>>Mr. Woodgate says: >>Because the scope of the standard is quite independent of the scope of the LVD. Again, this begs the question - a matter of law or liability? The LVD is LAW - if a product falls within the scope of the LVD, then the product must be evaluated to the harmonized standard before placing said product in the Community market. Using an independent third party to evaluate the product (a wise choice) is optional. No arguement that the scope of a particular standard is independent of a Directive. EN60950 would be the natural choice of standard, but my question is, where is the law that supports this choice? >>Mr. Woods says in an earlier reply: >>...obtain approval marks for the US and Canada due to the potential of litigation. You will have shown due diligence which may assist in limiting any liability issues. In the EU, however, they have "no-fault" liability - if someone is hurt by a defect in your equipment, you are at fault no matter what approvals you have. A safety approval in Europe is for useful for marketing purposes only. Good point, and an interesting view. Let me clarify that "no-fault" liability means that the injured party need only prove that the product was defective, and that the defect caused injury or property damage; the injured party does not have to show negligence on the part of the manufacturer, as is the case here in the states. Also, a safety approval does not relieve the manufacturer from liability in any court in the world, not just the EU. Basically, evaluating a product to an accepted safety standard could be viewed (cynically) as building your liability defense case before marketing your product. So far, I have found no iron-clad reason for evaluating a product outside the scope of the LVD to the EN standard. Many compelling reasons, but it seems to be a matter of litigation rather than law, and the choice is made based on the level of liability risk the manufacturer is comfortable with. I'm not debating the wisdom of said choices. It could be argued that a wrist watch falls within the scope of the EN60950 standard. Modern watches have calculators in them, etc. However, to apply that standard to a device with such low voltage, and low potential for harm seems very extreme. So the risk is very low. However, a battery powered device incorporating Li-Ion batteries, laser devices, LCD backlight inverters, etc, even if the device does not fall within the scope of the LVD, is on the high side of the risk factor scale. It may be a wise choice to evaluate that product to EN60950 before marketing it in the EU. Thank you all for sharing your valued opinions, insights, experience, and knowledge. Best Regards, Doug
-----Original Message----- From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:boconn...@t-yuden.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:57 AM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Product Safety: A Matter of Law or Litigation? Once again, Mr. Woodgate has forced me to think... So, as a general policy, would it be valid to be driven by an indvidual standard's scope rather than the Directives? Brian O'Connell Taiyo Yuden (USA), Inc. -----Original Message----- From: John Woodgate [ mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk <mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk> ] <FD27170820E5DD42B1D5B13DE96A775404BF80@mrl01>, Massey, Doug C. <masse...@ems-t.com> inimitably wrote: >If the LVD does >not apply to the product, then how can I argue that EN60950 applies to the >product? Because the scope of the standard is quite independent of the scope of the LVD. --
