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.

Your analogy has long since ceased to have any illuminating power, because it involves things that are straight up impossible.

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.

> 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.

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.