Physical Safety

Injuries from robots, machines and agents that move in shared space.

OSHA severe injury reports logged 77 robot accidents from 2015 to 2022, mostly amputations and fractures. Humanoid injury risk reached court in November 2025, and China published 52 humanoid standards including safety in February 2026.

Robot accidents in OSHA severe injury reports: Stationary robots 54; Mobile robots 23. Sanders et al., Applied Ergonomics ROBOT ACCIDENTS IN OSHA SEVERE INJURY REPORTS Stationary robots 54 Mobile robots 23 ACCIDENTS, 2015 TO 2022 SANDERS ET AL., APPLIED ERGONOMICS
Injuries in those accidents
93
US robot-related deaths, 1992 to 2017
41
China humanoid standards listed
52
Registry incidents
4

Evidence

The first humanoid safety cases are lawsuits and test-rig videos, not injuries

Documented cases: physical Safety
DateCaseCountryWhat happenedSource
May 2025Unitree H1 test-rig malfunctionChinaA suspended humanoid flailed its arms at two engineers; no injuriesSource
Sep 19, 2025Hinterdobler v. Tesla and FANUCUnited StatesTechnician says a robot arm knocked him unconscious; seeks $51 millionSource
Nov 21, 2025Gruendel v. Figure AIUnited StatesFormer safety head alleges robots could fracture a skull; Figure deniesSource
Jul 2024OSHA severe injury report studyUnited States77 robot accidents and 93 injuries, 2015 to 2022Source

Registry

Four registry incidents involve physical harm

Registry incidents meet a stricter bar than the cases above: public sources name the developer, the failed control and who found it.

Registry incidents linked to this risk
IncidentDateAgentControl that failed
Uber Test Vehicle Kills Pedestrian in TempeMar 2018Autonomous test vehicleEmergency braking left to an unmonitored backup driver
Alexa Suggests a Dangerous Outlet Challenge to a ChildDec 2021Voice assistantNo hazard check on answers taken from the web
Cruise Robotaxi Drags a PedestrianOct 2023RobotaxiPost-collision pullover with a person under the car
Packing Robot Kills a Worker in GoseongNov 2023Industrial palletizing robotRobot could move while a technician was within reach

Exposure

10 of 17 agent types rate very significant or critical on physical access or behavioral and policy boundary

From the attack surface ratings, the agent types where this risk has the widest path in.

Agent types most exposed
Agent typeDimensionRating
Coding and research agentsBehavioral and policy boundaryCritical
Workflow agentsBehavioral and policy boundaryCritical
Commerce agentsBehavioral and policy boundaryCritical
Humanoid robotsBehavioral and policy boundaryVery significant
Industrial robots and cobotsPhysical accessVery significant
Autonomous trucksBehavioral and policy boundaryVery significant
DronesBehavioral and policy boundaryVery significant
Fleets and swarmsBehavioral and policy boundaryVery significant
Medical devicesBehavioral and policy boundaryVery significant
Enterprise agentsBehavioral and policy boundaryVery significant

Controls that bound it

Rules

Robot safety standards were rewritten in 2025; China added humanoid standards in 2026

Rules that address physical harm
RuleJurisdictionWhat it requiresStatus
ISO 10218-1 and -2:2025InternationalIndustrial robot safety, with collaborative and cybersecurity rulesPublished 2025
Humanoid robot standards system (TC08)ChinaLifecycle safety and ethics among six areasReleased Feb 28, 2026
EU Machinery Regulation 2023/1230EUCovers AI-driven machinesApplies Jan 20, 2027

Status colors: green in force, blue voluntary standard or framework, amber adopted and phasing in, gray draft or pending, red withdrawn.

Record

Page Record

Risk group
Human Risks
Datasets
ai_risk_evidence.csv (4 rows); registry incidents (4 linked); ai_attack_surface.csv
Key sources
Unitree H1 test-rig malfunction
Hinterdobler v. Tesla and FANUC
Gruendel v. Figure AI
OSHA severe injury report study
Last verified
October 2026