From Guidelines to Algorithms: How AI is Rewriting the Leges Artis and Medical Liability in Europe
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4013/rechtd.2026.181.01Abstract
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) systems into clinical practice requires a heavy reconsideration of legal categories related to medical liability, not only nationally but also within the increasingly interconnected European framework. This article examines the transition from the traditional lex artis, rooted in national jurisdictions, to a new paradigm shaped by EU governance. Starting from the Italian regulatory framework established by Law No. 24/2017 (“Gelli-Bianco”), the analysis then turns to Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (the AI Act), which classifies AI systems in healthcare as “high-risk” and imposes obligations of transparency and human oversight. A comparative perspective is then developed, focusing on Italy, Germany, France, and Spain, and revealing different conceptions of the standard of care: from the German fachärztlicher Standard to the Spanish lex artis ad hoc, through the French dualism between fault-based liability and “national solidarity”. Special attention is devoted to explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) as a means to mitigate the opacity of black-box models, together with the implications of the new directive on liability for defective products. The article further explores emerging scenarios from human-machine interaction, such as concordant error and dissent from algorithmic recommendations, assessing them against national approaches. The study reveals a legal landscape in profound transformation, where technological innovation acts as a catalyst for change in diverse national legal cultures, and concludes by sketching a roadmap for governing the possible convergence toward a European model of “augmented medical liability”, in which harmonized EU principles are interwoven with national legal traditions, seeking equilibrium between technological innovation, patient safety, and legal certainty.References
ABOY, M.; MINSSEN, T.; VAYENA, E. 2024. Navigating the EU AI Act: implications for regulated digital medical products. NPJ digital medicine, 7(1):237. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-024-01232-3
AMORE, N.; CIONI, A.; CORTI, D.; LIPPI, ME.; SESTIERI, M.; VALLINI, A. 2024. Policy Paper. Buone pratiche e modelli di regolamentazione per l’impiego della IA nella diagnostica per immagini. La legislazione penale, 3-4:11-13
ANZANELLO, L. 2017. La responsabilità professionale sanitaria dall’Arrêt Mercier alla Loi Kouchner. Assicurazioni, 255-266
BASILE, F.; POLI, P. F. 2022. La responsabilità per “colpa medica” a cinque anni dalla legge Gelli-Bianco. Sistema penale, 1-34.
CAPUTO, M. 2012. “Filo d’Arianna” o “Flauto Magico”? Linee guida e checklist nel sistema della responsabilità per colpa medica. Diritto penale contemporaneo, 1-39.
_____. 2020. Prevenire è meglio. Uno sguardo interdisciplinare sull’organizzazione sanitaria quale fonte di rischi e garante della sicurezza delle cure. Rivista italiana di medicina legale e del diritto in campo sanitario, 4:1955-1963
CARRARO, L. 2022. Il medico dinanzi al diritto penale. Alla ricerca di limiti relazionali all’imputazione colposa. Torino, Giappichelli Editore.
CAUSIO, F. A.; TALIO, A.; DRI, P. (eds.) 2024. Etica e governance dell’intelligenza artificiale per la salute. Linee guida per i modelli multimodali di grandi dimensioni (LMM). Società Italiana di Intelligenza Artificiale in Medicina (SIIAM) & Zadig srl Società Benefit. Milano, Zadig srl Società Benefit. https://www.zadig.it/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/LG-AI-IT-def_1.pdf
CRIMINAL UNITED SECTIONS. 2017. No. 8770. 21 December 2017. Rassegna di diritto farmaceutico e della salute, 3:578 ff
DE FRANCESCO, G. 2021. In tema di colpa. Un breve giro d’orizzonte. La legislazione penale, 2
DI LANDRO, A. 2012. Dalle linee guida e dai protocolli all’individualizzazione della colpa penale nel settore sanitario. Misura oggettiva e soggettiva della malpractice. Torino, Giappichelli Editore.
FELIU, J. S. 2022. Estándar de diligencia médica y valor de los protocolos y guías de práctica clínica. Revista de derecho civil, 9(3):1-52
FRAGASSO, B. 2024. Intelligenza artificiale e crisi del diritto penale d’evento: profili di responsabilità penale del produttore di sistemi di I.A. Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale, 1:287-305
FRAHM, W. 2020. Der zivilrechtliche Facharztstandard. In: Jansen, C., Katzenmeier, C., Woopen, C. (eds), Medizin und Standard. Schriften zu Gesundheit und Gesellschaft - Studies on Health and Society. Vol. 3. Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer.
FORTI, G.; CATINO, M.; D’ALESSANDRO, F.; MAZZUCATO, C.; VARRASO, G. (eds). 2010. Il problema della medicina difensiva. Una proposta di riforma in materia di responsabilità penale nell’ambito dell’attività sanitaria e gestione del contenzioso legato al rischio clinico. Pisa, ETS.
GIANNELLI, A. 2024. Nuove declinazioni della decisione motivata. Diritto amministrativo, 4:1020
GIUBILINI, A. 2025. It is not about AI, it’s about humans. Responsibility gaps and medical AI. Journal of bioethical inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-025-10423-w
GULZAR, Y. 2023. Fruit Image Classification Model Based on MobileNetV2 with Deep Transfer Learning Technique. Sustainability, 15(3):1906. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15031906
JOHNSON, K. B.; WEI, W. Q.; WEERARATNE, D. ET AL. 2021. Precision medicine, AI, and the future of personalized health care. Clinical and translational science, 14(1):86-93
LANZARA, O. 2019. Medical malpractice: uno studio di diritto comparato. Torino, Giappichelli Editore.
LUNDBERG, S. M.; LEE, S. I. 2017. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Neural information processing systems, 30:4768-4777.
MANNION, R.; EXWORTHY, M. 2017 (Re)Making the Procrustean bed? Standardization and customization as competing logics in healthcare. International journal of health policy and management, 6(6):301-304. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2017.35
MASIERI, C. M. 2024. Medical Malpractice Legislation. Reforms in civil law systems. Routledge, London.
MASSI, S. 2024. Il problema della responsabilità penale del sanitario tra incertezze giurisprudenziali e insufficienze legislative. Cassazione penale, 64(12):4093-4115
MATTHIAS, A. 2004. The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics and information technology, 6:175-187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-004-3422-1
MIENYE, I. D.; OBAIDO, G.; JERE, N.; MIENYE, E.; ARULEBA, K.; EMMANUEL, I. D.; OGBUOKIRI, B. 2024. A survey of explainable artificial intelligence in healthcare: Concepts, applications, and challenges. Informatics in medicine unlocked, 51:101587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imu.2024.101587
MOSQUEIRA-REY, E.; HERNÁNDEZ-PEREIRA, E.; ALONSO-RÍOS, D.; BOBES-BASCARÁN, J.; FERNÁNDEZ-LEAL, A. 2023. Human-in-the-loop machine learning: a state of the art. Artificial Intelligence Review, 56:3005-3054. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-022-10246-w
NUTI, S.; PANERO, C. 2011. La sfida dei servizi in sanità tra personalizzazione e standardizzazione dei processi. In: AAVV. Nuovi modelli di business e creazione di valore: la Scienza dei Servizi. Sxi – Springer per l’Innovazione / Sxi – Springer for Innovation. Milano, Springer, 193-213. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-1845-7_9
OLIVA, A.; GRASSI, S.; VETRUGNO, G.; ROSSI, R.; DELLA MORTE, G.; PINCHI, V.; CAPUTO, M. 2022. Management of medico-legal risks in digital health era: a scoping review. Frontiers in medicine, 8:821756. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.821756
PANATTONI, B. 2021. Intelligenza artificiale: le sfide per il diritto penale nel passaggio dall’automazione tecnologica all’autonomia artificiale. Diritto dell’informazione e dell’informatica, II(2):317-368.
PELUSO, M. G. 2021. Data Driven Innovation in medicina, vantaggi e prospettive critiche. Responsabilità medica, 3:225-248. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10446/200692
PFAFF, H.; DRILLER, E.; ERNSTMANN, N.; KARBACH, U.; KOWALSKI, C.; SCHEIBLER, F.; OMMEN, O. 2010. Standardization and individualization in care for the elderly: proactive behavior through individualized standardization. Open Longevity Science, 4:51-57
RIBEIRO, M. T.; SINGH, S.; GUESTRIN, C. 2016. “Why Should I Trust You?”: Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD’16). Association for computing machinery, 1135-1144. https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939778
RUSCHEMEIER, H.; BAREIS, J. 2025. Searching for harmonised rules: understanding the paradigms, provisions and pressing issues in the final EU AI Act. In: Gsenger, R.; Sekwenz, M. T. (eds) Digital Decade: How the EU shapes digitalisation research. Nomos, Baden-Baden, 41-93
SALITO, G. 2022. La responsabilità da algoritmo tra (teoria della) finzione e realtà sanitaria: una nuova declinazione della responsabilità medica? Rivista italiana di medicina legale (e del diritto in campo sanitario), 4:849-863
SALVADORI, I. 2021. Agenti artificiali, opacità tecnologica e distribuzione della responsabilità penale. Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale, 1:83–118
SAUERMANN, S.; HERZBERG, J.; BURKERT, S.; HABETHA, S. 2021. DiGA - A Chance for the German Healthcare System. Journal of european CME, 11(1):2014047. https://doi.org/10.1080/21614083.2021.2014047
SCARCHILLO, G. 2017. La responsabilità medica: risarcimento o indennizzo? Riflessioni, evoluzioni e prospettive di diritto comparato. Responsabilità civile e previdenza, 82(5):1490-1520
SELVARAJU, R. R.; COGSWELL, M.; DAS, A.; VEDANTAM, R.; PARIKH, D.; BATRA, D., GRAD-CAM. 2017. Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-Based Localization. 2017 IEEE international conference on computer vision (ICCV), 618-626. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.2017.74
SUN, Q.; AKMAN, A.; SCHULLER. B. W. 2025. Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Medical Applications: A Review. ACM transactions on computing for healthcare, 6(2):17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3709367
UE. Regulation 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on Artificial Intelligence (AI Act). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L_202401689
VALBONESI, C. 2013. Linee guida e protocolli per una nuova tipicità dell’illecito colposo. Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale, 56(1):250-301.
VÁZQUEZ LÓPEZ, J. E. 2010. “La Lex Artis ad hoc” como criterio valorativo para calibrar la diligencia exigible en todo acto o tratamiento médico: A propósito de un caso basado en la elección de la técnica empleada en el parto (parto vaginal vs. cesárea). Cuadernos de medicina forense, 16(3):179-182.
VERDICCHIO, M.; PERIN, A. 2022. When doctors and AI interact: on human responsibility for artificial risks. Philosophy and technology, 35(1):11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00506-6
VAN KOLFSCHOOTEN, H.; VAN OIRSCHOT, J. 2024. The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (2024): Implications for healthcare. Health policy, 149:105152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.105152
WIENKE, A.; HÜBNER, L.; GAHN, G. 2020 Facharztstandard und Leitlinien im Arzthaftungsrecht [Specialist standards and guidelines in medical malpractice law]. DGNeurologie, 3:565-567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42451-020-00188-4
WIENKE, A. 2008. BGH: Leitlinien ersetzen kein Sachverständigengutachten. GMS Mitt AWMF, 5: Doc14.
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. 2024. Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health: Guidance on large multi-modal models. Geneva, World Health Organization. https://iris.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/e9e62c65-6045-481e-bd04-20e206bc5039/content
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
I grant the journal RECHTD the first publication of my article, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution license (which allows sharing of work, recognition of authorship and initial publication in this journal).
I confirm that my article is not being submitted to another publication and has not been published in its entirely on another journal. I take full responsibility for its originality and I will also claim responsibility for charges from claims by third parties concerning the authorship of the article.
I also agree that the manuscript will be submitted according to the journal’s publication rules described above.
