Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Evaluates the criminal liability of the Hinotori Surgical Robotic Doctor, implicating various actors in healthcare responsibilities.
The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) and the medical robot industry offers transformative opportunities to enhance healthcare quality. Approved for production and marketing in August 2020, the Hinotori Surgical Robotic Doctor, designed for laparoscopic surgery, has become a prominent tool in robot-assisted procedures. However, the integration of robots into surgical practices introduces the risk of patient harm, raising critical questions about criminal liability. Unlike general discussions on AI responsibility, this study specifically focuses on the criminal liability of the Hinotori Surgical Robotic Doctor within the framework of causality principles and intent, eventual intent, negligence, conscious negligence, and absence of fault by evaluating the legal status and responsibility of the involved actors. The study first examines whether Hinotori Surgical Robotic Doctor can be granted legal personality. If not, criminal liability must be attributed to other actors under general criminal law principles. Subsequent sections explore the responsibilities of the software programmer, manufacturer, and healthcare providers (surgeons and hospitals). This study contributes to the literature by presenting a multi-dimensional legal analysis, offering recommendations for future legislation, and addressing a significant gap by focusing directly on the Hinotori Surgical Robotic Doctor’s liability, rather than AI in general.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bal et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: