You could probably spend the rest of your life trying to get a correct answer from this question since litigation *usually* follows the "deep pocket" method with recovering a settlement. I've seen some pretty wierd (IMHO) cases that didn't seem to follow logic until the deep pocket theory is applied.
What I try to impress upon corporations where I've worked is product liability *usually* follows (not always) the cause of the fault and that amounts to essentially only three areas - 1) if it was designed wrong, then it defaults to the designer or who "owns" the design function. 2) if it was put together wrong, then it defaults to mfr-ing or who "owns" the mfr-ing function. 3) if it's been sold wrong (misapplication), then it defaults to marketing (misrepresentation). or who "owns" the marketing function. Whether or not your company applies your company name on the product or not can get sticky. And OEM-ing a porduct for some else can also get sticky. But, it's always best to follow the "spirit" of the standards as they are written. I find that I get rather leary of people who want to follow a reg as it is written in "black or white". If your product or design is robust enough, the regualtion will end up being a guide rather than a leash. And, IMHO, that's the way things should be done rather than throwing a wrench every time some standard raises it's head. I'll get off my soap box now ... Best to consult an attorney who specializes in product liability. Disclaimer - I am neither a legal expert nor an attorney, so don't count on my opinion as fact. Regards, Doug --------- This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected] (the list administrators).
