No abstract

Damage to property and (or) non-property rights of persons occurs quite often. The right to compensation for such damage is indisputable. However, civil doctrine ambiguously addresses the issue of risk sharing in tort obligations. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to discuss approaches to the distribution of risk of harm in delictual responsibility and to determine their effectiveness from an economic and legal standpoint. The paper, based on economic and systematic analysis using dialectical, comparative, logical-dogmatic and other methods, including economics, describes the approaches to determining the purpose of tort law and its ability to ensure effective distribution of risk of harm. It has been proven that tort law can have direct regulatory consequences by restraining behaviour and sharing risks. It is concluded that the task of tort law is the optimal distribution of risk of harm between the perpetrator and the victim and to ensure the implementation of risky activities only if its social value justifies the risk. Based on the economic analysis of tort law, it has been substantiated that the distribution of the risk of damage in tort liability is carried out through the institutions of insurance and liability. Insurance is cost-effective when it comes to compensation for damage. However, only liability, in addition to the function of compensation, can also perform the function of preliminary prevention of harm. Therefore, the risk of causing harm in tort liability is mainly borne by the person who caused the damage. In obligations to compensate for damage caused by a source of increased danger, a person who on the appropriate legal basis (property rights, other property rights, contracts, leases, etc.) owns a vehicle, mechanism, other object, the use, storage or maintenance of which creates an increased danger, bears such risk even in the absence of guilt in causing harm. The grounds for imposing such risk on the victim are his intention or force majeure. It is this approach to the distribution of harm risk in tort liability that is fair and cost-effective and contributes to public well-being

Although the issue of civil liability is not new to civil doctrine, it is still relevant. In the research of Ukrainian scientists there are two approaches to understanding the concept of civil liability – positive-perspective and negative-retrospective. However, recently the issue of extension to contractual relations, risk-related relations, the category of “civil liability” has been actively discussed. There are opinions that in cases of breach of contractual obligations or damage as a result of risky activities, it is difficult to justify and apply measures of civil liability. Moreover, in foreign doctrine, breach of contract is not traditionally considered an offense. Therefore, the purpose of this article is development of approaches to the institute of civil liability and outlining the directions of updating civil legislation considering current European trends. The work based on economic analysis of law using dialectical, comparative, logical-dogmatic and other methods analyzes approaches to understanding the concept of civil liability and distinguishes between measures of civil liability and measures to protect civil rights. In particular, it is concluded that the use of the category of “civil liability” to cases of offense, i.e. unlawful infliction of harm, is justified. It seems appropriate to introduce into civil law, along with the category of “legal consequences of default” a broader legal category “legal consequences of non-performance (violation) of civil duty”, as civil obligations may arise from both obligations and other legal facts. This will allow expanding the possibilities of protection of rights and legitimate interests and effectively restore the violated right, as the restorative function is inherent in the measures to protect subjective civil rights

Artificial intelligence technologies, which have recently been rapidly developing, along with indisputable advantages, also create many dangers, the implementation of which causes harm. Compensation for such damage raises questions regarding the subjects, the act in itself which caused the damage, the causality, etc. The situation is also complicated by the imperfection of statutory regulation of relations on the use of artificial intelligence technologies and the insufficiency or ambiguity of judicial practice on compensation for damage caused using digital technologies. Therefore, the purpose of this publication is to outline approaches to applying legal liability for damage caused using artificial intelligence technologies. Based on a systematic analysis using dialectical, synergetic, comparative, logical-dogmatic, and other methods, the study analysed the state of legal regulation of liability for damage caused using artificial intelligence technologies and discusses approaches to the application of legal liability for damage caused using these technologies. In particular, it was concluded that despite several resolutions adopted by the European Parliament, relations with the use of artificial intelligence technologies and the application of legal liability for damage caused by artificial intelligence have not received a final statutory regulation. The regulatory framework is merely under development and rules of conduct in the field of digital technologies are still being created. States, including Ukraine, are faced with the task of bringing legislation in the field of the use of artificial intelligence technologies in line with international regulations to protect human and civil rights and freedoms and ensure proper guarantees for the use of such technologies. One of the priority areas of harmonisation of legislation is to address the issue of legal liability regimes for damage caused using artificial intelligence technologies. Such regimes today are strict liability and liability based on the principle of guilt. However, the ability of a particular regime to perform the functions of deterring and compensating for damage caused using artificial intelligence technologies encourages scientific discussion