Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.modula2,comp.lang.scheme
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!nntp.sei.cmu.edu!news.psc.edu!hudson.lm.com!godot.cc.duq.edu!news.duke.edu!news.mathworks.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!in2.uu.net!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@research.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Subject: Re: Certification of Computer Scientists
Message-ID: <DEL4IE.L2r@research.att.com>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ
References: <adaworksDE5C3E.L8o@netcom.com> <42i4fo$1692@locutus.rchland.ibm.com> <DEJHoG.6Jt@nntpa.cb.att.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 11:42:14 GMT
Lines: 24
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.edu:14139 comp.lang.ada:34605 comp.lang.c++:147993 comp.lang.modula2:12559 comp.lang.scheme:13687

In article <DEJHoG.6Jt@nntpa.cb.att.com> dcw@guam.emspnc.att.com (dcw) writes:

> It seems to me that any such liability suit would be "interesting" (in the 
> Chinese sense of the word -- "May you live in interesting times").  The 
> plaintiff would, IMHO, have to show that the program itself was inherently
> liable for the death or injury.  In other words, that the program was 
> written such that the machine or device operator could not have anticipated
> or prevented the damage.

> Of course, the Therac25 case demonstrates that this is possible, but it 
> would be rather difficult to prove, I think, particularly if one considers
> hardware safeguards as well.

When dealing with things that are intrinsically dangerous, lawsuits
often try to invoke the notion of `strict liability.'  As I understand
it, the idea is that when you know something is that dangerous,
merely being careful isn't enough -- you have to be so careful that
nothing goes wrong.

Strict liability is often applied to things like airplanes; I imagine
it would be applied to something like the Therac25 as well.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@research.att.com
