It is undeniable that the rapid pace of technological advancement has cast its shadow over all branches of law, particularly with the emergence of artificial intelligence as a novel and pressing challenge that has imposed itself forcefully upon the framework of civil liability. The classical rules—built on the duality of human action and fault—are no longer sufficient to comprehend the nature of harms resulting from autonomous systems that possess learning and behavioral independence. This necessitates a fundamental re-evaluation of the core concepts of civil liability and their reinterpretation through the lens of artificial intelligence, by examining its technical and legal characteristics, and then identifying the nature of the harm it causes, distinguishing it from traditional forms of damage in terms of its essence, scope, and legal implications. Accordingly, this study focuses on the conceptual foundation by outlining the theoretical framework for both artificial intelligence and civil damage, and analyzing the structural impact that smart harm produces within the elements and foundations of civil liability, which now tends toward strict (objective) liability. The latter proves to be the more capable mechanism for balancing the demands of justice for the injured party, on the one hand, and the need for freedom of innovation and technological advancement on the other. Objective liability provides the legal system with more flexible tools to ensure civil protection within a legal environment that is evolving beyond human will. Ultimately, artificial intelligence has disrupted traditional legal concepts such as causation, fault, and directness
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Abdul Karim Jamil
University of Anbar
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Abdul Karim Jamil (Mon,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69fbefa3164b5133a91a3881 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.37651/aujlps.2025.161224.1547
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: