AUTOMATION
developing area and definitive answers are probably not yet available. But, with more technological advances in overhead lifting, are there proper safety regulations in place or is a review needed? Have the regulations and legislation concerning use (and safe use) of overhead lifting equipment caught up the with advances in technology? “They are being developed,” Dobbs says. “Machinery regulation now incorporates requirements for such things, and it will be fully enforced across Europe in 2027. User legislation, on the other hand, is much further behind and to my knowledge in most places dates back to the late 90s. “However, it should be pointed out that the user legislation is risk based and goal setting – it states what must be achieved but says nothing about the means of achieving it. Writing it this way means that, by default, it covers all aspects, as it is up to the employer of persons using the equipment to ensure that it is safe at all times and that all personnel involved in its operation are competent for the task.” In other words, it remains the case that it is
the responsibility of the owner or employer to ensure that the AI-driven machine is safe and properly maintained and that the operators are properly trained in its use – and that is despite that little practical difficulty mentioned above. “That an overhead hoist or crane in a factory is trained on AI and machine learning and has, in effect, taught itself, and that no human can check this for safety is a good point,” he says. “But I guess the question you should be asking is how much freedom we should give AI – and that is a debate that to my knowledge has not been discussed at user level. “You see, if you consider fully automated systems, which are pre-programmed but can
Employers risk liability for accidents at work, whether due to manual or AI-assisted hoists.
go wrong, we tend to isolate the equipment with cells, so that when say a human enters the working area and might be in danger, the system automatically stops. This is how the risk of collision with people is reduced. The automated machine does not see or care that something is in its path, so cutting power when someone does appear in the wrong place is the way to mitigate the risk. “So in the case of AI, you would need to
take control of such things away from the AI machine and have a fail-safe mechanism that ensures that no matter what the machine wants to do, there is no risk to safety.” In other words, a kill switch would make sure that the AI cannot run totally amok like HAL, the super computer in the classic film 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Dealing with liability Whether or not such a kill switch was in place, is it the case that if an AI-controlled machine causes an accident or injury, the owner and employer is responsible – even though there is no way that the owner could have worked out in advance that the machine could cause the accident? “Yes, they would be,” says Dobbs. “The
reason would be that they have relinquished control and introduced risk. The risk assessment should identify such an eventuality and measures should be put in place to mitigate it. To give an analogy, if you have an AI hoist without maintaining [a kill switch] control, it would be the equivalent of asking an operator to drive a mobile crane without a proper braking mechanism.”
It would seem then that any person injured by an AI crane would be entitled to redress from the owner of the machine. Would the owner in turn be able to sue the manufacturer of the machine or the writer of the software that instructed the AI what tasks it should learn to perform? Have such situations, or comparable ones in other industries, been tested in law? Or is this a case, as with self- driving vehicles, where the technology has progressed beyond the current regulations? “Manufacturing and user legislation are
AI-assisted hoist operators should install a kill switch to enhance safety. 24 | August 2025 |
www.hoistmagazine.com
two different things,” says Dobbs. “The supply legislation [that affects the manufacturer] is integrating requirements, but I am not an expert on such things so cannot comment as to the extent or suitability.” He can, however, speak on user legislation. “The user requirements are to identify and address risks associated with the conditions of use. We are all responsible for safety in the workplace. However, theoretically,
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79
