LIABILITY FOR ERRONEOUS DATA Azhar Abed Hameed By

LIABILITY FOR ERRONEOUS DATA Azhar Abed Hameed By GS 52440 Supervised by Prof. Abdul Rashid b. Mohamed

INTRODUCTION • All of us have suffered the consequences erroneous information. For most of us, • most of the time, the impact has minor significance and is of short duration. • Kenneth Clup Davis, in a 1956 review article on government tort liability, opined that there was a need for a "system of sovereign responsibility" in that field. • Nowadays there is an ever growing need for coherent "system of sovereign responsibility" in the field of local government liability for erroneous data from computer-based information system, including geographic information system (GIS).

INTRODUCTION • the legal landscape is cluttered with various theories regarding liability, or non-liability, for governmental entities in the field of information dissemination. • These theories range from revise concerns for free expression and wide distribution of data to tort theories of negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation, malpractice and defamation.

TYPES OF ERRORS 1. Errors of omission 2. Errors in scale 3. Locational Errors 4. Use of inappropriate data

Errors of omission • A mistake that consists of not doing something you should have done, or not including something such as an amount or fact that should be included. • An example for omission error, an underground duct was not marked on a map provided by the city to the contractor and a fire resulted from the contractors work, a state statue required the city to mark its underground utilities and imposed liability from breach of that duty.

Errors in scale • It is one of the most common errors occurs due to choose inappropriate scales for particular work. • in the case of Aetna versus Jeppeson and Co (642 f 2 d 339, 1981) the court found that an aeronautical chart published Jeppeson and Co had individually misrepresented reality. Two views of an airport approach had been prepared at different scales; however the views were represented side by side, and giving the appearance that they were in the same scale. The court found that this had led to fatal plane crash and the Jeppeson and Co were legally responsible for this fatal accident.

Locational errors • There are many application for locational errors one of them is affecting the systems in an aircraft for measuring airspeed and altitude. • For instance, a case happened in United States for airplane crash was caused by inaccurate depiction of the location of a broadcasting tower. The government was held the responsible.

Use of inappropriate data • Misuse of data or use of inappropriate data has become an urgent case needed to be solved due to negative impact of it. • An example for inappropriate data is a state agency used a 1: 24, 000 USGS topographic map to define the high water line around a lake. A resulting challenge of the designation of the land below this high water line as public land was unsuccessful. The court considered the state agency responsible for this misuse because the USGS map was not designed to be used at such a detailed scale and therefore was not appropriate for this purpose.

duty of care (negligence) • A duty of care is the legal responsibility of a person or organization to avoid any behaviors or omissions that could reasonably be foreseen to cause harm to others. • when a person is negligent or careless in a way that causes harm to someone else, the victim of the negligence can sue him. This is called civil liability or civil negligence. • or example, a parent who leaves a two-year-old child alone in the house in order to go out to a bar and have a good time could face charges for criminal negligence.

liability in the use of GIS and Geographic data sets • Liability is a subject of great interest and concern in the GIS community. Use of GIS data and software inevitably results in some action or decision. • If errors or shortcomings have resulted in inappropriate actions or decisions and parties are harmed, the spectra of liability arises for dataset and software producers as well as for all other parties involved in handling geographical information. • As a general proposition, legal liability for damages is a harm-based concept. For instance, those who have been hired specifically to provide data for a database or those who are offering data for sale to others are responsible for some level of competence in the performance of the service or for some level of fitness in the product offered.

Contractual Liability • The contractual context of spatial data builders' liability will normally be provided by one of the several standard term agreements, such contract constitute the agreement between producer and user. • There will usually be provision for sub-contractor (Dansby 1993). One, such standard term agreement is "an implied term"

GIS Legal Issues and Information Management • One of the main benefits of GIS is its ability together geographically related information from many sources, coupled with the ability to manipulate, reconstitute and analyze this information for various purposes. • This capability can result to legal risks as well as obligations to conform to professional ethics. The challenge is to deal fairly and simply with them. • Geographic information with its strong graphic element is like a picture in many respects. It is easy for someone to recognize their own work if others use it. In particular, environmental thematic information is often highly judgmental.

Reliability and Misuse of GIS Information • An important consideration in data sharing is the reliability and, confidentiality of the information. Data providers need to be concerned that their product will lie used only for valid purposes. • Otherwise, the user may blame them if the subsequent use is defective or fails, leading to damage to professional reputation, or even liability claims. Data users should be careful that information is adequate and appropriate for their needs. • In addition to the documentation of origin, the data. files and any contractual agreement should carry a warning and disclaimer against misuse.

Confidentiality • In some cases, people or agencies may contribute information for a public purpose- (e. g. an environmental assessment) on condition that it should not be made public. • In this case, proper documentation and control are essential to avoid unauthorized release. • For example, the locations of an archaeological sites may be needed so as to avoid impacts during faculty siting and construction, and the assessment may have to be shown at public hearings.

Warranties • In general, when customers buy products, they want to be reassured that they’re making the best decision possible. They need to know that what they spend their money on will last, and that if it doesn’t, they can reach out to the company for support. That's where warranties come in. • Warranties are often an issue in dispute in cases involving computer product contrasts the most provided by a seller of goods is that the: A. The title conveyed shall be good, and its transfer rightful. B. The good should be delivered free from any security interest or other lien or encumbrance of which the buyer at the time of contracting has no knowledge.

Express warranties • An express warranty can take several different forms, whether spoken or written, and is basically a guarantee that the product will meet a certain level of quality and reliability. • If the product fails in this regard, the manufacturer will fix or replace the product for no additional charge. Many such warranties are printed on a product's packaging or made available as an option.

Express warranties • A verbal express warranty may be as simple as a car dealer telling a customer, "I guarantee that this engine will last another 100, 000 miles. " If the car fails to live up to this claim, the buyer may take it up with the seller (although proving the existence of a verbal warranty is very difficult). • Other warranties may be expressed in writing but do not necessarily look like traditional warranties. For example, a light bulb manufacturer prints the words "lasts 15, 000 hours" on its packaging. The words "guaranteed" or "warranty" do not appear, but this claim nevertheless is an express warranty.

Implied warranties • Most consumer purchases are covered by an implied warranty of merchantability, which means it is guaranteed to work as claimed. For instance, a vacuum cleaner that does not create enough suction to clean an average floor is in breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Federal law defines "merchantable" by the following criteria: 1. They must conform to the standards of the trade as applicable to the contract for sale. 2. They must be fit for the purposes such goods are ordinarily used, even if the buyer ordered them for use otherwise. 3. They must be uniform as to quality and quantity, within tolerances of the contract for sale. 4. They must be packaged and labeled per the contract for sale. 5. They must meet the specifications on the package labels, even if not so specified by the contract for sale.

Warranties in GIS • Let us assume that an individual has purchased off-the-shelf GIS software from a merchant. The Purchaser leaves the store, tries the software, and is disappointed because it does not meet his or her expectations. • The product carries with it an implied warranty of merchantability as well as potential Express warranties that might be included, for instance, on the packaging. • Whether the purchaser May receive return of purchase price will depend on whether these warranties have been breached. • Software, system, and data sellers typically are able to avoid damages for breaching implied warranties Of merchantability by meeting the requirements of 2 -314(2) of the UCC listed above and are able to Avoid damages for breaching express warranties by not blatantly overstating or misrepresenting the Capabilities of their products.

Tort liability concepts • A tort is a legal term describing a violation where one person causes damage, injury, or harm to another person. The violation may result from intentional actions, a breach of duty as in negligence, or due to a violation of statutes. • The party that commits the tort is called the tortfeasor. , the tortfeasor who is found to be “liable” or responsible for a person’s injuries will likely be required to pay damages.

Tort liability concepts • Under most tort laws, the injury suffered by the plaintiff does not have to actually be physical. A tortfeasor may be required to pay damages for other types of harm, including emotional distress or a violation of personal rights. An example of an intentional tort is the ruling between Gawker and Hulk Hogan on March 18, 2016. Hogan was awarded $140 million due to intentional tort law, since it was deemed that Gawker intentionally invaded his privacy to obtain video evidence of a private act.

Tort liability in GIS cases • For public policy reasons, suppliers of defective products are often held strictly liable to consumers and other product users for injuries caused by defective products. • The primary objective of strict products liability theory is to provide an incentive to manufacturers to keep unsafe defective products off the market.

Changes needed to reduce GIS liability • There is little GIS producers can do to avoid liability completely. Several suggestions, however, follow to assist GIS producers in partially avoiding the nearly inescapable liability. • The need for technical and professional standards to regulate what GIS is and how it should be produced is paramount. • Creating uniform GIS standards will produce many benefits, especially in the planning-related industries where its use has grown significantly.

Changes needed to reduce GIS liability • Secondly, GIS should continue to be used and have its use expanded as an evidentiary tool. • The knowledge of how, why, for what, and for whom the data was created will enlighten the user, in this case, the judge and jury, as to the data’s credibility and significance. • Products Liability, suggest that charts should be treated as products, the consequence of calling GIS a product may force GIS producers to reconsider making their products widely available for use

Conclusion • Liability is a creation of the law to support a range of important social goals such as avoidance of injurious behavior, encouraging the fulfilment of obligations established by contracts, and the distribution of losses to those responsible for them. • Minimizing losses for users of geographical data products and reducing liability exposure for creators and distributors of such products is achieved primarily through performing competent work and keeping all parties informed of their obligations.

Conclusion • Liability in data, products, and services related to GIS is likely to be determined in most instances by resort to contract law and warranty issues. This is true whether geographical data products are custom developed for specific clients or mass produced for the general consumer market. Tort theories, such as negligence and strict liability, come to the forefront when preventing harms to the public generally arises as an issue.

References • [1]Kenneth Clup Davis, (1956), "tort liability of governmental units", 40 minn. l. rev. 751, at 813 (1956) • [2] Blodwen tarter, (1992), "information liability: new interpretation for the electronic age "XI COMPUTER/LAW j. 481, at 483(1992). • [3] DR. P. C. NWILO & NGEH WILLIAM & BADl. UO O. T (LEGAL ISSUES IN GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTE AND MANAGEMENT). • [4] Graham Cornish, (1991), " document supply in the new information environment“ 23(3) JOURNA LLIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCINCE 125(September, 1991). • [5] Diversified graphics, Ltd. v. Gravos 868 f. 2 d 293(8 th Cir, 1989): note, computer malpractice: two alternatives to the traditional "professional negligence" standard, XI COMPUTER /LAW j. 323 (1992). • [6] William Z. Nasri, (1986)"professional liability" 7(4) JOURNAL OF LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION 141(1986). • [7]Dun &Bradstreet v. Greenmoss builders, 472 U. S. 749 (1985). • [8]Harrigan v. city of Reno, 475 p. 2 d 94 (nev. 1970): 41 -4 -2 b NMSA 1978 (1989 Repel). [9] Federal geographic data committee, content standards for spatial metadata (1993); federal geographic data committee, cadastral data content standard, version 1. 0 (1994) • [10] ACSM-ASPRS geographic information management system committee, multipurpose geographic data guidelines for local government ACSM BULLETIN 42 -50(august 1989) •