Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

[John Woodgate]

The hazard-based approach is valid and very important, but it does not 
interact well with the 'AoG' concept, since that denies that a current 
hazard (such as a very near future volcanic eruption) is/has been 
identified.


Best wishes
With seasonal felicitations
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
Rayleigh, Essex UK www.woodjohn.uk

On 2019-12-30 23:19, Richard Nute wrote:


Hi John A. and all:

A different process than “risk assessment:”

A hungry polar bear is a hazardous energy source.  The bear’s energy 
exceeds John A.’s defensive energy, thus John A. can expect to be 
injured or worse during a polar bear encounter.


The safeguard for John A. is distance.

However, if the London Zoo had a polar bear (it doesn’t), the 
safeguard would be a fence or cage or some other form of polar bear 
containment.  Assuming the containment method is reliable, the 
probability of John A. injury from a London Zoo polar bear is no more 
than the distance safeguard.


When John A. climbs a ladder, he has potential energy that increases 
with increasing height on the ladder.  If he should fall, the 
potential energy is converted to kinetic energy imparted to the body 
when it collides with the ground.


The principal safeguard is behavior (skill).

A supplemental safeguard could be a harness which would arrest his 
fall before he hit the ground.


I have considered “energy” imparted to the body as the cause of 
injury.  And, I have identified one or more safeguards for prevention 
of transfer of the energy to the body.  As I said, a different approach.


Best wishes for the holiday season,

Rich

-


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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>


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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>



-

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 

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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

[John Allen]

Rich, et al

 

AH, now you are getting to the “specifics” J

 

Whilst I (and many others!) are very well aware of all those other 
“contributory factors” (some of which I also outlined to SWMBO’s friend’s 
partner!), I didn’t want to “go into that level of detail” in my initial post

 

>From some experience, I think there are some somewhat fundamental differences 
>in the way in which various sectors  of the risk assessment communities view 
>how “risk” should be assessed. 

 

On this side of the “Pond”, I seem to recall that the “slightly more 
simplistic” approach I outlined earlier has been mainly the prevalent one, 
whereas on  “t’other” side of the “Pond” then the approach you outlined may be 
more prevalent, as it seems to be in some sectors of industrial standards risk 
assessment (e.g. in 623286).

 

I’m n d ot saying that either one is “right or wrong” – but it does highlight 
the many differences in opinions on how to approach risk assessment AND that 
both of them are generally very complex due to all the likely underlying 
factors!

 

As for the original “Act of God” “issue”, one does have to wonder why this can 
nowadays, with “all that we know” about the World, technology, human behavior, 
widespread availability of information, etc., can really be attributed to an 
“Act of God” that no-one could possibly have predicted (unless, of course, 
those gods and demons of the ancient religions do actually exist as we cannot 
possibly predict what they might or not do!)

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

 

From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: 30 December 2019 23:20
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

 

 

Hi John A. and all:

 

A different process than “risk assessment:”

 

A hungry polar bear is a hazardous energy source.  The bear’s energy exceeds 
John A.’s defensive energy, thus John A. can expect to be injured or worse 
during a polar bear encounter.  

 

The safeguard for John A. is distance.  

 

However, if the London Zoo had a polar bear (it doesn’t), the safeguard would 
be a fence or cage or some other form of polar bear containment.  Assuming the 
containment method is reliable, the probability of John A. injury from a London 
Zoo polar bear is no more than the distance safeguard.  

 

When John A. climbs a ladder, he has potential energy that increases with 
increasing height on the ladder.  If he should fall, the potential energy is 
converted to kinetic energy imparted to the body when it collides with the 
ground.  

 

The principal safeguard is behavior (skill).  

 

A supplemental safeguard could be a harness which would arrest his fall before 
he hit the ground.  

 

I have considered “energy” imparted to the body as the cause of injury.  And, I 
have identified one or more safeguards for prevention of transfer of the energy 
to the body.  As I said, a different approach.  

 

Best wishes for the holiday season,

Rich

 

 

 

-


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 


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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  


-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

[Richard Nute]

 

Hi John A. and all:

 

A different process than “risk assessment:”

 

A hungry polar bear is a hazardous energy source.  The bear’s energy exceeds 
John A.’s defensive energy, thus John A. can expect to be injured or worse 
during a polar bear encounter.  

 

The safeguard for John A. is distance.  

 

However, if the London Zoo had a polar bear (it doesn’t), the safeguard would 
be a fence or cage or some other form of polar bear containment.  Assuming the 
containment method is reliable, the probability of John A. injury from a London 
Zoo polar bear is no more than the distance safeguard.  

 

When John A. climbs a ladder, he has potential energy that increases with 
increasing height on the ladder.  If he should fall, the potential energy is 
converted to kinetic energy imparted to the body when it collides with the 
ground.  

 

The principal safeguard is behavior (skill).  

 

A supplemental safeguard could be a harness which would arrest his fall before 
he hit the ground.  

 

I have considered “energy” imparted to the body as the cause of injury.  And, I 
have identified one or more safeguards for prevention of transfer of the energy 
to the body.  As I said, a different approach.  

 

Best wishes for the holiday season,

Rich

 

 

 


-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] EMI testing with ambient

[Cortland Richmond]

However, if a CW carrier exists, the level is still valid for a measurement.


Cortland, KA5S

On 4/11/2019 14:59 PM, Sykes, Bob wrote:
And yes, you are no longer using the specified CISPR RBW for the 
measurement so YMMV J


-

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 

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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

[John Allen]

Typo in the email below: - see highlighted words! L

 

From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: 30 December 2019 21:24
To: 'John Woodgate'; 'EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG'
Subject: RE: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

 

John W & Friends

 

Earlier this afternoon, we were visiting a friend of my wife and her partner – 
and, later during a general conversation, the latter and I got around to “risk 
assessment” (in the context of the Grenfell tower block fire disaster a couple 
of years ago), and so I outlined to him the “Severity V Probability” “equation, 
and thus how one has to very fully understand both aspects and the “balance” 
between them.

 

I then gave an example: A hungry Polar bear is a dangerous animal and would 
probably consider “me” as food (and thus “Severity” = “fatal”!) should I ever 
be in his presence, whereas the “Probability” of finding a loose wild and 
hungry Polar bear in West London is, at least for the “foreseeable” future, 
“very remote” ;). 

 

OTOH, should  I climb a long ladder “to do work” on the outside of the house 
and then fall (thus the “Severity” could be “fatal”), and the “Probability” of 
me falling off that ladder is “highish” (UK “domestic” accidents stats points 
to that being one of the biggest causes of requiring people urgent hospital 
care, even if they did not immediately die!)  - thus the “Probability” is 
“Often” and  so the “Risk level” is”High”, as is using sharp/pointed implements 
like widely available knives and other sharp-edged tools.

 

Thus, John W’s comment that “human foresight, in the present state of 
knowledge, could not foresee it” is most certainly “highly 
relevant/appropriate”. 

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

---

From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk] 
Sent: 30 December 2019 20:41
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

 

The volcanologists are not good enough. No human knowledge is exhaustive.  It 
fits fairly well with your cited definition:

an act or occurrence so extraordinary and unprecedented that human foresight 
could not foresee or guard against it

but I think the definition is 'over-egged': I would shorten it to:

an act or occurrence that human foresight could not foresee or guard against

Volcanoes erupt, so an eruption is not 'extraordinary and unprecedented', but 
human foresight, in the present state of knowledge, could not foresee it.

 

Best wishes
With seasonal felicitations
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
Rayleigh, Essex UK www.woodjohn.uk

On 2019-12-30 19:34, Richard Nute wrote:

 

 

Hi Ted:

 

I picked the reference from David Lazarus’ December 24th column from the LA 
Times:

 

 

 https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-12-24/acts-of-god-consumer-contract

 

He says, “… that “acts of God” is cited so frequently as an excuse for not 
meeting corporate obligations.”  

 

In considering the safety of a product, if a product met the standard but still 
caused an injury, could or would a corporation invoke that the injury was an 
“act of God” to absolve itself from liability as corporations appear to do for 
other obligations?  

 

We’re all biased here.  We are “good guys.”  We believe it behooves the 
manufacturer to take all steps – none of which are “acts of God” -- to prevent 
injury from a product.  

 

Best wishes for the holiday season,

Rich

 

PS:  Many would say that the eruption of the White Island volcano was an “act 
of God.”  While volcanic activity was monitored, volcanologists did not predict 
the violent eruption.  Either the volcanologists were not good enough, or the 
eruption was an “act of God”?  

 

 

 

From: Ted Eckert   
<07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> 
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 8:11 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

 

First, I am not licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction. Take what I say 
as the view of an engineers with only limited experience in this area.

 

The term “Act of God” generally is limited to contract law and to insurance 
law. It is also generally limited to natural events such as earthquakes, 
tornados and such. It is unlikely that a court in the United States would 
accept a claim of an “Act of God” in a product liability case. Rich gives a 
brief statement from a 1944 Florida case, but that statement neither includes 
context nor takes into account decades of case law and precedent that provide 
the current interpretation of the phrase.

 

As engineers, it can be fun to play with ideas such as “Act of God”, but it 
should be clear that this is just an attempt at humor and has little effect on 
liability in product design.

 

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

 

From: 

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

[John Woodgate]

Thank you very much.

Best wishes
With seasonal felicitations
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
Rayleigh, Essex UK www.woodjohn.uk

On 2019-12-30 21:23, John Allen wrote:


John W & Friends

Earlier this afternoon, we were visiting a friend of my wife and her 
partner – and, later during a general conversation, the latter and I 
got around to “risk assessment” (in the context of the Grenfell tower 
block fire disaster a couple of years ago), and so I outlined to him 
the “Severity V Probability” “equation, a*/_nd thus how one has to 
very fully understand both aspects and the “balance” between them._/*


I then gave an example: A hungry Polar bear is a dangerous animal and 
would probably consider “me” as food (and thus “Severity” = “fatal”!) 
should I ever be in his presence, whereas the “Probability” of finding 
a loose wild and hungry Polar bear in West London is, at least for the 
“foreseeable” future, “very remote” ;).


OTOH, should  I climb a long ladder “to do work” on the outside of the 
house and then fall (thus the “Severity” could be “fatal”), and the 
“Probability” of me falling off that ladder is “highish” (UK 
“domestic” accidents stats points to that being one of the biggest 
causes of requiring people urgent hospital care, even if they did not 
immediately die!)  - thus the “Risk level” is high, as is using 
sharp/pointed implements like widely available knives and other 
sharp-edged tools.


_Thus, John W’s comment that “human foresight, in the present state of 
knowledge, could not foresee it” is most certainly “highly 
relevant/appropriate”. _


**

John E Allen

W. London, UK

---

*From:*John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
*Sent:* 30 December 2019 20:41
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

The volcanologists are not good enough. No human knowledge is 
exhaustive.  It fits fairly well with your cited definition:


/an act or occurrence so extraordinary and unprecedented that human 
foresight could not foresee or guard against it/


but I think the definition is 'over-egged': I would shorten it to:

/an act or occurrence that human foresight could not foresee or guard 
against/


Volcanoes erupt, so an eruption is not 'extraordinary and 
unprecedented', but human foresight, in the present state of 
knowledge, could not foresee it.


Best wishes
With seasonal felicitations
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
Rayleigh, Essex UKwww.woodjohn.uk  

On 2019-12-30 19:34, Richard Nute wrote:

Hi Ted:

I picked the reference from David Lazarus’ December 24^th column
from the LA Times:


https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-12-24/acts-of-god-consumer-contract

He says, “… that “acts of God” is cited so frequently as an excuse
for not meeting corporate obligations.”

In considering the safety of a product, if a product met the
standard but still caused an injury, could or would a corporation
invoke that the injury was an “act of God” to absolve itself from
liability as corporations appear to do for other obligations?

We’re all biased here.  We are “good guys.”  We believe it
behooves the manufacturer to take all steps – none of which are
“acts of God” -- to prevent injury from a product.

Best wishes for the holiday season,

Rich

PS:  Many would say that the eruption of the White Island volcano
was an “act of God.”  While volcanic activity was monitored,
volcanologists did not predict the violent eruption.  Either the
volcanologists were not good enough, or the eruption was an “act
of God”?

*From:* Ted Eckert <07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>

*Sent:* Monday, December 30, 2019 8:11 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

First, I am not licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction. Take
what I say as the view of an engineers with only limited
experience in this area.

The term “Act of God” generally is limited to contract law and to
insurance law. It is also generally limited to natural events such
as earthquakes, tornados and such. It is unlikely that a court in
the United States would accept a claim of an “Act of God” in a
product liability case. Rich gives a brief statement from a 1944
Florida case, but that statement neither includes context nor
takes into account decades of case law and precedent that provide
the current interpretation of the phrase.

As engineers, it can be fun to play with ideas such as “Act of
God”, but it should be clear that this is just an attempt at humor
and has little effect on liability in product design.

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect
those of my employer.

*From:* John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>>
 

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

[John Allen]

John W & Friends

 

Earlier this afternoon, we were visiting a friend of my wife and her partner – 
and, later during a general conversation, the latter and I got around to “risk 
assessment” (in the context of the Grenfell tower block fire disaster a couple 
of years ago), and so I outlined to him the “Severity V Probability” “equation, 
and thus how one has to very fully understand both aspects and the “balance” 
between them.

 

I then gave an example: A hungry Polar bear is a dangerous animal and would 
probably consider “me” as food (and thus “Severity” = “fatal”!) should I ever 
be in his presence, whereas the “Probability” of finding a loose wild and 
hungry Polar bear in West London is, at least for the “foreseeable” future, 
“very remote” ;). 

 

OTOH, should  I climb a long ladder “to do work” on the outside of the house 
and then fall (thus the “Severity” could be “fatal”), and the “Probability” of 
me falling off that ladder is “highish” (UK “domestic” accidents stats points 
to that being one of the biggest causes of requiring people urgent hospital 
care, even if they did not immediately die!)  - thus the “Risk level” is high, 
as is using sharp/pointed implements like widely available knives and other 
sharp-edged tools.

 

Thus, John W’s comment that “human foresight, in the present state of 
knowledge, could not foresee it” is most certainly “highly 
relevant/appropriate”. 

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

---

From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk] 
Sent: 30 December 2019 20:41
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

 

The volcanologists are not good enough. No human knowledge is exhaustive.  It 
fits fairly well with your cited definition:

an act or occurrence so extraordinary and unprecedented that human foresight 
could not foresee or guard against it

but I think the definition is 'over-egged': I would shorten it to:

an act or occurrence that human foresight could not foresee or guard against

Volcanoes erupt, so an eruption is not 'extraordinary and unprecedented', but 
human foresight, in the present state of knowledge, could not foresee it.

 

Best wishes
With seasonal felicitations
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
Rayleigh, Essex UK www.woodjohn.uk

On 2019-12-30 19:34, Richard Nute wrote:

 

 

Hi Ted:

 

I picked the reference from David Lazarus’ December 24th column from the LA 
Times:

 

 

 https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-12-24/acts-of-god-consumer-contract

 

He says, “… that “acts of God” is cited so frequently as an excuse for not 
meeting corporate obligations.”  

 

In considering the safety of a product, if a product met the standard but still 
caused an injury, could or would a corporation invoke that the injury was an 
“act of God” to absolve itself from liability as corporations appear to do for 
other obligations?  

 

We’re all biased here.  We are “good guys.”  We believe it behooves the 
manufacturer to take all steps – none of which are “acts of God” -- to prevent 
injury from a product.  

 

Best wishes for the holiday season,

Rich

 

PS:  Many would say that the eruption of the White Island volcano was an “act 
of God.”  While volcanic activity was monitored, volcanologists did not predict 
the violent eruption.  Either the volcanologists were not good enough, or the 
eruption was an “act of God”?  

 

 

 

From: Ted Eckert   
<07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> 
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 8:11 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

 

First, I am not licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction. Take what I say 
as the view of an engineers with only limited experience in this area.

 

The term “Act of God” generally is limited to contract law and to insurance 
law. It is also generally limited to natural events such as earthquakes, 
tornados and such. It is unlikely that a court in the United States would 
accept a claim of an “Act of God” in a product liability case. Rich gives a 
brief statement from a 1944 Florida case, but that statement neither includes 
context nor takes into account decades of case law and precedent that provide 
the current interpretation of the phrase.

 

As engineers, it can be fun to play with ideas such as “Act of God”, but it 
should be clear that this is just an attempt at humor and has little effect on 
liability in product design.

 

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

 

From: John Woodgate  
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2019 6:41 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

 

Does that prove that at least one god exists?

Best wishes
With seasonal felicitations
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
Rayleigh, Essex UK 

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

[John Woodgate]

Thank you. I try to tackle things like this for my work on standards 
writing.


Best wishes
With seasonal felicitations
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
Rayleigh, Essex UK www.woodjohn.uk

On 2019-12-30 20:42, Doug Nix wrote:

I completely agree John. Your revised definition is on the money!

Doug Nix
d...@ieee.org 
+1 (519) 729-5704

On 30-Dec-19, at 15:40, John Woodgate > wrote:


The volcanologists are not good enough. No human knowledge is 
exhaustive.  It fits fairly well with your cited definition:


/an act or occurrence so extraordinary and unprecedented that human 
foresight could not foresee or guard against it/


but I think the definition is 'over-egged': I would shorten it to:

/an act or occurrence that human foresight could not foresee or guard 
against

/

Volcanoes erupt, so an eruption is not 'extraordinary and 
unprecedented', but human foresight, in the present state of 
knowledge, could not foresee it.



Best wishes
With seasonal felicitations
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
Rayleigh, Essex UKwww.woodjohn.uk
On 2019-12-30 19:34, Richard Nute wrote:

Hi Ted:
I picked the reference from David Lazarus’ December 24^th column 
from the LA Times:

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-12-24/acts-of-god-consumer-contract
He says, “… that “acts of God” is cited so frequently as an excuse 
for not meeting corporate obligations.”
In considering the safety of a product, if a product met the 
standard but still caused an injury, could or would a corporation 
invoke that the injury was an “act of God” to absolve itself from 
liability as corporations appear to do for other obligations?
We’re all biased here.  We are “good guys.”  We believe it behooves 
the manufacturer to take all steps – none of which are “acts of God” 
-- to prevent injury from a product.

Best wishes for the holiday season,
Rich
PS:  Many would say that the eruption of the White Island volcano 
was an “act of God.” While volcanic activity was monitored, 
volcanologists did not predict the violent eruption.  Either the 
volcanologists were not good enough, or the eruption was an “act of 
God”?

*From:*Ted Eckert<07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
*Sent:*Monday, December 30, 2019 8:11 AM
*To:*EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:*Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety
First, I am not licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction. Take 
what I say as the view of an engineers with only limited experience 
in this area.
The term “Act of God” generally is limited to contract law and to 
insurance law. It is also generally limited to natural events such 
as earthquakes, tornados and such. It is unlikely that a court in 
the United States would accept a claim of an “Act of God” in a 
product liability case. Rich gives a brief statement from a 1944 
Florida case, but that statement neither includes context nor takes 
into account decades of case law and precedent that provide the 
current interpretation of the phrase.
As engineers, it can be fun to play with ideas such as “Act of God”, 
but it should be clear that this is just an attempt at humor and has 
little effect on liability in product design.
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect 
those of my employer.

*From:*John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>>
*Sent:*Sunday, December 29, 2019 6:41 PM
*To:*EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
*Subject:*[EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

Does that prove that at least one god exists?

Best wishes
With seasonal felicitations
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
Rayleigh, Essex UKwww.woodjohn.uk  

On 2019-12-30 02:09, Scott wrote:

If you do a thorough hazard analysis, an act of god is obvious!

Scott

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 29, 2019, at 8:37 PM, Doug Powell
wrote:


Rich,
While many standards do indeed refer to foreseeable events,
misuse, etc. I'm not certain this would automatically confer Act
of God status to an unforeseen event. This hypothetical event
may be a case of degrees and not of two extremes, especially in
the case of a formerly unforeseeable and now preventable
situation. Isn't this how many standards are developed over the
years?
I still remember shoe stores in the 1950s that offered real-time
x-ray of how well shoes fit the customer's feet. An
unforeseeable hazard at the time and now incredibly obvious.
Would injury in the former time be an Act of God?

Best wishes, Doug

*From:*ri...@ieee.org 
*Sent:*December 29, 2019 5:19 PM
*To:*EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

[John Woodgate]

To be an AoG, the test has to be 'No-one would have thought of that.'

I don't know much about how the 'functional safety' experts have 
re-normalized their infinities, but I believe that, having acknowledged 
that 'anything not violating the laws of physics can happen', 
nevertheless have adopted values of 'infinitesimal probability'. This 
allows for a black swan that can play the piano.


Best wishes
With seasonal felicitations
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
Rayleigh, Essex UK www.woodjohn.uk

On 2019-12-30 20:39, Douglas Nix wrote:

Two thoughts on this:

1) it sounds from the the description of the event that this might 
also be called a “black swan” event. As we all know, black swans are 
real, however rare they may be. This is simply another way to say “We 
never thought of that”, and


2) I had a Trek mountain bike that had a reminder in the manual that 
“you mountain bike is not a submarine”, as a way to remind owners that 
riding your bike with the hubs an drive train submerged was a good way 
to kill the bearings if one didn’t immediately service them after 
submersion.


IMO, although the process functional safety folks will often argue 
that black swans need not be considered, it’s my opinion that we need 
to understand them and mitigate them if the analysis shows that 
perhaps they are more gray than black. “Acts of God” have no place in 
product safety as far as I’m concerned. Understand the hazards and the 
best understanding of the probabilities that can be developed, and 
mitigate to the state of the art.


Doug Nix
d...@mac.com 

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of 
arriving safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in 
broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly 
proclaiming -- WOW -- What a RIDE!!





-

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 

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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

[Doug Nix]

I completely agree John. Your revised definition is on the money!

Doug Nix
d...@ieee.org
+1 (519) 729-5704

> On 30-Dec-19, at 15:40, John Woodgate  wrote:
> 
> The volcanologists are not good enough. No human knowledge is exhaustive.  It 
> fits fairly well with your cited definition:
> 
> an act or occurrence so extraordinary and unprecedented that human foresight 
> could not foresee or guard against it
> 
> but I think the definition is 'over-egged': I would shorten it to:
> 
> an act or occurrence that human foresight could not foresee or guard against
> 
> Volcanoes erupt, so an eruption is not 'extraordinary and unprecedented', but 
> human foresight, in the present state of knowledge, could not foresee it.
> 
> 
> 
> Best wishes
> With seasonal felicitations
> John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
> Rayleigh, Essex UK www.woodjohn.uk 
> On 2019-12-30 19:34, Richard Nute wrote:
>>  
>>  
>> Hi Ted:
>>  
>> I picked the reference from David Lazarus’ December 24th column from the LA 
>> Times:
>>  
>> https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-12-24/acts-of-god-consumer-contract
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> He says, “… that “acts of God” is cited so frequently as an excuse for not 
>> meeting corporate obligations.”  
>>  
>> In considering the safety of a product, if a product met the standard but 
>> still caused an injury, could or would a corporation invoke that the injury 
>> was an “act of God” to absolve itself from liability as corporations appear 
>> to do for other obligations?  
>>  
>> We’re all biased here.  We are “good guys.”  We believe it behooves the 
>> manufacturer to take all steps – none of which are “acts of God” -- to 
>> prevent injury from a product.  
>>  
>> Best wishes for the holiday season,
>> Rich
>>  
>> PS:  Many would say that the eruption of the White Island volcano was an 
>> “act of God.”  While volcanic activity was monitored, volcanologists did not 
>> predict the violent eruption.  Either the volcanologists were not good 
>> enough, or the eruption was an “act of God”? 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: Ted Eckert <07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> 
>>  
>> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 8:11 AM
>> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
>> Subject: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety
>>  
>> First, I am not licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction. Take what I 
>> say as the view of an engineers with only limited experience in this area.
>>  
>> The term “Act of God” generally is limited to contract law and to insurance 
>> law. It is also generally limited to natural events such as earthquakes, 
>> tornados and such. It is unlikely that a court in the United States would 
>> accept a claim of an “Act of God” in a product liability case. Rich gives a 
>> brief statement from a 1944 Florida case, but that statement neither 
>> includes context nor takes into account decades of case law and precedent 
>> that provide the current interpretation of the phrase.
>>  
>> As engineers, it can be fun to play with ideas such as “Act of God”, but it 
>> should be clear that this is just an attempt at humor and has little effect 
>> on liability in product design.
>>  
>> The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
>> employer.
>>  
>> From: John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>> 
>> Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2019 6:41 PM
>> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety
>>  
>> Does that prove that at least one god exists?
>> 
>> Best wishes
>> With seasonal felicitations
>> John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
>> Rayleigh, Essex UK www.woodjohn.uk 
>> 
>> On 2019-12-30 02:09, Scott wrote:
>> If you do a thorough hazard analysis, an act of god is obvious! 
>>  
>> Scott
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>  
>> 
>> On Dec 29, 2019, at 8:37 PM, Doug Powell  
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>  
>> Rich,
>>  
>> While many standards do indeed refer to foreseeable events, misuse, etc. I'm 
>> not certain this would automatically confer Act of God status to an 
>> unforeseen event. This hypothetical event may be a case of degrees and not 
>> of two extremes, especially in the case of a formerly unforeseeable and now 
>> preventable situation. Isn't this how many standards are developed over the 
>> years? 
>>  
>> I still remember shoe stores in the 1950s that offered real-time x-ray of 
>> how well shoes fit the customer's feet. An unforeseeable hazard at the time 
>> and now incredibly obvious. Would 

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

[John Woodgate]

The volcanologists are not good enough. No human knowledge is 
exhaustive.  It fits fairly well with your cited definition:


/an act or occurrence so extraordinary and unprecedented that human 
foresight could not foresee or guard against it/


but I think the definition is 'over-egged': I would shorten it to:

/an act or occurrence that human foresight could not foresee or guard 
against

/

Volcanoes erupt, so an eruption is not 'extraordinary and 
unprecedented', but human foresight, in the present state of knowledge, 
could not foresee it.



Best wishes
With seasonal felicitations
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
Rayleigh, Essex UK www.woodjohn.uk

On 2019-12-30 19:34, Richard Nute wrote:


Hi Ted:

I picked the reference from David Lazarus’ December 24^th column from 
the LA Times:


https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-12-24/acts-of-god-consumer-contract

He says, “… that “acts of God” is cited so frequently as an excuse for 
not meeting corporate obligations.”


In considering the safety of a product, if a product met the standard 
but still caused an injury, could or would a corporation invoke that 
the injury was an “act of God” to absolve itself from liability as 
corporations appear to do for other obligations?


We’re all biased here.  We are “good guys.”  We believe it behooves 
the manufacturer to take all steps – none of which are “acts of God” 
-- to prevent injury from a product.


Best wishes for the holiday season,

Rich

PS:  Many would say that the eruption of the White Island volcano was 
an “act of God.”  While volcanic activity was monitored, 
volcanologists did not predict the violent eruption.  Either the 
volcanologists were not good enough, or the eruption was an “act of God”?


*From:* Ted Eckert <07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
*Sent:* Monday, December 30, 2019 8:11 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

First, I am not licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction. Take 
what I say as the view of an engineers with only limited experience in 
this area.


The term “Act of God” generally is limited to contract law and to 
insurance law. It is also generally limited to natural events such as 
earthquakes, tornados and such. It is unlikely that a court in the 
United States would accept a claim of an “Act of God” in a product 
liability case. Rich gives a brief statement from a 1944 Florida case, 
but that statement neither includes context nor takes into account 
decades of case law and precedent that provide the current 
interpretation of the phrase.


As engineers, it can be fun to play with ideas such as “Act of God”, 
but it should be clear that this is just an attempt at humor and has 
little effect on liability in product design.


The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those 
of my employer.


*From:* John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>>
*Sent:* Sunday, December 29, 2019 6:41 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
*Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

Does that prove that at least one god exists?

Best wishes
With seasonal felicitations
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
Rayleigh, Essex UKwww.woodjohn.uk  


On 2019-12-30 02:09, Scott wrote:

If you do a thorough hazard analysis, an act of god is obvious!

Scott

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 29, 2019, at 8:37 PM, Doug Powell 
 wrote:



Rich,

While many standards do indeed refer to foreseeable events,
misuse, etc. I'm not certain this would automatically confer Act
of God status to an unforeseen event. This hypothetical event may
be a case of degrees and not of two extremes, especially in the
case of a formerly unforeseeable and now preventable situation.
Isn't this how many standards are developed over the years?

I still remember shoe stores in the 1950s that offered real-time
x-ray of how well shoes fit the customer's feet. An unforeseeable
hazard at the time and now incredibly obvious. Would injury in the
former time be an Act of God?

Best wishes, Doug

*From:*ri...@ieee.org 

*Sent:*December 29, 2019 5:19 PM

*To:*EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 

*Reply-to:*ri...@ieee.org 

*Subject:*[PSES] act of God versus safety

The Florida state Supreme Court ruled in 1944 that an act of God
is “an act or occurrence so extraordinary and unprecedented that
human foresight could not foresee or guard against it.”

If a product that complies with a safety standard injures a
person, 

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

[Douglas Nix]

Two thoughts on this:

1) it sounds from the the description of the event that this might also be 
called a “black swan” event. As we all know, black swans are real, however rare 
they may be. This is simply another way to say “We never thought of that”, and

2) I had a Trek mountain bike that had a reminder in the manual that “you 
mountain bike is not a submarine”, as a way to remind owners that riding your 
bike with the hubs an drive train submerged was a good way to kill the bearings 
if one didn’t immediately service them after submersion.

IMO, although the process functional safety folks will often argue that black 
swans need not be considered, it’s my opinion that we need to understand them 
and mitigate them if the analysis shows that perhaps they are more gray than 
black. “Acts of God” have no place in product safety as far as I’m concerned. 
Understand the hazards and the best understanding of the probabilities that can 
be developed, and mitigate to the state of the art.
 
Doug Nix
d...@mac.com

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely 
in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, 
totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming -- WOW -- What a RIDE!!


> On 30-Dec-19, at 15:13, Ted Eckert <07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> 
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Rich
>  
> David Lazarus is discussing contract law, which is one of the areas where I 
> conceded that “Acts of God” does play a role. The Florida Supreme Court 
> statement is given as a response to a situation where a hurricane knocked out 
> power to homeowners. The agreement between the homeowners and the utility for 
> the delivery of power would fall under contract law, not product liability 
> law.
>  
> If an “Act of God” were a plausible defense in a product liability case, I 
> would have expected to have heard of it by now. However, it may be the case 
> that plaintiff’s’ attorneys know what the limits would be. Acts of nature 
> generally are not held against a manufacturers. Hurricanes and flood 
> frequently result in vehicles getting submerged. I am unaware of the owner of 
> a car being able to successfully bring a claim against the manufacturers for 
> the vehicle failing to operate properly after being submerged.
>  
> It’s an interesting area to think about, but I suspect it’s up to lawyers and 
> not engineers to discuss the boundaries.
>  
> Best regards,
> Ted
>  
> The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
> employer.
>  
> From: Richard Nute  
> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 11:34 AM
> To: Ted Eckert ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: RE: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety
>  
>  
>  
> Hi Ted:
>  
> I picked the reference from David Lazarus’ December 24th column from the LA 
> Times:
>  
> https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-12-24/acts-of-god-consumer-contract
>  
> 
>  
> He says, “… that “acts of God” is cited so frequently as an excuse for not 
> meeting corporate obligations.” 
>  
> In considering the safety of a product, if a product met the standard but 
> still caused an injury, could or would a corporation invoke that the injury 
> was an “act of God” to absolve itself from liability as corporations appear 
> to do for other obligations?  
>  
> We’re all biased here.  We are “good guys.”  We believe it behooves the 
> manufacturer to take all steps – none of which are “acts of God” -- to 
> prevent injury from a product. 
>  
> Best wishes for the holiday season,
> Rich
>  
> PS:  Many would say that the eruption of the White Island volcano was an “act 
> of God.”  While volcanic activity was monitored, volcanologists did not 
> predict the violent eruption.  Either the volcanologists were not good 
> enough, or the eruption was an “act of God”?  
>  
>  
>  
> From: Ted Eckert <07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org 
> > 
> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 8:11 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
> Subject: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety
>  
> First, I am not licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction. Take what I say 
> as the view of an engineers with only limited experience in this area.
>  
> The term “Act of God” generally is limited to contract law and to insurance 
> law. It is also generally limited to natural events such as earthquakes, 
> tornados and such. It is unlikely that a court in the United States would 
> accept a claim of an “Act of God” in a product liability case. Rich gives a 
> brief statement from a 1944 

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

[Ted Eckert]

Hi Rich

David Lazarus is discussing contract law, which is one of the areas where I 
conceded that “Acts of God” does play a role. The Florida Supreme Court 
statement is given as a response to a situation where a hurricane knocked out 
power to homeowners. The agreement between the homeowners and the utility for 
the delivery of power would fall under contract law, not product liability law.

If an “Act of God” were a plausible defense in a product liability case, I 
would have expected to have heard of it by now. However, it may be the case 
that plaintiff’s’ attorneys know what the limits would be. Acts of nature 
generally are not held against a manufacturers. Hurricanes and flood frequently 
result in vehicles getting submerged. I am unaware of the owner of a car being 
able to successfully bring a claim against the manufacturers for the vehicle 
failing to operate properly after being submerged.

It’s an interesting area to think about, but I suspect it’s up to lawyers and 
not engineers to discuss the boundaries.

Best regards,
Ted

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: Richard Nute 
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 11:34 AM
To: Ted Eckert ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety



Hi Ted:

I picked the reference from David Lazarus’ December 24th column from the LA 
Times:

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-12-24/acts-of-god-consumer-contract

He says, “… that “acts of God” is cited so frequently as an excuse for not 
meeting corporate obligations.”

In considering the safety of a product, if a product met the standard but still 
caused an injury, could or would a corporation invoke that the injury was an 
“act of God” to absolve itself from liability as corporations appear to do for 
other obligations?

We’re all biased here.  We are “good guys.”  We believe it behooves the 
manufacturer to take all steps – none of which are “acts of God” -- to prevent 
injury from a product.

Best wishes for the holiday season,
Rich

PS:  Many would say that the eruption of the White Island volcano was an “act 
of God.”  While volcanic activity was monitored, volcanologists did not predict 
the violent eruption.  Either the volcanologists were not good enough, or the 
eruption was an “act of God”?



From: Ted Eckert 
<07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 8:11 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

First, I am not licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction. Take what I say 
as the view of an engineers with only limited experience in this area.

The term “Act of God” generally is limited to contract law and to insurance 
law. It is also generally limited to natural events such as earthquakes, 
tornados and such. It is unlikely that a court in the United States would 
accept a claim of an “Act of God” in a product liability case. Rich gives a 
brief statement from a 1944 Florida case, but that statement neither includes 
context nor takes into account decades of case law and precedent that provide 
the current interpretation of the phrase.

As engineers, it can be fun to play with ideas such as “Act of God”, but it 
should be clear that this is just an attempt at humor and has little effect on 
liability in product design.

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>>
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2019 6:41 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety


Does that prove that at least one god exists?

Best wishes

With seasonal felicitations

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

Rayleigh, Essex UK 
www.woodjohn.uk
On 2019-12-30 02:09, Scott wrote:
If you do a thorough hazard analysis, an act of god is obvious!

Scott
Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 29, 2019, at 8:37 PM, Doug Powell 
 wrote:

Rich,

While many standards do indeed refer to foreseeable events, misuse, etc. I'm 
not certain this would automatically confer Act of God status to an unforeseen 
event. This hypothetical event may be a case of degrees and not of two 
extremes, 

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

[Richard Nute]

 

 

Hi Ted:

 

I picked the reference from David Lazarus’ December 24th column from the LA 
Times:

 

 

 https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-12-24/acts-of-god-consumer-contract

 

He says, “… that “acts of God” is cited so frequently as an excuse for not 
meeting corporate obligations.”  

 

In considering the safety of a product, if a product met the standard but still 
caused an injury, could or would a corporation invoke that the injury was an 
“act of God” to absolve itself from liability as corporations appear to do for 
other obligations?  

 

We’re all biased here.  We are “good guys.”  We believe it behooves the 
manufacturer to take all steps – none of which are “acts of God” -- to prevent 
injury from a product.  

 

Best wishes for the holiday season,

Rich

 

PS:  Many would say that the eruption of the White Island volcano was an “act 
of God.”  While volcanic activity was monitored, volcanologists did not predict 
the violent eruption.  Either the volcanologists were not good enough, or the 
eruption was an “act of God”?  

 

 

 

From: Ted Eckert <07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> 
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 8:11 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

 

First, I am not licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction. Take what I say 
as the view of an engineers with only limited experience in this area.

 

The term “Act of God” generally is limited to contract law and to insurance 
law. It is also generally limited to natural events such as earthquakes, 
tornados and such. It is unlikely that a court in the United States would 
accept a claim of an “Act of God” in a product liability case. Rich gives a 
brief statement from a 1944 Florida case, but that statement neither includes 
context nor takes into account decades of case law and precedent that provide 
the current interpretation of the phrase.

 

As engineers, it can be fun to play with ideas such as “Act of God”, but it 
should be clear that this is just an attempt at humor and has little effect on 
liability in product design.

 

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

 

From: John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk> > 
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2019 6:41 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

 

Does that prove that at least one god exists?

Best wishes
With seasonal felicitations
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
Rayleigh, Essex UK www.woodjohn.uk 

 

On 2019-12-30 02:09, Scott wrote:

If you do a thorough hazard analysis, an act of god is obvious! 

 

Scott

Sent from my iPhone

 

On Dec 29, 2019, at 8:37 PM, Doug Powell   
 wrote:

 

Rich,

 

While many standards do indeed refer to foreseeable events, misuse, etc. I'm 
not certain this would automatically confer Act of God status to an unforeseen 
event. This hypothetical event may be a case of degrees and not of two 
extremes, especially in the case of a formerly unforeseeable and now 
preventable situation. Isn't this how many standards are developed over the 
years? 

 

I still remember shoe stores in the 1950s that offered real-time x-ray of how 
well shoes fit the customer's feet. An unforeseeable hazard at the time and now 
incredibly obvious. Would injury in the former time be an Act of God? 

Best wishes, Doug


From: ri...@ieee.org  

Sent: December 29, 2019 5:19 PM

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  

Reply-to: ri...@ieee.org  

Subject: [PSES] act of God versus safety

 

 

 

The Florida state Supreme Court ruled in 1944 that an act of God is “an act or 
occurrence so extraordinary and unprecedented that human foresight could not 
foresee or guard against it.”

 

If a product that complies with a safety standard injures a person, is the 
injury an act of God?

 

Best wishes for the holiday season, 

Rich

 

 

-


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 < 
 emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:  

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

[John Woodgate]

I can't think of an internal fault in a product that would fit the 
'Florida' definition of AoG. Unforeseen physical and chemical effects 
are not extremely rare; a case that comes to mind is 'white plague', a 
gold-aluminium compound that formed in some early ICs and cause 
premature failure. But this substance was already known, just not to the 
people making the ICs.


An external influence gives more scope. Suppose a product is hit by a 
meteorite that penetrates some internal insulation and degrades it. A 
year later, someone suffers an electric shock as a result.


Best wishes
With seasonal felicitations
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
Rayleigh, Essex UK www.woodjohn.uk

On 2019-12-30 16:11, Ted Eckert wrote:


First, I am not licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction. Take 
what I say as the view of an engineers with only limited experience in 
this area.


The term “Act of God” generally is limited to contract law and to 
insurance law. It is also generally limited to natural events such as 
earthquakes, tornados and such. It is unlikely that a court in the 
United States would accept a claim of an “Act of God” in a product 
liability case. Rich gives a brief statement from a 1944 Florida case, 
but that statement neither includes context nor takes into account 
decades of case law and precedent that provide the current 
interpretation of the phrase.


As engineers, it can be fun to play with ideas such as “Act of God”, 
but it should be clear that this is just an attempt at humor and has 
little effect on liability in product design.


The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those 
of my employer.


*From:* John Woodgate 
*Sent:* Sunday, December 29, 2019 6:41 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

Does that prove that at least one god exists?

Best wishes
With seasonal felicitations
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
Rayleigh, Essex UKwww.woodjohn.uk  


On 2019-12-30 02:09, Scott wrote:

If you do a thorough hazard analysis, an act of god is obvious!

Scott

Sent from my iPhone



On Dec 29, 2019, at 8:37 PM, Doug Powell 
 wrote:



Rich,

While many standards do indeed refer to foreseeable events,
misuse, etc. I'm not certain this would automatically confer Act
of God status to an unforeseen event. This hypothetical event may
be a case of degrees and not of two extremes, especially in the
case of a formerly unforeseeable and now preventable situation.
Isn't this how many standards are developed over the years?

I still remember shoe stores in the 1950s that offered real-time
x-ray of how well shoes fit the customer's feet. An unforeseeable
hazard at the time and now incredibly obvious. Would injury in the
former time be an Act of God?

Best wishes, Doug

*From:*ri...@ieee.org 

*Sent:*December 29, 2019 5:19 PM

*To:*EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 

*Reply-to:*ri...@ieee.org 

*Subject:*[PSES] act of God versus safety

The Florida state Supreme Court ruled in 1944 that an act of God
is “an act or occurrence so extraordinary and unprecedented that
human foresight could not foresee or guard against it.”

If a product that complies with a safety standard injures a
person, is the injury an act of God?

Best wishes for the holiday season,

Rich

-


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 <_emc-pstc@ieee.org_ >

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: 

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety

[Ted Eckert]

First, I am not licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction. Take what I say 
as the view of an engineers with only limited experience in this area.

The term “Act of God” generally is limited to contract law and to insurance 
law. It is also generally limited to natural events such as earthquakes, 
tornados and such. It is unlikely that a court in the United States would 
accept a claim of an “Act of God” in a product liability case. Rich gives a 
brief statement from a 1944 Florida case, but that statement neither includes 
context nor takes into account decades of case law and precedent that provide 
the current interpretation of the phrase.

As engineers, it can be fun to play with ideas such as “Act of God”, but it 
should be clear that this is just an attempt at humor and has little effect on 
liability in product design.

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: John Woodgate 
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2019 6:41 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety


Does that prove that at least one god exists?

Best wishes

With seasonal felicitations

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

Rayleigh, Essex UK 
www.woodjohn.uk
On 2019-12-30 02:09, Scott wrote:
If you do a thorough hazard analysis, an act of god is obvious!

Scott
Sent from my iPhone


On Dec 29, 2019, at 8:37 PM, Doug Powell 
 wrote:

Rich,

While many standards do indeed refer to foreseeable events, misuse, etc. I'm 
not certain this would automatically confer Act of God status to an unforeseen 
event. This hypothetical event may be a case of degrees and not of two 
extremes, especially in the case of a formerly unforeseeable and now 
preventable situation. Isn't this how many standards are developed over the 
years?

I still remember shoe stores in the 1950s that offered real-time x-ray of how 
well shoes fit the customer's feet. An unforeseeable hazard at the time and now 
incredibly obvious. Would injury in the former time be an Act of God?

Best wishes, Doug
From: ri...@ieee.org
Sent: December 29, 2019 5:19 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Reply-to: ri...@ieee.org
Subject: [PSES] act of God versus safety



The Florida state Supreme Court ruled in 1944 that an act of God is “an act or 
occurrence so extraordinary and unprecedented that human foresight could not 
foresee or guard against it.”

If a product that complies with a safety standard injures a person, is the 
injury an act of God?

Best wishes for the holiday season,
Rich


-


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 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

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: 

Re: [PSES] magnets in toys rules overturned by manufacturers

[Bender, Curtis]

Thanks for sharing Rich.

I'd be interested if there is a follow up to this article at all. There seems 
to be some strong implications stated in the article that I'd assume there 
would be some type of rebuttal possibly in an editorialial reply.

Have a Happy New Year all.

Curt


Curtis Bender | Sr. Regulatory Manager
The views and opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect 
the policy or position of my employer.


From: Richard Nute 
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2019, 7:05 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] magnets in toys rules overturned by manufacturers


The strategy and story of manufacturers to overcome safety rules to benefit 
their sales (long):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/number-of-children-swallowing-dangerous-magnets-surges-as-industry-largely-polices-itself/2019/12/25/77327812-2295-11ea-86f3-3b5019d451db_story.html?arc404=true

Best wishes for the holiday season,
Rich


-


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 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>


-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: