The Criminal Liability Of Hinotori: The Japanese Surgical Robotic Doctor

Abstract

The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) and the medical robot industry offers transformative opportunities to enhance healthcare quality. Approved for production and marketing in August 2020, the Hinotori Surgical Robotic Doctor, designed for laparoscopic surgery, has become a prominent tool in robot-assisted procedures. However, the integration of robots into surgical practices introduces the risk of patient harm, raising critical questions about criminal liability. Unlike general discussions on AI responsibility, this study specifically focuses on the criminal liability of the Hinotori Surgical Robotic Doctor within the framework of causality principles and intent, eventual intent, negligence, conscious negligence, and absence of fault by evaluating the legal status and responsibility of the involved actors. The study first examines whether Hinotori Surgical Robotic Doctor can be granted legal personality. If not, criminal liability must be attributed to other actors under general criminal law principles. Subsequent sections explore the responsibilities of the software programmer, manufacturer, and healthcare providers (surgeons and hospitals). This study contributes to the literature by presenting a multi-dimensional legal analysis, offering recommendations for future legislation, and addressing a significant gap by focusing directly on the Hinotori Surgical Robotic Doctor’s liability, rather than AI in general.

Keywords

• artificial intelligence
• Hinotori
• robotic surgery
• criminal liability
• negligence
• intent
• causality

References

1. Abdelaziz, D. K. A. (2025). Criminal liability for the misuse and crimes committed by AI: A comparative analysis of legislation and international conventions. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, 9. google scholar
2. Akbaba, T. (2021). Türk Ceza Hukukunda Nedensellik Bağı. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi. google scholar
3. Alemzadeh, H., Raman, J., Leveson, N., Kalbarczyk, Z., & Iyer, R. K. (2016). Adverse events in robotic surgery: A retrospective study of 14 years of FDA data. PLOS ONE, 11(4), e0151470. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151470. google scholar
4. Alghrani, A., Rehman, U., Sarwar, M. S., & Brennan, P. A. (2024). Balancing the scales of safety: The criminal law’s impact on patient safety and error reduction. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 62(3), 229–232. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2023.11.018. google scholar
5. Bal, E. N., & Sarıbey, A. Y. (2025). Artificial intelligence in forensic science: Applications, legal framework and criminal liability regime. In 2025 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Computer, Data Sciences and Applications (ACDSA) (pp. 1–7). IEEE. doi: 10.1109/ACDSA65407.2025.11165965. google scholar
6. Beale, S. S. (2005). The many faces of overcriminalization: From morals and mattress tags to overfederalization. American University Law Review, 54, 747–780. google scholar
7. Beard, T. R., Ford, G. S., Koutsky, T. M., & Spiwak, L. J. (2009). Tort liability for software developers: A law & economics perspective. John Marshall Journal of Computer & Information Law, 27(2), 199–234. google scholar
8. Boğa, B. (2024). Olası kast–bilinçli taksir ayrımının teorik temelleri (Doktora tezi). Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi, Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü, Kamu Hukuku Ana Bilim Dalı, Ceza ve Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku Bilim Dalı. google scholar

9. Boscarato, C. (2011). Who is responsible for a robot’s actions? An initial examination of Italian law with a European perspective. In B. van den Berg & L. Klaming (Eds.), Technologies on the Stand: Legal and Ethical Questions in Neuroscience and Robotics (pp. 393–408). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers. google scholar
10. Brown, D. K. (2009). Can criminal law be controlled, Michigan Law Review, 108, 1–2. google scholar
11. Centel, N., Zafer, H., & Çakmut, Ö. (2005). Türk Ceza Hukukuna Giriş (3rd ed.). Beta Yayıncılık. google scholar
12. De Micco, F., Grassi, S., Tomassini, L., Di Palma, G., Ricchezze, G., & Scendoni, R. (2024). Robotics and AI into healthcare from the perspective of European regulation: Who is responsible for medical malpractice. Frontiers in Medicine, 11, 1428504. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1428504. google scholar
13. Dharm, J., Girme, A., & Gharde, U. (2024). Artificial intelligence: Challenges in criminal and civil liability. International Journal of Law, 10(2), 52–57. google scholar
14. Dönmezer, S. (2003). Genel Ceza Hukuku Dersleri. Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi Yayınları. google scholar
15. Ebihara, Y., Hirano, S., Kurashima, Y., Takano, H., Okamura, K., Murakami, S., Shichinohe, T., Morohashi, H., Oki, E., Hakamada, K., Ikeda, N., & Mori, M. (2024). Tele-robotic distal gastrectomy with lymph node dissection on a cadaver. Asian Journal of Endoscopic Surgery, 17(1). doi: 10.1111/ases.13246. google scholar
16. Fernández Llorca, D., Charisi, V., Hamon, R., Sánchez, I., & Gómez, E. (2023). Liability regimes in the age of AI: A use-case driven analysis of the burden of proof. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 76, 613–644. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2211.01817. google scholar
17. Filipova I.A., & Koroteev V.D. (2023). Future of artificial intelligence: Object of law or legal personality? Journal of Digital Technologies and Law, 1(2), 359–386. doi: 10.21202/jdtl.2023.15. google scholar
18. Food and Drug Administration. (2025). Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/textsearch.cfm. google scholar
19. Fuller, J., Ashar, B. S., & Carey-Corrado, J. (2005). Trocar-associated injuries and fatalities: An analysis of 1,399 reports to the FDA. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, 12(4), 302–307. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2005.05.008. google scholar
20. Giannini, A., & Kwik, J. (2023). Negligence Failures and Negligence Fixes. A Comparative Analysis of Criminal Regulation of AI and Autonomous Vehicles. Criminal Law Forum, 34, 43–85. doi: 10.1007/s10609-023-09451-1. google scholar
21. Gordon, W.J., Ikoma, N., Lyu, H., Jackson, G.P., & Landman, A. (2022). Protecting procedural care—cybersecurity considerations for robotic surgery. Npj Digital Medicine, 5, 148. doi: 10.1038/s41746-022-00693-8. google scholar
22. Gökpınar, M. (2008). Ceza sorumluluğunun temeli: Kast. TBB Dergisi, 21(79), 198–234. google scholar
23. Hakeri, H. (2015). Ceza hukuku Genel Hükümler (18. bs.). Adalet Yayınevi. google scholar
24. Holder, C., Khurana, V., Harrison, F., & Jacobs, L. (2016). Robotics and law: Key legal and regulatory implications of the robotics age (Part I of II). Computer Law & Security Review, 32(3), 382–402. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2016.03.001. google scholar
25. Husak, D. (2022). Retributivism and over-punishment. Law and Philosophy, 41, 169–191. doi: 10.1007/s10982-021-09422-w. google scholar
26. Husak, D. (2023). Six questions about overcriminalization. Annual Review of Criminology, 6, 265–284. google scholar
27. Ichino, M., Sasaki, H., Takenaka, M., Zennami, K., Takahara, K., & Shiroki, R. (2024). Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy with hinotori, a brand-new surgical robot system produced in Japan; report of initial clinical case series. Asian Journal of Endoscopic Surgery, 17(4). doi: 10.1111/ases.13380. google scholar
28. Ide, H. (2024). Revolutionary advances of robotic surgery in the urology field. Juntendo Medical Journal, 70(3), 230–238. doi: 10.14789/jmj.jmj24-0008-r. google scholar
29. Jain, E. (2017). Capitalizing on criminal justice. Duke Law Journal, 67, 1381–1431. google scholar
30. Kan, C. H. (2024). Criminal liability of artificial intelligence from the perspective of criminal law: An evaluation in the context of the general theory of crime and fundamental principles. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 15(55), 276–313. doi: 10.35826/ijoess.4434. google scholar
31. Katsuno, H., Morohara, K., Endo, T., Chikaishi, Y., Kikuchi, K., Nakamura, K., Matsuo, K., Higashiguchi, T., Koide, T., Hanai, T., & Morise, Z. (2024). A new era in surgical oncology: Preliminary insights into the hinotori™ surgical robot system’s role in rectal surgery using the double bipolar method. World Journal of Surgical Oncology, 22(1), 215. doi: 10.1186/s12957-024-03499-y. google scholar
32. Kawasaki Heavy Industries. (2021, July 31). How AI is changing society: Responsibility and ethics for connected future. Kawasaki Heavy Industries. https://answers.khi.co.jp/en/connected-society/20210731e-05/. google scholar
33. Kitatsuji, H. (2023). Hinotori surgical robot system: The made-in Japan robotic-assisted surgery system. Journal of the Japanese Society of Medical Imaging and Information Sciences, 40(2), 20–23. google scholar
34. Kitatsuji, H., Ura, H., Ueda, T., Usuki, Y., Tojo, T., Yamamori, H., & Doi, W. (2022). Hinotori surgical robot system, the first made-in Japan robotic-assisted surgery system. Kawasaki Technical Review, 183, 9–14. google scholar
35. Kowert, W. (2017). The foreseeability of human-artificial intelligence interactions. Texas Law Review, 96, 181-204. google scholar
36. Köken, E. (2021). Criminal liability of artificial intelligence. Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi, 12(47), 247–286. google scholar
37. Kuklińska, L. A. (2021, September 6). Establishing liability for the actions of artificial intelligence: Recommendation for the European Commission. Institute of New Europe. https://ine.org.pl/en/establishing-liability-for-the-actions-of-artificial-intelligencerecommendation-for-the-european-commission/ google scholar
38. Kuromatsu, I., Inaba, S., Nakano, S., Yamada, T., & Yamada, Y. (2024). Experience in implementing and operating Hinotori–Da Vinci: From a team without prior Da Vinci experience. Japanese Journal of Endourology and Robotics, 37(1), 55–59. doi: 10.11302/jserjje.37.1_55. google scholar
39. Lewna, A. (2023). The construct of strict liability in criminal law of England and Wales in the context of Polish legal regulations on the subjective element in the structure of a prohibited act. Studia Iuridica Lublinensia, 32(2), 203–223. google scholar
40. Louis, M., Fernandez, A. A., Manap, N., Kandasamy, S., & Lee, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence: Is it a threat or an opportunity based on its legal personality and criminal liability? Journal of Information System and Technology Management, 6, 1–9. doi: 10.35631/JISTM.620001. google scholar
41. Loveless, J., Allen, M., & Derry, C. (2020). Complete criminal law: Text, cases, and materials (7th ed.). Oxford University Press. google scholar
42. Mantovani, F. (2008). Colpa. In Umanità e razionalità del diritto penale (pp. 359–378). Cedam. google scholar
43. Marcus, H. J., Ramirez, P. T., Khan, D. Z., Horsfall, H., Hanrahan, J. G., Williams, S. C., Beard, D. J., Bhat, R., Catchpole, K., Cook, A., Hutchison, K., Martin, J., Melvin, T., Stoyanov, D., Rovers, M., Raison, N., Dasgupta, P., Noonan, D., Stocken, D., … The IDEAL Robotics Colloquium. (2024). The IDEAL framework for surgical robotics: Development, comparative evaluation, and long-term monitoring. Nature Medicine, 30(1), 61-75. doi: 10.1038/s41591-023-02732-7. google scholar
44. Matsuo, T. (2018). Criminal and civil liability of medical AI and robots. Law & Practice, 12, 83–106. google scholar
45. Medicaroid. (2021). Medical robotic solutions that help everyone live healthier, more peaceful lives. Surgical Robotics Technology. https://www.surgicalroboticstechnology.com/company/medicaroid/. google scholar
46. Miyo, M., Okita, K., Okuya, K., Ito, T., Akizuki, E., Ogawa, T., Ishii, M., Miura, R., Ichihara, M., Korai, T., Kimura, A., & Takemasa, I. (2023). Right hemicolectomy for ascending colon cancer using the hinotori surgical robot system: The first ever case report for colon cancer. Asian Journal of Endoscopic Surgery, 16(3), 604–607. doi: 10.1111/ases.13197. google scholar
47. Motoyama, D., Matsushita, Y., Watanabe, H., Tamura, K., Otsuka, A., Fujisawa, M., & Miyake, H. (2023). Robot‐assisted adrenalectomy using a Hinotori surgical robot system: Report of first series of six cases. Asian Journal of Endoscopic Surgery, 16(3), 489–495. doi: 10.1111/ases.13212 google scholar
48. Öztürk, M. K. (2023). Türk Ceza Kanunu’nda bir iştirak şekli olarak faillik (TCK m. 37). Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(1), 255–307. doi: 10.52273/sduhfd..1220467. google scholar
49. Pagallo, U. (2011). Killers, fridges, and slaves: A legal journey in robotics. AI & Society, 26(4), 347–354. doi: 10.1007/s00146-010-0316-0. google scholar
50. Parlak Börü, Ş. (2019). Robotik cerrahi müdahalelerden doğan hukuki sorumluluk. İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(2), 758–775. doi: 10.21492/inuhfd.636507. google scholar
51. Parsons, S. (2004). Intention in criminal law. Mountbatten Journal of Legal Studies, 4(1), 2, 5-19. google scholar
52. Pepito, J. A., Vazquez, B. A., & Locsin, R. C. (2019). Artificial intelligence and autonomous machines: Influences, consequences, and dilemmas in human care. Health, 11(7), 932–949. doi: 10.4236/health.2019.117075. google scholar
53. Pinkevich, T., & Konev, D. (2024). The risks of Using Artificial Intelligence As A Tool and Means of Committing Offences: Problems of Legal Regulation and Ways of Counteracting Them. Legal Order: History, Theory, Practice, 2(16), 84-94. doi: 10.47475/2311-696x-2024-43-4-148-153. google scholar
54. Rathnayake, A. P. (2024). Legal and ethical facets of robotic surgery: A suggestion for a guideline. Sri Lanka Journal of Forensic Medicine, Science & Law, 15(1), 29–33. doi: 10.4038/sljfmsl.v15i1.7947. google scholar
55. Razek, R. M. A. M. A. (2024). Criminal responsibility for errors committed by medical robots: Legal and ethical challenges. Journal of Law and Sustainable Development, 12(1), 1–20. doi: 10.55908/sdgs.v12i1.2443. google scholar
56. Reinach, A. (2009). On the concept of causality in the criminal law. Libertarian Papers, 1, 35. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1356054. google scholar
57. Rivero-Moreno, Y., Echevarria, S., Vidal-Valderrama, C., Pianetti, L., Cordova-Guilarte, J., Navarro-Gonzalez, J., Acevedo-Rodriguez, J., Dorado-Avila, G., Osorio-Romero, L., Chavez-Campos, C., & Acero-Alvarracín, K. (2023). Robotic surgery: A comprehensive review of the literature and current trends. Cureus, 15(7), e42370. doi: 10.7759/cureus.42370. google scholar
58. Robinson, P. H. (1993). Functional analysis of criminal law. Northwestern University Law Review, 88, 857–913. google scholar
59. Simester, A. P. (2021). Fundamentals of criminal law: Responsibility, culpability, and wrongdoing. Oxford University Press. google scholar
60. Suzuki, Y., Sato, H., & Nakazawa, N. (2023). Current status of robotic surgery in Japan gynecologic field. Intelligent Surgery, 6, 25–30. doi: 10.1016/j.isurg.2023.03.001. google scholar
61. Şenol, F. (2025). Kasten yaralama sonucu ölüme neden olma suçunda nedensellik ve objektif isnadiyet. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 74(1), 199–271. google scholar
62. Taymur, B. (2024). Kast ve Bilinçli Taksirin Haksızlık Yoğunluklarının İncelenmesi. Kırklareli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(2), 353-394. google scholar
63. Tervoort, T., De Oliveira, M. T., Pieters, W., Van Gelder, P., Olabarriaga, S. D., & Marquering, H. (2020). Solutions for mitigating cybersecurity risks caused by legacy software in medical devices: A scoping review. IEEE Access, 8, 84352–84361. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2984376. google scholar
64. Tobe, T., Terakawa, T., Ueki, H., Hara, T., Shiraishi, Y., Wakita, N., Okamura, Y., Suzuki, K., Bando, Y., Chiba, K., Teishima, J., Nakano, Y., & Miyake, H. (2024). Initial experience of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction using the Hinotori Surgical Robot System. International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, 20(5), e2673. doi: 10.1002/rcs.2673. google scholar
65. Tomihara, K., Ide, T., Ito, K., Tanaka, T., & Noshiro, H. (2024). Robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy using the first domestic surgical robot platform (the hinotori™ Surgical Robot System): A case report. Surgical Case Reports, 10(1), 22. doi: 10.1186/s40792-024-01808-x. google scholar
66. Vuletić, I., & Petrašević, T. (2020). Is it time to consider EU criminal law rules on robotics. Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy, 16, 225–244. google scholar
67. Vulpe, A., Crăciunescu, R., Drăgulinescu, A.-M., Kyriazakos, S., Paikan, A., & Ziafati, P. (2021). Enabling Security Services in Socially Assistive Robot Scenarios for Healthcare Applications. Sensors, 21(20), 6912. doi: 10.3390/s21206912. google scholar
68. Walden, P. A., Zeybek, B., & Phelps, J. Y. (2018). Understanding the legal essentials of a bowel injury lawsuit in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, 25(1), 30–37. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2017.09.018. google scholar
69. Wasserstrom, R. A. (1960). Strict liability in the criminal law. Stanford Law Review, 12(4), 731–745. google scholar
70. Yaacoub, J.-P. A., Noura, H. N., Salman, O., & Chehab, A. (2022). Robotics cyber security: vulnerabilities, attacks, countermeasures, and recommendations. International Journal of Information Security, 21(1), 115–158. doi: 10.1007/s10207-021-00545-8. google scholar
71. Ziemianin, K. (2021). Civil legal personality of artificial intelligence. Future or utopia? Internet Policy Review, 10(2), 1544-1563. doi: 10.14763/2021.2.1544. google scholar