Nick,
Thanx for your question ... 'the 40 years challenge'.
The trail lawyers attacking manufacturers use a multi-pronged attack
in showing that equipment is unsafe.
The first point is usually some design defect along with
data/testimony that a safer design alternative is available (irrespective of
the cost to design or manufacture). Standards come into play by there is no
American presumption that meeting a standard relieves the manufacturer of
any responsibly for providing a safe design. Standards are usually
presented as the lowest common denominator of consensual requirements.
Secondly there might be some manufacturing defect that can be
identified - especially if the design argument is weak or non-existent. The
entire manufacturing control system - from specifying and purchasing the
proper materials and parts down to quality assurance steps on the line, etc
- come into question here.
Finally, the argument comes down to markings and instructions to
alert the user to hazards and how to avoid them.
The manufacturer, of course, has to defend the equipment design and
manufacturing against all of these.
The result of this has been that markings have been upgraded to
overcome these arguments. Although it is not completely settled, in law or
in written standards (trial lawyers thrive on the uncertainty), the usual
approach is to clearly provide some clear signal word (Danger, Warning or
Caution, etc) then identify the hazard (fire, electric shock, burn, etc) and
provide some avoidance action to stay out of trouble. Look at the ANSI Z535
markings usually used to see these elements.
This interaction between product manufacturers, trail lawyers and
standards has been going on for more than 40 years (it bloomed in the 1960's
when the first hippie lawyers went after issues to fix all the social issues
in America). The ANSI Z535 standard for hazard marking has continually been
upgraded to meet the challenges made. Among the more significant American
issues is that symbols, by themselves, are inadequate in providing useful
information to users. This complicates the work of manufacturers in an
international market. Another is that any new symbols must be vetted, by
the group introducing it, with a cross section of users to ensure that the
symbol is properly understood. We are using some multi-language labels here
-English & Spanish (US) or English & French (Canadian).
The Europeans will catch up; for more than 10 years American
Products Liability lawyers have been giving seminars in Europe to train
lawyers there to help anyone injured by equipment to sue for damages. I
understand that the European system is different than the US; but that
doesn't mean that clever attorneys won't find some leverage to promote these
types of trails (can anyone on this PSNet identify wedge issues that can be
used in this way?). The long term result is that the system will slowly
change and manufacturers will have to provide changes in products (including
hazard markings) to be successful.
Hopefully this short synopsis has been helpful, especially to those
outside the US who probably don't know this history.
:>) br, Pete
Peter E Perkins, PE
Principal Product Safety Engineer
PO Box 23427
Tigard, ORe 97281-3427
503/452-1201 fone/fax
[email protected]
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected]
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas [email protected]
Mike Cantwell [email protected]
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: [email protected]
David Heald: [email protected]
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
