Home Blog Page 108

Strict Liability for Killer Robots?

0

The Almost Human episode “Unbound,” raised an interesting question: what is your liability for building a robot that go on a killing spree?

DRN_XRN_8759As explained in the story, Nigel Vaughn (played by John Larroquette) built an XRN named Danica that went on a three day rampage at her “product demo” for elected officials and other VIPs. The XRN was built for combat and killed at least 26 police officers.

What would be Vaughn’s civil liability for Danica’s extremely high death count?

A plaintiff could bring a products liability claim against Vaughn on the theory that Danica (a product) had a defect in either her design or manufacture. Merrill v. Navegar, Inc., 26 Cal. 4th 465, 479 (Cal. 2001), citing Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 548, 560.

DRN_Product_8777Case law holds for a strict liability case based on defective design, “a product is defective . . . either (1) if the product has failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner, or (2) if . . . the benefits of the challenged design do not outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design.” Merrill, at *479 citing Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 413, 418.

Focusing on the benefits of the design vs the risk of danger, a jury could consider, “the gravity of the danger posed by the challenged design, the likelihood that such danger would occur, the mechanical feasibility of a safer alternative design, the financial cost of an improved design, and the adverse consequences to the product and to the consumer that would result from an alternative design.” Merrill, at *479 citing Barker at *431.

Danica the XRN killed in excess of 30 people over three days. This was after the DRN program had been cancelled, because of the android police officers going “crazy,” with some killing themselves. Moreover, the XRN had the same type “synthetic soul” as the DRN’s, showing no change in a design that was decommissioned. While none of the DRN’s went on a three-day rampage, Dr. Vaughn was on notice of a possible defect that would impact the behavior of a combat android.

The XRN was designed for combat and not law enforcement. Given the instability with the “synthetic souls” of the DRN’s, Dr. Vaughn should have been concerned with the “gravity of the danger” of a combat android with emotional instability.

A three-day killing rampage at a product demo would be difficult to predict. The DRN’s are helpful to see that it was possible something could go very wrong, but predicting Danica would go on a one-robot-woman Iwo Jima reenactment might not have been foreseeable. However, it was foreseeable that violence could have happened from the failure of the DRN’s, especially given the nature of Danica’s programing.

AH_Police_8642The MX program demonstrates there was a safer alternative design. While utterly lacking imagination or conversation skills, a safer android was ultimately put into police service.

Do the MX’s have adverse consequences to having android police officers? Yes. They simply are not human, lacking the ability to relate to those they are supposed to protect. This means no empathy and compassion. Those upholding the law need those qualities so the populace is not living in fear of armed robots walking the streets.

Danica ironically proved this point when the mother and girl got in Danica’s cab. Instead of killing both, she smiled when the little girl told Danica, “I think you are pretty.”

A kid sweet talked a killer robot. That would not happen with an MX.

Sweet talk aside, not even the great defense attorney Dan Fielding could defend Nigel Vaughn from the strict liability for Danica’s “defective” design that resulted in a three-day rampage.

A Lawyer on Rake

0

The TV Rake is like an ethics exam exploded. The show is about a seriously flawed attorney who seems to put himself above his client’s interests to get on TV, has huge gambling debts, an expired driver’s license, tax problems, an unpaid assistant and whose most stable relationship is with a $500 an hour prostitute when he is not womanizing.  All of these issues would put the attorney’s moral character into serious question.

That being said, this is the first lawyer show since I have enjoyed since law school. It is like a train wreck you cannot turn away from. Moreover, there is a redeeming quality to the attorney that he is actually trying to zealously represent his clients as required by his ethical duties, despite serious character flaws that scream disbarment.

Yes, there is the willing suspension of disbelief that three Amish men arrested for shaving an Amish bishop would go to trial in a matter of days for a hate crime and attempted murder in Los Angeles. The right to a speedy trial aside, the docket is not that slow in LA. Never mind doing any discovery.

However, that trial ended correctly. There was not the intent for attempted murder, but definitely enough evidence to convict the men of assault.

Additionally, the pilot highlighted the importance of conducting document review to analyze sentence structure to identify false confessions from the one true confession of a defendant.  The fact the first confession was true was something that could be hidden from the Court. While there were still multiple unsolved murders, the defendant was lawfully in prison for killing someone.

Lawyers have an important duty to society to represent their clients and do justice. This requires truthfulness to the courts, avoiding the commingling of client funds, and a whole list of rules governing professional conduct. We are supposed to be guardians of the judicial system. Rake might be a massive ethical pile-up on The 405 that will make a lawyer shake their head, but it is hard not to enjoy the show.

The Day of the Doctor’s Outfit

0

Joshua Gilliland shares his thoughts on Peter Capaldi’s new outfit for the 13th Doctor.

 

A New Contract: Mjolnir Strikes Back for the Return of Lightsabers

0

The epic Twitter contract negotiations of Marvel and Star Wars heralded a heroic age of contract formation of offer, acceptance and consideration for the use of property.

The Twitter negotiations, however, also required trading Yoda, Hutts, plus Deadpool for Boba Fett, and Mace Windu for Nick Fury. The open discussions for trading human beings (and other living beings who are not animals or property), would violate the civil rights of those individuals, given the prohibition of indentured servitude. Moreover, @Marvel specifically rejected including any of Tony Stark’s armor in the negotiations out of fear Ewoks would be placed in them. As such, the parties discussion could be summarized as the following terms and conditions:

 The Marvel & Star Wars Lease Agreement of Lightsabers for Mjolnir 

@Marvel and @StarWars, both subsidiaries of Disney, hereby agree to the following terms and conditions:

@StarWars will lease to @Marvel one blue lightsaber, one green lightsaber, one purple lightsaber, one yellow lightsaber and one red lightsaber for the term of one week (7 day on Earth);

@Marvel will use the above mentioned lightsabers for scientific research.

@StarWars hereby warns @Marvel of the risk of injury of using said lightsabers, including loss of limbs, eye injury, blindness, beheading and even death.

In consideration for the use of the lightsabers, @Marvel will lend for a period of one week Mjolnir (7 days on Earth), making no warranties on whether anyone at @StarWars is worthy enough to lift Mjolnir.

@Marvel hereby warns @StarWars of the risk of injury for using Mjolnir, including lower back strain for attempting to lift, arm injury, dislocated shoulders, eye injury from lightening, hearing damage from thunder, electrocution, property damage from flooding, high winds, rain, or lightening strikes, and any other reasonably foreseeable injuries from attempting to control weather or throwing a hammer.

Choice of Law:

The parties agreements will be governed by the laws of the State of California.

Forum Selection Clause:

Any and all disputes will be heard in Anaheim, California, at Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln, and arbitrated by the animatronic Abraham Lincoln. The parties further agree to be bound by the arbitrator’s final decision on ay disputes, waiving all legal claims.

Waiver of Claims by @Marvel:

@Marvel waives any claims against @StarWars, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers from damage or loss caused by:

A. Any suit or proceeding directly or indirectly attacking the validity of this Contract, or any part of this Contract.

B. Any judgement or award: (i) declaring this Contract, or any part of this Contract, either void or voidable, or (ii) delaying the performance of any part of this Contract.

Waiver of Claims by @StarWars:

@StarWars waives any claims against @Marvel, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers from damage or loss caused by:

A. Any suit or proceeding directly or indirectly attacking the validity of this Contract, or any part of this Contract.

B. Any judgement or award: (i) declaring this Contract, or any part of this Contract, either void or voidable, or (ii) delaying the performance of any part of this Contract.

Express Agreement by Parties

Neither @Marvel or @StarWars will allow any of its officers, agents, employees or volunteers to use either a lightsaber or Mjolnir without a signed liability wavier for any injury sustained by using a lightsaber or Mjolnir. Children are expressly prohibited from using the property subject to this agreement.

Property Damage:

The parties will be financially responsible for any damage to the property subject to this contract.

Severability:

If any provision of this Contract is held invalid or unenforceable, its invalidity or unenforceability will not affect any other provisions of this Contract, and this Contract will be construed and enforced as if such provision had not been included.

Entire Agreement:

This Contract constitutes the entire agreement between @Marvel and @StarWars. Both parties revoke all prior or contemporaneous oral or written agreements between them that are inconsistent with this Contract. In the event of a dispute between the parties regarding the Contract, this Contract will be deemed to have been drafted by the parties in equal parts so that no presumptions or inferences concerning its terms or interpretation may be construed against any party to this Contract.

Burying George Washington Twice on Sleepy Hollow

0

GeorgeWashingtonFaceFinding the secret tomb of George Washington was a key story element in the Sleepy Hollow episode “The Indispensable Man.”

In the story, the First President rose from the dead four days after his death and drew a map to Purgatory. Washington’s temporally reanimated remains were then buried in New York.

Legal problem with this re-burial: it conflicts with President Washington’s Will from July 9, 1799. Washington’s Will states in relevant part:

The family Vault at Mount Vernon requiring repairs, and being improperly situated besides, I desire that a new one of Brick, and upon a larger Scale, may be built at the foot of what is commonly called the Vineyard Inclosure, on the ground which is marked out. In which my remains, with those of my deceased relatives (now in the old Vault) and such others of my family as may choose to be entombed there, may be deposited. And it is my express desire that my Corpse may be Interred in a private manner, without parade, or funeral Oration.

National Archive, Founders Online, George Washington’s Last Will and Testament, 9 July 1799 [Emphasis added].

Washington’s will was executed in Virgina, thus Virgina, law should control on his intent. However, if Washington was buried in New York, a New York court would look to its own laws on the matter of disposing of a corpse because of the public safety concerns.

New York law states that a “testator may dispose of his own body or direct the method or place of its burial, but he may not require that he be buried in an unauthorized place.” In re Estate of Walker, 64 N.Y.2d 354, 359 (N.Y. 1985), citing Public Health Law § 4200 et seq.

New York law states the following on the duty of burial:

1. Except in the cases in which a right to dissect it is expressly conferred by law, every body of a deceased person, within this state, shall be decently buried or incinerated within a reasonable time after death.
 
2. The provisions of this section shall not impair the right to carry the body of a deceased person through this state, or to remove from this state the body of a person who has died within it, for the purpose of burying the same elsewhere.

NY CLS Pub Health § 4200.

The secret Free Mason Tomb in the middle of the woods where George Washington was buried was likely “an authorized place” at time of burial, depending on who owned the land and zoning laws in 1799 regulating disposing of a corpse.

Washington’s decision to have his body reburied in New York state would conflict with his expressly written will from July 9, 1799. This legal conflict could have been resolved with a simple codicil to his will stating his reanimated desire to be buried in New York. Given the story’s account of coming back from the dead, leaving a coded message, drawing a map of Purgatory, and Free Mason’s building a secret tomb, writing out one sentence with new burial instructions is not out of the realm of possibility.

Whether or not Washington was of sound mind and body when he wrote a post-death codicil is currently legally untested.

Jess & Josh are in the DANGER ZONE!

0

Jess and Josh both love Archer. Now, let’s talk about the employment issues at ISIS and see how many quotes two lawyers are wiling to say out loud.

Beam Me Up, Your Honor

2

New York State Judge Joseph L. Latwin showed his geek cred in footnote 2 of People v Wilkins, 40 Misc. 3d 1207(A), 1207A (N.Y. City Ct. 2013). The case involved a Defendant charged with Aggravated Driving while Intoxicated and Driving while Intoxicated. Here is what the Court found:

Here, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence from which the jury may have found operation. Defendant’s vehicle was not present at about 11 a.m. but was there, when defendant was found in it around 1:00 p.m. The engine running. Defendant was slumped over the wheel of the vehicle. In keeping with the above cited cases from the Appellate Term, 9th Judicial district cited above, this is sufficient circumstantial evidence from which the jury could have inferred that the defendant operated the vehicle on August 1, 2012 between 11:00 a.m. and 12:55 p.m. Defendant offered no evidence that another drove the vehicle in Rye, that the vehicle was pushed or propelled through Rye by animal or human muscular power, was placed there by Divine intervention, was airlifted or towed there, appeared as the result of a magic trick or illusion, or was teleported down from space n2 to Cedar Street. Other than the defendant driving there, there was no explanation (rational or otherwise) or any evidence from which any other inference could be drawn of how the defendant’s vehicle got to Cedar Street in Rye – a block away and around the corner from Kelly’s Sea Level Bar.

FOOTNOTES

n2 There was no evidence that the Starship Enterprise was in the vicinity of Rye at the time – the original Star Trek having aired from 1966 to 1969. Scotty passed away in 2005.

People v Wilkins, 40 Misc. 3d 1207(A), 1207A (N.Y. City Ct. 2013).

Judge Latwin has a way of making his point. He not only flew his geek flag, but ran up a whole semaphore message referencing magic tricks or that animals pulled the car to the final location in the case. Quite the judicial Picard Maneuver.

The good judge highlighted the fact judges have hobbies, are well-read, have a sharp wit and can add pop culture to an opinion to send a message.

Live Long and Prosper, Your Honor.

Redshirt_3144