Fitzgerald,Matthew Lungren,Zach Harned,Alison H. McGregor,Elizabeth Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-022-00698-3

IF: 15.2

2022-10-20

npj Digital Medicine

Abstract:Medical professionals are increasingly required to use digital technologies as part of care delivery and this may represent a risk for medical error and subsequent malpractice liability. For example, if there is a medical error, should the error be attributed to the clinician or the artificial intelligence-based clinical decision-making system? In this article, we identify and discuss digital health technology-specific risks for malpractice liability and offer practical advice for the mitigation of malpractice risk.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics
The Reasonable Computer: Disrupting the Paradigm of Tort Liability

Ryan Abbott,Ryan Benjamin Abbott

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2877380

2016-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:Artificial intelligence is part of our daily lives. Whether working as chauffeurs, accountants, or police, computers are taking over a growing number of tasks once performed by people. As this occurs, computers will also cause the injuries inevitably associated with these activities. Accidents happen, and now computer-generated accidents happen. The recent fatality involving Tesla’s autonomous driving software is just one example in a long series of “computer-generated torts.” Yet hysteria over such injuries is misplaced. In fact, machines are, or at least have the potential to be, substantially safer than people. Self-driving cars will cause accidents, but they will cause fewer accidents than human drivers. Because automation will result in substantial safety benefits, tort law should encourage its adoption as a means of accident prevention. Under current legal frameworks, suppliers of computer tortfeasors are likely strictly responsible for their harms. This article argues that where a supplier can show that an autonomous computer, robot, or machine is safer than a reasonable person, the supplier should be liable in negligence rather than strict liability. The negligence test would focus on the computer’s act instead of its design, and in a sense, it would treat a computer tortfeasor as a person rather than a product. Negligence-based liability would incentivize automation when doing so would reduce accidents, and it would continue to reward suppliers for improving safety. More importantly, principles of harm avoidance suggest that once computers become safer than people, human tortfeasors should no longer be measured against the standard of the hypothetical reasonable person that has been employed for hundreds of years. Rather, individuals should be judged against computers. To appropriate the immortal words of Justice Holmes, we are all “hasty and awkward” compared to the reasonable computer.
Robotics and AI into healthcare from the perspective of European regulation: who is responsible for medical malpractice?

Francesco De Micco,Simone Grassi,Luca Tomassini,Gianmarco Di Palma,Giulia Ricchezze,Roberto Scendoni

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1428504

IF: 3.9

2024-09-06

Frontiers in Medicine

Abstract:The integration of robotics and artificial intelligence into medical practice is radically revolutionising patient care. This fusion of advanced technologies with healthcare offers a number of significant benefits, including more precise diagnoses, personalised treatments and improved health data management. However, it is critical to address very carefully the medico-legal challenges associated with this progress. The responsibilities between the different players concerned in medical liability cases are not yet clearly defined, especially when artificial intelligence is involved in the decision-making process. Complexity increases when technology intervenes between a person’s action and the result, making it difficult for the patient to prove harm or negligence. In addition, there is the risk of an unfair distribution of blame between physicians and healthcare institutions. The analysis of European legislation highlights the critical issues related to the attribution of legal personality to autonomous robots and the recognition of strict liability for medical doctors and healthcare institutions. Although European legislation has helped to standardise the rules on this issue, some questions remain unresolved. We argue that specific laws are needed to address the issue of medical liability in cases where robotics and artificial intelligence are used in healthcare.

medicine, general & internal
AI in Radiology: Navigating Medical Responsibility

Maria Teresa Contaldo,Giovanni Pasceri,Giacomo Vignati,Laura Bracchi,Sonia Triggiani,Gianpaolo Carrafiello

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14141506

IF: 3.6

2024-07-13

Diagnostics

Abstract:The application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) facilitates medical activities by automating routine tasks for healthcare professionals. AI augments but does not replace human decision-making, thus complicating the process of addressing legal responsibility. This study investigates the legal challenges associated with the medical use of AI in radiology, analyzing relevant case law and literature, with a specific focus on professional liability attribution. In the case of an error, the primary responsibility remains with the physician, with possible shared liability with developers according to the framework of medical device liability. If there is disagreement with the AI's findings, the physician must not only pursue but also justify their choices according to prevailing professional standards. Regulations must balance the autonomy of AI systems with the need for responsible clinical practice. Effective use of AI-generated evaluations requires knowledge of data dynamics and metrics like sensitivity and specificity, even without a clear understanding of the underlying algorithms: the opacity (referred to as the "black box phenomenon") of certain systems raises concerns about the interpretation and actual usability of results for both physicians and patients. AI is redefining healthcare, underscoring the imperative for robust liability frameworks, meticulous updates of systems, and transparent patient communication regarding AI involvement.

medicine, general & internal
Understanding Liability Risk from Using Health Care Artificial Intelligence Tools

Michelle M. Mello,Neel Guha

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmhle2308901

IF: 158.5

2024-01-18

New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract:New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 390, Issue 3, Page 271-278, January 2024.

medicine, general & internal

Intersection of artificial intelligence and medicine: tort liability in the technological age

Are Current Tort Liability Doctrines Adequate for Addressing Injury Caused by AI?

Liability for harm caused by AI in healthcare: an overview of the core legal concepts

The difficult role of Artificial Intelligence in Medical Liability: to err is not only human

The future of artificial intelligence in medicine: Medical-legal considerations for health leaders

Liability of Health Professionals Using Sensors, Telemedicine and Artificial Intelligence for Remote Healthcare

Doctor, Bot, or Both: Questioning the Medicolegal Liability of Artificial Intelligence in Indian Healthcare

Autonomous Cars and Tort Liability

A study on civil liability of Artificial Intelligence

Autonomous AI systems in the face of liability, regulations and costs

Fault–Based Liability for Medical Malpractice in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: Α Comparative Analysis of German and Greek Medical Liability Law in View of the Challenges Posed by AI Systems

Medical malpractice liability in large language model artificial intelligence: legal review and policy recommendations

Artificial intelligence in clinical decision-making: Rethinking liability

Defining medical liability when artificial intelligence is applied on diagnostic algorithms: a systematic review

Research on Infringement of Artificial Intelligence Medical Robot

Accidental injustice: Healthcare AI legal responsibility must be prospectively planned prior to its adoption

Digital health technology-specific risks for medical malpractice liability

The Reasonable Computer: Disrupting the Paradigm of Tort Liability

Robotics and AI into healthcare from the perspective of European regulation: who is responsible for medical malpractice?

AI in Radiology: Navigating Medical Responsibility

Understanding Liability Risk from Using Health Care Artificial Intelligence Tools