Agree with both Mr. Nute and Mr. Eckert, as this issue is contextual to (1) the equipment and (2) the manufacturer.
Each company must conceive of and derive foreseeable misuse schemes on not just the technical qualifications of the equipment and its scope, but on the company's available 'target area'. Companies such as Apple, Microsoft, HP, etc are considered prime targets by litigators, whereas those outside of the Forbes 2000 probably have an order of magnitude less legal risk for the similar equipment exposed to same user stupidity. My employer has a risk surface somewhat larger than normal for small business - because of the nature of one of my employer's industry segments - power conversion stuff installed by electricians. E.G, original installation instruction for a little 25W converter (1kVdc to 24Vdc) was 9 pages. And all it did was to give the electrician more stupid ideas (and this is exactly what AHJs and electrical contractors told me - the electricians did stuff just because a warning provide a shortcut idea). It is now 4 pages, and we find fewer stupid field installs and less smoke. An engineering manager for a company that makes safety test equipment implied similar - engineers like to play with hi voltage and hi current, and there is not much you can to make test equipment completely safe when faced with a compliance engineer that is determined to do something entertaining. As for the metal tongs to remove stuck bagels @PSES - stupid but contextually low risk, not a better group of people to be aware of and mitigate risks. Why do I stand next to a 500kVA transformer during surge and overload tests while all others are required to leave area? Because it feels interesting and generally know where the most risky stuff is, and because my employer's compliance person is a stupid reddd neckkk... Brian My employer's compliance person -----Original Message----- From: Ted Eckert [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 3:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PSES] Misuse mains cordset The CD-ROM/Cup Holder issue is something to consider. However, this comes back to what is a "reasonable person". The frequency at which CD drives are used as cup holders is likely very low. I have never personally seen it happen and I've never had a verifiable instance of it reported to me. Everything I have heard is hearsay or apocryphal. A computer manufacturer can make a good argument that a reasonable person would know that this tray is a CD drive and not a cup holder. It will always be a judgment call as to what is a "reasonable person". This is one of the cases where you will need to work with an experienced product liability attorney who can tell you whether your design choices is defensible or not. An example I would give would be somebody using a metal fork or knife to remove a piece of bread stuck in a toaster. There are a large number of verifiable occurrences of this. There was a recent update to the UL standard for toasters that requires the toaster to shut down if the pop-up mechanism is jammed. If you put in a large bagel slice that doesn't pop up, the new standard would require the toaster to shut off, thereby removing power from the coils. The primary intent was to reduce the risk that the item being toasted caught on fire. The secondary effect is that it reduces the risk of contact with energized heating coils. This is a case of foreseeable misuse where the instructional safeguard may not have been sufficient. The new safety standard has a design safeguard required. This reminds me of the October 2008 IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society annual symposium. Catering had provided bagels that were getting jammed in the toaster that was set out for attendee use. To resolve the problem, the hotel provided metal tongs so the safety engineers could remove their bagels from the toasters more easily. Ted Eckert Compliance Engineer Microsoft Corporation [email protected] The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. -----Original Message----- From: Paasche, Dieter [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 2:39 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PSES] Misuse mains cordset This reminds me to the following help desk statement: "The cup holder on my computer stopped working." https://www.flickr.com/photos/helter-skelter/8385454193/ Reasonable foreseeable misuse? Looks that many are doing this. Dieter Paasche Advanced Product Developer, Electrical CHRISTIE 809 Wellington Street North Kitchener, ON N2G 4Y7 Phone: 519-744-8005 ext.7211 www.christiedigital.com This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is confidential. Any unauthorized use, distribution or disclosure is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail or telephone and delete it and any attachments from your computer system and records. -----Original Message----- From: Ted Eckert [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 4:55 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PSES] Misuse mains cordset I recognize that I am taking my own risk by posting a potentially contrary response to the esteemed Mr. Nute. I'm not sure that I agree that foreseeable misuse is an oxymoron, although I prefer the term "reasonably foreseeable misuse". We know that certain types of products will either be used for something that is not the original intended purpose or they will be used for their intended purpose in an inappropriate fashion. For the first example, I can state that a wooden pencil is intended to be used for writing. However, I can foresee that some users will chew on their pencils. The pencil is not designed, intended or marketed to be used for stress relief, but we know that people will chew on them. One design safeguard would be to make sure none of the materials used are toxic if ingested. For the second example, I will cite people standing on the top level of a ladder. The user places themselves in an unstable position if they stand too high on the ladder. The ladder is still being used for its intended purpose, but it is being used in a way that that significantly increases the risk to the user. In this case, a design safeguard becomes much more difficult to implement. Most ladder manufacturers implement instructional safeguards. Modern ladders are now plastered with caution and warning statements. Mr. Nute asks what foreseeable misuse of a computer would be. I would propose that using a computer outside of the published environmental conditions is foreseeable. I can foresee somebody cleaning the keyboard on their laptop with a wet rag. I can foresee leaving a laptop in a car on a hot day. Either case may create a potential hazard for lithium-ion batteries. Many computer manufacturers implement both design and instructional safeguards for both of these conditions. Neither is the intended use of a computer, but might they be considered foreseeable? The problem comes with determining what "reasonably" means. Many courts will interpret this to be what a "reasonable person" would do. This only shifts our problem to defining what a reasonable person is. I will offer a slightly more humorous view of misuse in the following video. Is this a reasonable person or reasonably foreseeable? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SarpypNskcc Ted Eckert Compliance Engineer Microsoft Corporation [email protected] The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. -----Original Message----- From: Richard Nute [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 11:33 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PSES] Misuse mains cordset Misuse is unique to what you want to do. You use (misuse) the product to accomplish your particular objective which differs from the intended use of the product. You stand on a chair (intended for sitting) to reach something that would otherwise be out of reach. The US TV program MacGyver (~1985-1991) was based on misuse of common things to solve a problem. "Foreseeable" misuse is an oxymoron. You can't foresee misuse of a product unless you know what the user wants to do (his objective). The product and its misuse was the fun of the MacGyver TV program. More seriously, what is a "foreseeable misuse" of a computer? The term "foreseeable misuse" has been foisted upon us for years, but we don't know what it means or how to protect against it (even though we are required by some safety standards to provide safeguards against "foreseeable misuse"). How do you protect someone who stands on a chair? How do you protect someone who misuses a computer? My neighbor took the guard off his portable saw and was injured. This was clearly misuse. How do you provide protection when the user removes the safeguard? For an eye-opening treatise on misuse, see Don Norman's "Psychology of everyday things" and his other books. Best regards, Rich -----Original Message----- From: Doug Powell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 10:06 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PSES] Misuse mains cordset In recent years many standards have been adding risk assessment to their requirements. A part of this is all about foreseeable misuse. That said I do not feel it is appropriate for a manufacturer to "police" every action if the end user. You best bet may be to mitigate by saying something along the lines of "not for use for any other purpose..." Thanks, - doug Douglas Powell http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01 - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) 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]>
