Dear Ken I understand your concern and your comments, but all the IEE's guide was trying to do was make people aware of the legal situation as it actually exists - and recommend what engineers need to do to reduce their employers' liability risks under present-day legislation. (Bearing in mind that some safety modern laws in the EU can allow design engineers to be held personally responsible as well as their employers.)
It appears to be a fact that exactly the situation you describe (and complain about) below already exists due to the present-day Product Liability Laws in the EU (and, I think, in the USA too). So please don't shoot the messenger! The only real defence under these Product Liability laws, is, as I understand (I am no lawyer) is that 'the product met the world-wide state of the art in safety design at the time it was placed on the market for a consumer'. This is of course a difficult task, but one which automobile manufacturers and many other large companies are well aware of and already have the procedures to deal with, since they are prime targets for 'no win - no fee' liability lawyers. In the EU the General Product Safety Directive is going much further than the above by making it mandatory for a manufacturer to consider advances in the state of the art in safety design after a product has been placed on the market. They are required to contact customers if any significant safety improvements can be made even many years after they purchased the product - possibly even recalling a product and modifying or replacing it. It seems that consumer groups are getting stronger and having more of an impact on the legislative process in the EU, and maybe elsewhere in the world too. Some manufacturers don't like the present direction of product liability legislation, whereas others see it as a commercial opportunity. As manufacturers we may complain about these developments, but as consumers we might take a different view! Many people in the EMC world are not used to the way things are done in the world of safety and product liability. The IEE's guide is intended to help fill that gap in their knowledge. Regards, Keith Armstrong In a message dated 02/01/02 19:22:44 GMT Standard Time, ken.ja...@emccompliance.com writes: > Subj:Re: EMC-related safety issues > Date:02/01/02 19:22:44 GMT Standard Time > From: ken.ja...@emccompliance.com (Ken Javor) > To: cherryclo...@aol.com, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > > I have read a part of the IEE guide mentioned below. What I have read on a > paragraph by paragraph basis is fine, but I find the overall philosophy > deeply troubling. The tone of the document is that the manufacturer is > responsible for all uses or misuse of the equipment he sells in concert > with every other type of equipment made or that might be made at some time > in the future. This document is a trial lawyer's dream. It takes us from > a society in which a sale was deemed a transaction of mutual benefit > between equals to a society in which an Omniscient Producer must cater to > the needs of an ignorant, childlike Consumer, and in direct corollary, any > misuse of any product by any consumer is deemed proof that the Omniscient > Producer was profiting by taking advantage of a helpless victim. I > realize this document merely reflects this prevalent view, but the idea > that an Industry group would provide such a smoking gun for some trial > lawyer to use in defense of some poor misled swindled consumer is, to say > the least, troubling. To say that Industry standards don't go far enough, > that it is the responsibility of the Producer to be able to determine all > possible environments and failure modes that might ever occur is placing an > impossible burden and any rationale entity, upon reading this document will > immediately cease production of anything that could conceivably ever > malfunction in anyway whatsoever. > > Case in point: A friend of mine bought one of these 2.4 GHz remote > miniature video cameras with integral IREDs and is able to monitor his > infant twins from his own bedroom, even in the middle of the night with no > lights on in the twins' bedroom. Suppose that 2.4 GHz link is disturbed in > some way and he misses something important happening in that bedroom. Is > the manufacturer of that video system responsible for any ill that then > befalls my friend's twins? I think not. But this safety guide says yes, > and places the manufacturer at risk. > > ---------- > From: cherryclo...@aol.com > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues > Date: Wed, Jan 2, 2002, 9:49 AM > > > >> Once again, John, you seem to be trying to give a negative impression >> about the IEE's guide on EMC and Functional Safety (which you now admit >> you haven't read) instead of simply saying what it is that you think is >> wrong with it. >> >> Of course I am passionate about the IEE guide - my colleagues and I spent >> a long time working on it! >> >> When I discovered you were criticising it to the emc-pstc of course I had >> to respond - but I was not (and am not) trying to defend the guide, merely >> trying to find out just exactly what it is that you (and your silent >> 'equally senior experts') don't like about it so I can get it improved. >> >> I am sorry if my wordy emails give the wrong impression - the simple fact >> is that I always write too much (as any editor who has had an article from >> me will confirm!). >> >> Once again I ask you - and everyone else in the entire EMC or Safety >> community world-wide - to read the IEE's guide and let me have >> constructive comments about how to improve it. >> >> You can easily download it for free from >> www.iee.org.uk/Policy/Areas/Electro (- you only need to download the >> 'core' document for this exercise and can leave the nine 'industry >> annexes' for later criticism). >> >> I'll make it easy for anyone to comment even if they haven't read the Core >> of the IEE's guide.... >> ...the guide is based on the following engineering approach, explicitly >> stated at the start of its Section 4 and duplicated below. >> >> ***** >> To control EMC correctly for functional safety reasons, hazard and risk >> assessments must take EM environment, emissions, and immunity into >> account. The following should be addressed: >> >> 1) The EM disturbances, however infrequent, to which the apparatus might >> be exposed >> >> 2) The foreseeable effects of such disturbances on the apparatus >> >> 3) How EM disturbances emitted by the apparatus might affect other >> apparatus (existing or planned)? >> >> 4) The foreseeable safety implications of the above mentioned disturbances >> (what is the severity of the hazard, the scale of the risk, and the >> appropriate safety integrity level?) >> >> 5) The level of confidence required to verify that the above have been >> fully considered and all necessary actions taken to achieve the desired >> level of safety >> ***** >> Please - anybody and everybody out there - tell me if there is anything >> wrong with this engineering approach to EMC-related functional safety. >> Involve experts you know who are not subscribers to emc-pstc too. Please >> be as detailed as you can be. >> >> If I receive no constructive comments about the above 5-point approach by >> the end of January I will assume that the IEE's guide is on the right >> tracks and will not need major revisions. You can send any comments to me >> via emc-pstc or directly to keith.armstr...@cherryclough.com or >> cherryclo...@aol.com. >> >> Interestingly, my reading of IEC/TS 61000-1-2 leads me to believe that it >> follows the same general approach as the IEE's guide. >> >> >
