Analysis of Hospital Civil Liability in Cases Involving Multiple Causes of Damage in Intelligent Treatment Processes: A Review of Judicial Practices in the United States and England

Nikbakht Nasrabadi, M; Abbasi, M; Falah, M; Mirzanezhad Juybari, A

doi:10.22034/ijs.2026.742913

Analysis of Hospital Civil Liability in Cases Involving Multiple Causes of Damage in Intelligent Treatment Processes: A Review of Judicial Practices in the United States and England

Authors

M Nikbakht Nasrabadi ¹

M Abbasi ²

M Falah ³

A Mirzanezhad Juybari ⁴

¹ PhD Student in Private Law, Institute of Higher Education and Research in Management and Planning

² Associate Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University

³ Associate Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, Shahed University

⁴ Associate Professor of Law, Institute of Higher Education and Research in Management and Planning

https://doi.org/10.22034/ijs.2026.742913

Abstract

Background and Objective: Healthcare centers serve as the foundation for implementing artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine. Currently, in advanced countries including the UK, the US, and other European nations, this process is being integrated into hospitals and healthcare facilities through software and intelligent robots. While AI has the potential to overcome existing barriers in hospital management, it may also introduce new challenges. Important questions arise regarding medical liability within AI-based healthcare systems, including: How should healthcare providers, AI system developers, or hospitals be held responsible for adverse outcomes related to AI-driven recommendations or decisions? Who the physician or the hospital would be liable if a patient is harmed due to AI applications? These legal issues must be thoroughly discussed and examined before deploying such technologies.
Materials and Methods: This descriptive-analytical study involved a review and documentation of contemporary Persian and English sources for use in this article.
Results: According to the theory of vicarious liability, indirect and secondary liability can be attributed to the employer (hospital) for the wrongful acts of an employee (medical staff). Conversely, healthcare providers using AI-based medical devices should be held responsible for any damages caused by these automated systems during their use. Under this theory, liability should be distributed among hospitals and other relevant parties for damages caused by AI to ensure full compensation for the patient.
Conclusions: European laws propose principles related to “Vicarious Liability,” whereby an employer-such as a hospital-is held responsible for the actions of its employees, including doctors, as well as “Product Liability.” Hospitals may be liable for providing appropriate intelligent care systems. However, product liability law offers limited assistance in addressing these concerns because it is challenging to categorize a faulty AI system as a product defect or design flaw. Although courts are generally reluctant to extend product liability to developers of medical software-since such software is regarded as a support tool for final medical decision-making-judicial practices in Europe, including in the UK and the US, remain ambiguous and inconsistent, thereby exacerbating the existing uncertainty.

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence

Liability, Legal

Clinical Decision-Making

Hospitals

1. McGuire, B. and Smith, CH. 2006. The History of Artificial Intelligence. University of Washington, Gary Yang Japan's Fifth Generation Computer System project.p. 200.

2. Balthazar, P., Harri, P., Prater, A., Safdar, NM. 2018. “Protecting your patients’ interests in the era of big data, artificial intelligence and predictive analytics”, Journal of Am Coll Radiol, Vol.15, No.3, pt B, pp.
580-586.

3. Zakarinia H. The nature and basis of civil liability arising from artificial intelligence in the law of Iran and EU member states. Private Law. 2023; 20(1):135–52.

4. Maddox, TM., Rumsfeld, JS, and Payne, PRO. 2019. “Questions for Artificial Intelligence in Health Care”, JAMA, Vol.321, No.1, pp.31-32.

5. Vaqei M. Feasibility of granting legal personality to intelligent robots based on the EU regulation on electronic persons. Journal of Majlis and Strategy. 2020; 27(103): 306.

6. Frank van, Harmelen (2008). Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, First Edition, Elsevier.p76.

7. McGuire, Brian (2006). The History of Artificial Intelligence, University of Washington.p187.

8. Nevejans, Nathalie (2016). "European Civil Law
Rules in Robotics", DirectorateGeneral for Internal Policies p8.

9. Jesse Corn, Balancing the Pros and Cons of AI in Healthcare, FORBES (Dec. 1, 2023), Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil
/2023/12/01/balancing-the-pros-and-cons-of-ai-inhealthcare/?sh=7f8fd03b752b.

10. Tawfik Abedali, Inpatient Care: Why AI Must Be Kept Out Of Hospitals, 9 U. Cin. Intell. Prop. & Comput. L.J. (2024).

11. Abeer Malik and Barry Solaiman, AI in hospital administration and management: ethical and legal implications, Research handbook on health, AI and the law, p.26-28.

12. Peyrozi P, Salek Sh. Civil liability of hospitals. Journal of Comparative Legal Studies of Iran and International Law. 2014; n 22: p.18.

13. Tabatabai SM, Sheniour Gh. Scope of civil liability of hospitals towards patients. Journal of Medical Law. 2014; 8(31): p.19.

14. Choctaw, W.T. (2008). Avoiding Medical Malpractice: A Physician's Guide to the Law. Springer.p.56.

15. Sidharth Chamarty, Vicarious Liability of Hospitals for Medical Negligence of Medical Professional
Online International Interdisciplinary Research Journal, {Bi-Monthly}, ISSN 2249-9598, Volume-09,
Issue-03, May-June 2019 Issue.p.345.

16. Cassidy v. Ministry of Health, [1951] 2 K.B. 343.

17. Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital, 33 Ill. 2d 326, 211 N.E.2d.

18. Collins v. Herts C.C., [1947] 1 All E.R. 633.

19. Cox v. Ministry of Justice, [2016] UKSC 10.

20. Vivone v.Broadlawns Medical Centre, 728 N.W.2d 223 (Iowa Ct. App. 2006).

21. Roessler v. Novak, Florida District Court of Appeal, 2003 858 So.2d 1158.

22. Malcolm v. Mount Vernon Hospital, 309 A.D.2d 704 (2003)/766 N.Y.S.2d 185.

23. Ginsberg v. Northwest Medical Center, 14 So.3d 1250 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2009).

24. Fletcher v. South Peninsula Hospital, 71 P.3d 833 (Alaska 2003).

25. Stauch, M& Wheat.K Tingle.J. (2001). Sourcebook on Medical Law. 2 ed. London: Cavendish Publishing Limited, p214.

26. Abbasi M. Collection of medical articles. 1st ed. P17

27. Stuhmcke, A. (2001). Essential Tort Law. 2^ed. London: Cavendish Publishing Limited.p113.

28. Plutshack v. University of Minnesota Hospitals (1981)

29. Ron Southwic, Hospital and AL: Legal questions, Liability and consent,june 19, 2024,p 112-113. Available at: https://www.chiefhealthcareexecutive.com/view/hospitals-and-ai-legal-questions-liability-and-consent.

30. Michael Froomkin, Ian Kerr and Joelle Pineau, ‘When AIs Outperform Doctors: Confronting the Challenges of a Tort-Induced Over-Reliance on Machine Learning’ (2019) 61 Arizona Law Review 33, 56.

31. Czubinsky v Doctors Hospital 139 Cal App 3d 361, 367 (CA Court of Appeals 1983) (United States).

32. Leavitt v St Tammany Parish Hospital 396 So 2d 406, 408 (LA Court of Appeals 1981) (United States).

33. Parker v St Vincent Hospital 122 NM 39, 47 (NM Court of Appeals 1996) (United States).

34. Nicholson Price II and Douglas McNair, ‘Health Care AI: Law, Regulation, and Policy’ in Michael Matheny and others (eds), Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: The Hope, the Hype, the Promise, the Peril (National Academy of Medicine 2019) 199.

35. Smith v. MedBot Solutions, 309 A.D.2d 704 (2003)/766 N.Y.S.2d 185.

36. Johnson v. NeoMed Robotics396 So 2d 406, 408 (LA Court of Appeals 1981) (United States).

37. Ahmed Eldakak, Abdulla Alremeithi, Emad
Dahiyat, Moatasem El-Gheriani, Hassan
Mohamed & Mohammad Ibrahim Abdulrahim Abdulla; Civil liability for the actions of
autonomous AI in healthcare: an invitation to further contemplation; Humanities and Social Sciences Communications; v. 11, Article number: 305 (2024).P.3.