I can’t really complain that we live in an increasingly litigious society. After all, I make a good living working to make our courts more efficient and where would courts be without lawsuits?

Even so, I was taken aback last week when the Associated Press ran a story that was picked up by dozens of newspapers (including the Times-Standard) in which the legal rights of robots was featured. The issue has come up because the growing use of robots in society increases their interaction with humans, thereby increasing the opportunity for things to go wrong.

So, is Robbie the Robot, the lovable creature from the old Lost in Space TV series, plotting your demise, requiring that you get a restraining order? If your Massage-o-Matic fails to heal your deep tissue kink, does that give you cause for a breach of contract suit? If any of these things come to pass, do robots have legal rights? Most experts say no.

If you Google the phrase “robot legal rights” you’ll find a ton of resources on the topic. In one as early as 1985, Robert Freitas, a senior research fellow at the nonprofit foundation Institute for Molecular Manufacturing in Palo Alto opined that robots are just inanimate objects without rights or duties. Most legal experts cite product liability or legal actions against a robot’s owner as the most likely legal redress. The cases on appeal to date confirm this view.

Still, the use of robots is emerging in healthcare, customer service, home care/cleaning, construction and just about every aspect of our lives. This just creates more opportunity for things to go wrong, resulting in court cases seeking redress. In one such case a mail delivery robot repeatedly bumped a worker at a large California telecommunications company, resulting in a personal injury lawsuit.

The interesting twist on this subject is on whether a lawsuit-happy United States will stifle research and development of robotics, leaving us at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to the products and services that are emerging in the field. Some suggest that the US should adopt laws similar to those affecting computers and the Internet, which shield certain legal liabilities in the name of progress. Without a modest degree of insulation from legal liability, our technological advances in this country would fall behind the world.

Once again, society is bringing both its ills and technological advances to the courthouse steps and it will be up to the courts to sort these problems out. I wonder if it presents a conflict if the clerk’s office uses a robot to bring the case file into court?

So before you buy a Roomba for Christmas to automatically vacuum your house, you may want to secure that Waterford vase. Speaking of technology, it’s a good idea to join and become active in the Redwood Technology Consortium where you can learn how other local individuals and business cope with tech.

Crawford is president of Justice Served, a court management and technology consulting firm working with courts and justice agencies worldwide. He is an active member of the Redwood Technology Consortium and is Chairman of the Board for the Greater Eureka Chamber of Commerce.

Copyright 2009, Eureka Times-Standard Newspaper. The print edition of this article first appeared in the 12/17/09 edition of the Times Standard.