Interesting to note that this country (USA) got started in part because of a tax on tea. I think you are saying here that a company can be held liable for unlimited damages with no proof of negligence on the manufacturer's part. If I were a manufacturer I would simply not market to the EU.
on 1/4/02 7:39 AM, cherryclo...@aol.com at cherryclo...@aol.com wrote: As I understand the way the civil law section of the EU's Product Liability Directive operates (I am not a lawyer) it does in fact place the burden of proof on the manufacturer, who is effectively considered 'guilty until proved innocent'. I also understand that any number of manufacturers can be sued in the civil courts under one safety incident, and the liabilities of each awarded 'on the balance of probabilities' that their product caused the damage, injury or death being complained about. Also...nobody has to prove negligence on the part of the manufacturer, this is sometimes called 'no-fault liability' - you can be held to be liable under the law even though nobody has proved that your product was actually the cause of the safety incident. Another interesting fact about EU Product Liability is that in the civil courts in most EU member states there is no financial upper limit to the damages that can be awarded against a manufacturer. We may not like it, but that's how the world appears to be at the moment. Regards, Keith Armstrong In a message dated 03/01/02 19:52:20 GMT Standard Time, j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk writes: Subj:Re: EMC-related safety issues List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:03/01/02 19:52:20 GMT Standard Time From: j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk (John Woodgate) Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Reply-to: j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk (John Woodgate) To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org I read in !emc-pstc that Gary McInturff <Gary.McInturff@worldwidepackets .com> wrote (in <917063bab0ddb043af5faa73c7a835d40ac...@windlord.wwp.com >) about 'EMC-related safety issues', on Thu, 3 Jan 2002: > While I take your point - I'll challenge with the equally valid argument >that says show me the data that they do cause SIDS! Out of order! That's the whole point! Manufacturers are being required to prepare to prove a negative, which is inherently impossible in most cases. No-one is required to prove a positive, which is easy if it is true.
