Article Link! School shooting survivor sues AI gun detection firm after system failed to spot weapon

Racer88

Racer88

Big Kahuna Admin
Staff member
Exchange Privileges
Joined
Feb 26, 2022
Messages
21,793
Reaction score
24,757
Points
168
Location
USA! USA!
Should he be suing the tech company (who has no contractual obligation with students) or the school district who IS charged with keeping students safe?

They spent a MILLION dollars on this so-called "AI" gun detection system. How many ARMED GUARDS could they have hired for $1M??? Idiots. They'll do ANYTHING OTHER than implement armed protective personnel or allow faculty / staff to carry. They'll do ANYTHING OTHER than actually protect students.

arstechnica.com

School shooting survivor sues AI gun detection firm after system failed to spot weapon

How accurate does an AI system need to be?
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com
 
It's product liability and I can definitely see how a court/jury could find them liable. The AI company marketed the product with the ability to keep a school safe. The school district paid the company for a product to work as promised. The parents paid taxes to fund the school. The product failed to do what it promised to do so they could be liable for damages.

It would be no different if a company marketed a brake system that would stop a car faster. That brake system failed or wasn't even as effective as standard brakes and someone crashed their car because they couldn't stop fast enough in an emergency situation and they could prove the brake system was defective. The car maker and the brake company could be sued as they both have exposure. A court would decide on the percent liability for each party if the claimant was successful.

P80 was sued out of existence as some used their product to do nefarious things. Lawyers and communities sued in court and won so P80 is no longer in business. Not saying I agree, at all, with the US tort system but that's what we have for now.
 
I loathe slipNfall lawyers who encourage and enable people to bring frivolous lawsuits instead of accepting personal responsibility. 😠 The settlements only add to the cost of insurance for the rest of us so a few scumbags can become nugget rich... :rolleyes:

The only way this case can be justified is if the AI company claimed 100% effectiveness of their product and I didn't read far enough into to determine if that was the case.
 
Bobster said:
I loathe slipNfall lawyers who encourage and enable people to bring frivolous lawsuits instead of accepting personal responsibility. 😠 The settlements only add to the cost of insurance for the rest of us so a few scumbags can become nugget rich... :rolleyes:

The only way this case can be justified is if the AI company claimed 100% effectiveness of their product and I didn't read far enough into to determine if that was the case.
Click to expand...
Civil cases often don’t follow common sense nor do the outcomes. Mostly depends on the quality of the lawyer/s, judge, and jury if there is one.
 
Bobster said:
The only way this case can be justified is if the AI company claimed 100% effectiveness of their product and I didn't read far enough into to determine if that was the case.
Click to expand...

The school district is the customer... not the students. So, I don't see how the plaintiff (student) can make a claim against a service they did not contract. The contract is between the school district and the "AI" software.
 
Don't confuse contract law with a tort as you do not need any kid of written, oral, or even implied contract/warranty to be sued for a defective product or in general. You can just about sue anyone for any reason but there are some exceptions that make no sense at all.

You did bring up a very good point. Let's take the boat that knocked out the bridge in Maryland. Due to the Vessel Owner's Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30501, et seq. Those business owners and citizens have a real cost due to increased traffic and distance they have to drive due to the boat collapsing the bridge but cannot sue the boat owner for damages.
 
Back
Top