As I recall, the EU's Product Liability Directive (85/374/EEC amended by 99/34/EC) requires manufacturers to produce products that are: "as safe as people generally have the right to expect".
Note that it does not require things to be 100% safe - that is impossible. The real problem is that whether a product really is "as safe as people generally have the right to expect" is usually tested in a court of law where there are lots of photographs of a dead or maimed person or a burnt-down building, or whatever. It is difficult to argue that your product is safe enough when there are relatives sobbing all over the courtroom. The trick, I believe, is not to be in that position in the first place. Design your products using the latest safety knowledge and test them well to discover if they have any weaknesses you did not address. And yes, you must consider foreseeable misuse and stupid users too. (The trouble with trying to make something foolproof is that fools are so ingenious!) Then hopefully you won't ever find yourself trying to defend your design decisions in a court of law. Also, your company's exposure to significant financial and commercial risks will be reduced - this is the key to justifying the expense of good safety design to your employers. Regards, Keith Armstrong In a message dated 03/01/02 17:17:59 GMT Standard Time, c...@dolby.co.uk writes: > Subj:RE: EMC-related safety issues > Date:03/01/02 17:17:59 GMT Standard Time > From: c...@dolby.co.uk (James, Chris) > Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:c...@dolby.co.uk";>c...@dolby.co.uk</A> (James, > Chris) > To: ken.ja...@emccompliance.com ('Ken Javor'), acar...@uk.xyratex.com > ('acar...@uk.xyratex.com'), emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > > So why ain't the US government chasing the knife manufacturer of the knives > used by the terrorists rather than Bin Laden............ I'm sorry but > stories like the below make me despair at the way society is headed. If > people want technology they will have to accept some of the pitfalls that > come with it, within reason, else where will it end? > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] >> Sent: 03 January 2002 17:00 >> To: James, Chris; 'acar...@uk.xyratex.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org >> Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues >> >> >> I agree with what you say, but at least in this country the anti-business >> pendulum has swung farther than you imagine. A couple examples. >> >> Thurman Munson, a Yankee catcher in the '70s, was killed in his twin >> engine Cessna jet. He crashed short of a runway. His estate sued Cessna, >> not on the grounds that the jet was defective, but that Cessna had sold >> Munson more aircraft than he was capable of handling. Cessna demonstrated >> that it had sold Munson the model he wanted, but the plaintiff claimed >> that it was Cessna' duty to assess Munson's skills as a pilot and tell >> him, the customer, what aircraft they would sell him. I don't recall how >> the verdict was rendered, but I know Cessna paid something. >> >> Another case involved the death of a child in an automobile accident >> involving a minivan. The child was thrown from the vehicle, in part >> because the rear door sprang open on impact. Plaintiff claimed the door >> was poorly designed and that the child would have remained in the vehicle >> and maybe not been killed had the doors remained closed. Defendant >> pointed out that child was not restrained in vehicle, he was up and and >> about at the moment of impact. Documentation supplied with vehicle >> clearly states all passengers should wear restraining belts. Plaintiff >> countered that defendant should have known that if they built a vehicle as >> large as a minivan that kids would be up and about and vehicle should have >> been designed with that in mind. Again do not recall verdict but I am >> sure plaintiff did not walk away empty-handed. >> >> Agreed that a manufacturer is responsible for the safety of a product put >> into normal use. That was established by case law as far back as the >> Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, wherein an architect who builds a house that >> collapses and kills the owner is liable to the same fate. But the >> manufacturer today labors under a presumption of evil: if he makes a >> profit from selling a product, he must have skimped somewhere, because >> profits are intrinsically evil.
