This is true for bricks, but it is not true if your dog starts up your car and hits a pedestrian. Collisions caused by non-human drivers are a fascinating edge case for the times we're in.

▲

jacquesm 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It is very much true for dogs in that case: (1) it is your dog (2) it is your car (3) it is your responsibility to make sure your car can not be started by your dog (4) the pedestrian has a reasonable expectation that a vehicle that is parked without a person in it has been made safe to the point that it will not suddenly start to move without an operator in it and dogs don't qualify.

You'd lose that lawsuit in a heartbeat.

▲

direwolf20 7 hours ago | parent [-]

what if your car was parked in a normal way that a reasonable person would not expect to be able to be started by a dog, but the dog did several things that no reasonable person would expect and started it anyway?

▲

jacquesm 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You can 'what if' this until the cows come home but you are responsible, period.

I don't know what kind of drivers education you get where you live but where I live and have lived one of the basic bits is that you know how to park and lock your vehicle safely and that includes removing the ignition key (assuming your car has one) and setting the parking brake. You aim the wheels at the kerb (if there is one) when you're on an incline. And if you're in a stick shift you set the gear to neutral (in some countries they will teach you to set the gear to 1st or reverse, for various reasons).

We also have road worthiness assessments that ensure that all these systems work as advertised. You could let a pack of dogs loose in my car in any external circumstance and they would not be able to move it, though I'd hate to clean up the interior afterwards.

▲

direwolf20 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I agree. The dog smashed the window, hot–wired the ignition, released the parking brake, shifted to drive, and turned the wheel towards the opposite side of the road where a mother was pushing a stroller, killing the baby. I know, crazy right, but I swear I'm not lying, the neighbor caught it on camera.

Who's liable?

I think this would be a freak accident. Nobody would be liable.

	▲	bigstrat2003 28 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Your analogy has long since ceased to have any illuminating power, because it involves things that are straight up impossible.
	▲	rdtsc 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Well at that point we might as well say it's gremlins that you summoned, so who knows, there are no laws about gremlins hot-wiring cars. If you summoned them, are they _your_ gremlins, or do they have their own agency. How guilty are you, really... At some point it becomes a bit silly to go into what-if scenarios, it helps to look at exact cases.
	▲	jacquesm 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> I agree. The dog smashed the window, hot–wired the ignition, > released the parking brake, shifted to drive, and turned the > wheel towards the opposite side of the road where a mother was > pushing a stroller, killing the baby. I know, crazy right, but > I swear I'm not lying, the neighbor caught it on camera. > Who's liable? You are. It's still your dog. If you would replace dog with child the case would be identical (but more plausible). This is really not as interesting as you think it is. The fact that you have a sentient dog is going to be laughed out of court and your neighbor will be in the docket together with you for attempting to mislead the court with your AI generated footage. See, two can play at that. When you make such ridiculously contrived examples turnaround is fair play.
	▲	gamblor956 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You would not be guilty of a crime, because that requires intent. But you would be liable for civil damages, because that does not. There are multiple theories for which to establish liability, but most likely this would be treated as negligence.

▲

thatjoeoverthr 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You're stretching it. It's more like if you train your dog to start the car and accelerate, open the door and turn your back.

Everything an AI does is downstream of deliberate, albeit imperfect, training.

You know this, you rig it all up and you let things happen.

▲

Terr_ 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Being guilty != Being responsible

They correlate, but we must be careful not to mistake one for the other. The latter is a lower bar.

▲

b00ty4breakfast 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm dubious, do you have any examples of this happening?

▲

victorbjorklund 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don’t know where you from but at least in Sweden you have strict liability for anything your dog does

▲

9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

ori_b 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In the USA, at least, it seems pet owners are liable for any harm their pets do.

▲

cess11 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Legally, in a lot of jurisdictions, a dog is just your property. What it does, you did, usually with presumed intent or strict liability.

▲

gowld 8 hours ago | parent [-]

What if you planted a bush that attracted a bat that bit a child?

	▲	Muromec 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		What if you have an email in your inbox warning you that 1) this specific bush attracts bats and 2) there were in fact bats seen near you bush and 3) bats were observed almost biting a child before. And you also have "how do I fuck up them kids by planting a bush that attracts bats" in your browser history. It's a spectrum you know.
	▲	dragonwriter 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Well, if it was a bush known to also attract children, it was on your property, and the child was in fact attracted by it and also on your property, and the presence of the bush created the danger of bat bites, the principal of “attractive nuisance” is in play.
	▲	b00ty4breakfast 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		what if my auntie had wheels, would she be a wagon?

▲

freejazz 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Prima facie negligence = liability