| Abstract [eng] |
The Master's thesis analyses the possibilities for victims of artificial intelligence technology to exercise their right to compensation for damages in accordance with the norms of Lithuanian procedural law, the mechanisms of the substantive law establishing presumptions that facilitate the burden of proof, and the application of these norms in the case law. The first part of the paper abstractly defines the concept of artificial intelligence technology, highlighting the legally significant characteristics of artificial intelligence, and analyses the legal definition of artificial intelligence. On the basis of the characteristics identified, the risks of harm caused by AI are identified, as well as the potential challenges of proving the conditions for tort liability. The second part of the paper assesses the applicability of Lithuanian procedural law institutes, in particular disclosure of evidence, the contra spoliatorem presumption and ad hoc reversal of the burden of proof, which may resolve the challenges of proving the conditions of tort liability, to cases concerning compensation for damages caused by artificial intelligence. The exceptions to the general burden of proof are found in legal presumptions and, accordingly, the paper assesses the applicability in national law of the presumption of causation and strict liability without fault for damage caused by major sources of danger. In addition, the shortcomings of the Product Liability Directive and its implementing rules in national law are assessed in order to assess the applicability of product liability provisions to liability disputes involving artificial intelligence. The third part analyses the provisions of the revised Product Liability Directive and compares them with the draft AI Liability Directive, which was decided to be withdrawn, and assesses the reasons for this decision. It analyses the changes in the scope of the product, the extension of the concept of damage and the circle of liable persons, the new rules on disclosure, the presumption of product defects and causation, and the other changes in the substantive law aimed at adapting product liability law to the digital market. In this context, it is assessed whether the adopted amendments address the problems of the old Product Liability Directive. |
