Hi all, (refer to John's "inimitable" :-) reply below) Even though my previous response may not sound like it; I agree with you on this one John. Manufacturers should go the extra mile. I think that we're all trying to figure out which road to go the extra mile on. (with regard to products that fall outside the scope of the Low Voltage Directive, Machinery Directive, Toy Directive, RT&TTE Directive......even the General Product Safety Directive).
I saw a reply from a collegue at Agilent. He mentioned a "Product Liability Directive". Ever heard of that one? Anybody have a copy of it that cares to comment? **************************************************************************** ************ > Now imagine you are a defendant in a court case. Prosecuting counsel > says to you, 'So, Mr. Maxwell, you have explained to the court that your > company is not responsible for the dreadful injury inflicted on Mr. > Smith by your company's product, because the General Product Safety > Directive does not apply to 'commercial equipment'. Do you not agree > that what you are asking the jury to accept is that Mr. Smith should be > protected from injury by the law in his home, but that he forfeits any > such protection as soon as he sets foot in his workplace?' > > Go the extra mile: don't assume a 'whereas' will save you! > -- > ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: [email protected] Dave Heald [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
