INTRODUCTION
In today’s world of AI and technology, many hospitals are incorporating advanced technologies. Now, Doctors routinely use multi-armed surgical robots to perform complex surgeries. The most widely used is the da Vinci surgical robot. These robots help doctors by providing them with a magnified 3d view and steady robotic arms.[1]
However, as these robots have become more common, a major problem has emerged. When a normal surgery goes wrong with the use of a scalpel, it is medical negligence or the doctor’s fault, but what happens when a robot malfunctions and cuts at the wrong place, or a computer program makes a bad calculation? Who is to blame when medical technology fails? Because robots cannot go to court, the blame usually falls on 3 categories: The surgeon, the manufacturer or the hospital.
TECHNICAL FAILURES IN THE OPERATING ROOM
To understand medical negligence in this field, it is important to know how these robots work. These robots do not work on their own; basically, a surgeon controls them. He sits at some distance from the operating table in front of a computer, and the machine copies the movement of the doctor’s hand. So, injuries can be caused by mechanical and human error.
The issues of insulation failure, electrical arcing, and accidental cuts become prominent. Surgical robots use electrical currents to cut tissue and stop bleeding. The metal instruments on the robotic arms are covered with protective rubber insulation to keep the electricity focused on a tiny area. Over time, these rubber covers can develop tiny, invisible cracks. When electricity escapes through these cracks, it can create a spark that jumps to healthy tissue. This is known as ‘electrical arcing.’ It can burn and tear internal organs without the surgeon ever realising it because the spark often happens outside the camera’s field of view.[2] It can lead to big problems, which may include a blood vessel being cut, leading to blood loss and many other problems.
Let’s understand the situation using the established case law; Taylor v Intuitive Surgical, Inc. In Taylor v Intuitive Surgical, Inc (2017), an inexperienced surgeon used the da Vinci robot on an obese patient, ignoring manufacturer guidelines. The 15-hour surgery resulted in a torn rectal wall, massive stroke, and eventual death. The family sued the manufacturer for failing to provide adequate safety warnings.
The Washington Supreme Court ruled that a medical device manufacturer’s duty to warn is not satisfied by just warning the doctor. Under product liability law, manufacturers owe an independent, strict liability duty to warn the hospital (the purchaser) directly, allowing facilities to safely credential surgeons on complex technology.[3]
It sent a warning letter to Intuitive (The company that developed and manufactures the da Vinci Surgical System is Intuitive Surgical, Inc.) at its headquarters in Sunnyvale, California. The 2013 letter criticised Intuitive’s safety notification procedures. According to the FDA, Intuitive failed to report many da Vinci surgical system malfunctions. The FDA also criticised the company for failing to include instructions on how to clean da Vinci’s robotic instruments. Improper cleaning can damage the robots and expose patients to dangerous germs and infections.[4]
ESTABLISHING LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY
When a robotic surgery fails, determining who pays for the damage requires looking at three distinct targets: “Manufacturer”, “Surgeon”, and the “Hospital”.
- The Manufacturer: Sometimes, the doctor does everything perfectly, but the machine itself fails. When the technology breaks, the company that made the robot can be sued for product liability, for example: Manufacturing Defects, Design Defects, Failure to warn, etc.
- The Surgeon: Even though a robot is high-tech, it is still just a tool. The surgeon sits at a computer and controls the robot’s every move. Therefore, if something goes wrong, the surgeon is usually the first person looked at because they are still legally responsible for the patient’s care. Example: Due to less training of surgeons, mistakes may happen.
- The Hospital: The hospital where the surgery takes place can also be held responsible. Hospitals have a legal duty to keep patients safe. They can be blamed if they fail in these areas: Poor maintenance and improper rules.
REDEFINING: INFORMED CONSENT
Because robotic surgery carries unique risks, the paperwork patients sign before surgery must be revised. Many patients think ‘robotic surgery’ means a smart robot is doing the work by itself. Hospitals must clearly explain to patients that a human is still in control, but that there is a small risk of mechanical failure or software glitches.
Patients have a right to know exactly how much experience their surgeon has with that specific robot before agreeing to the procedure. Hence, patients must be aware of the risks (knowing the risks is equal to informed consent).[5]
CONCLUSION
Surgical robots are great inventions that can make complex operations much easier when used correctly. However, they are still just machines. They can break, short-circuit, and suffer from software glitches. More importantly, they are only as safe as the human surgeons who control them.
When technology fails in the operating room, determining who is to blame is a difficult task. Lawyers must look at whether the doctor made a mistake, the company built a faulty machine, or the hospital failed to train its staff. As hospitals continue to adopt automation, the legal system must remain strict to ensure that patient safety always comes before technological trends and that rules remain clear for everyone.
Author(s) Name: Stuti Abbi (The Law School, Jammu University)
Refernces:
[1] Patrick Probst, ‘A Review of the Role of Robotics in Surgery: To DaVinci and Beyond!’ (2023) 120(5) Missouri Medicine 389 <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10569391/> accessed 15 June 2026
[2] Nadia El-Yaouti, ‘WRONGFUL DEATH LAWSUIT SAYS DEFECTIVE ROBOTIC DEVICE BURNED A FLORIDA WOMAN’S SMALL INTESTINE’ (Law Commentary, 13 February 2024) <https://www.lawcommentary.com/articles/wrongful-death-lawsuit-says-defective-robotic-device-burned-a-florida-womans-small-intestine?hl=en-GB> accessed 15 June 2026
[3] Taylor v Intuitive Surgical, Inc [2017] 187 Wash.2d 743
[4] Christie Nicholson, ‘Da Vinci Robot Surgery: Legal Information and Lawsuits’ (FindLaw, 07 October 2025) <https://www.findlaw.com/injury/product-liability/da-vinci-robot-surgery-lawsuits.html> accessed 18 June 2026
[5] Satvik N Pai et al., ‘In the Hands of a Robot, From the Operating Room to the Courtroom: The Medicolegal Considerations of Robotic Surgery’ (2023) 15(8) Cureus e43634 <https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10504870/> accessed 19 June 2026