Ahh but isn't that the problem when an entire system makes one entity 100% responsible for everything and negates any legal acceptance or responsibility of others to alleviate that burden??? It basically says, 'since you are 100% responsible, it is you that has to prove it, not I who brings your assumptions into question." The very fact that it is an 'assumption' of conformity shows the burden of proof is on the one 'assuming', if and when that assumption is called into question.
For example, in criminal law many countries have the 'assumption' of innocence of the accused placed on the government and because they must 'assume' innocence, it is their responsibility to 'prove' guilt. Thus, for the 'assumer' (coined phrase for one who assumes), the very burden of responsibility of that assumption alone makes it one sided. Granted, this is not, or I should say is usually not, a criminal case, and there are directives that do have type acceptance of products, but those directives such as the RTTE etc, leave the manufacturer standing naked before the world with all the responsibility to prove 'innocence' of action simply because of the assumption of conformity. And isn't that also one of the possible reasons that the next generation of RTTE and other directives may very well include some kind of type acceptance approach. By removing the assumption and making type acceptance a possibility, the 'assumer' is no longer burdened with the responsibility of proof should question arise. He simply points to the type acceptance and says 'prove it aint so' to the accuser. I am not saying I necessarily agree with forcing type acceptance, but it is a method to which the manufacturer might share his responsibility with others. Dennis Ward Director of Engineering American Certification Body Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com 703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 direct - 703-880-4841 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 9:04 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: dow for new standards In message <004201cbbd75$55e22b60$01a68220$@com>, dated Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Dennis Ward <[email protected]> writes: > >It may be that at that time, when brought into court, the manufacturer >will have to prove and convince the legal entities that a device is >safe and it meets the essential requirements, not just is presumed to >meet them or has simply passed a set of non-mandatory standards. It is very easy to magnify the manufacturer's responsibility to infinity, and to put the burden of proof on the defendant rather than the prosecution, but is that serving the community or a very narrow interest? -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK Plural: data, criteria, phenomena. Singular: datum (different meaning: use 'data element' for a single item), criterion, phenomenon. 'Effect' is a noun, 'affect' is a verb (except in psychiatry). - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 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]> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 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]>
