Hello Jim,>>You are wrong here. If you are the person in the company who is >>the professional expert on the subject and your advice is wrong, it >>is you who can be personally sued. > > Only if you are an officer of the company and are a "PE" or similar > with sign-off responsibility.I believe it's not "and a PE" but "or a PE". Meaning that people who work in med may be better off without PE since you can't get insurance anymore. Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com
EU lead-free directive
Started by ●May 31, 2005
Reply by ●May 31, 20052005-05-31
Reply by ●May 31, 20052005-05-31
On Tue, 31 May 2005 21:53:15 GMT, Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:>Hello Jim, > >>>You are wrong here. If you are the person in the company who is >>>the professional expert on the subject and your advice is wrong, it >>>is you who can be personally sued. >> >> Only if you are an officer of the company and are a "PE" or similar >> with sign-off responsibility. > >I believe it's not "and a PE" but "or a PE". Meaning that people who >work in med may be better off without PE since you can't get insurance >anymore. > >Regards, Joerg > >http://www.analogconsultants.comNeeerp! An officer cannot be sued _personally_, corporate shield and all that... unless the criminal negligence condition can be proved. A PE with signing authority can... that's part of the "responsibility" section of the law. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Reply by ●May 31, 20052005-05-31
Joerg wrote:> Hello Jim, > >>> You are wrong here. If you are the person in the company who is >>> the professional expert on the subject and your advice is wrong, it >>> is you who can be personally sued. >> >> >> Only if you are an officer of the company and are a "PE" or similar >> with sign-off responsibility. > > > I believe it's not "and a PE" but "or a PE". Meaning that people who > work in med may be better off without PE since you can't get insurance > anymore. >In this case, I was hired as an electronics engineer. The guy I worked for had a PHD in biomedical engineering (or some such thing). Therefor, I was not the 'medical' professional on the project. -- Luhan Monat: luhanis(at)yahoo(dot)com http://members.cox.net/berniekm "Any sufficiently advanced magick is indistinguishable from technology."
Reply by ●May 31, 20052005-05-31
tim (moved to sweden) wrote:> > "Luhan Monat" <x@y.z> wrote in message > news:jP3ne.1624$Pp.651@fed1read01... >> GMM50 wrote: >>> Note that this requirement will probably trickle down to the engineer. >>> Management will ask the eng. to state that the product complies. >>> Guess who gets the blame. >>> >>> gm >>> >> >> Speaking of who gets blamed, I once insisted on working a contract type >> job as an employee. It was medical equipment. Anybody sues us, they >> can't sue an employee, > > You are wrong here. If you are the person in the company who is > the professional expert on the subject and your advice is wrong, it > is you who can be personally sued. If your advice is correct and > the management over-rule it, then the management can be sued.This is especially so under some EU and UK legislation. It is also the reason why engineers need to keep their own log-books (you do don't you).> Of course what actually happens depends upon the type of loss. > If the loss is a simple monetary one, then the company can be held > to be vicariously liable and are likely to be sued as well, because > they are the ones with the (insurance) money. But if the loss is of a > life, then it is the individual engineer who is the one in the dock on the > manslaughter charge.Not necessarily on his own though. After all, the management should have ensured that their procedures and process did not rely on just one person's say-so for decisions on safety aspects of a system or product. We are, after all, now supposed to be completing a full risk assessment on all our products before we let them loose on the world. That does not mean that all products will be inherently safe but what risks remain in the product are identified, brought to the attention of the purchaser so that he knows how to safely use the product.> If you want, I am sure that I can find you some examples. > > tim-- ******************************************************************** Paul E. Bennett ....................<email://peb@amleth.demon.co.uk> Forth based HIDECS Consultancy .....<http://www.amleth.demon.co.uk/> Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972 Tel: +44 (0)1235-811095 Going Forth Safely ....EBA. http://www.electric-boat-association.org.uk/ ********************************************************************
Reply by ●May 31, 20052005-05-31
"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message news:hqmp91l5obd16ia0or4121agm4b3km9joo@4ax.com...> On Tue, 31 May 2005 23:36:21 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)" > <tim_in_sweden2005@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> >>"Luhan Monat" <x@y.z> wrote in message >>news:jP3ne.1624$Pp.651@fed1read01... >>> GMM50 wrote: >>>> Note that this requirement will probably trickle down to the engineer. >>>> Management will ask the eng. to state that the product complies. >>>> Guess who gets the blame. >>>> >>>> gm >>>> >>> >>> Speaking of who gets blamed, I once insisted on working a contract type >>> job as an employee. It was medical equipment. Anybody sues us, they >>> can't sue an employee, >> >>You are wrong here. If you are the person in the company who is >>the professional expert on the subject and your advice is wrong, it >>is you who can be personally sued. > > Only if you are an officer of the company and are a "PE" or similar > with sign-off responsibility.In the US maybe, but this thread is about the EU (or so it says) tim
Reply by ●May 31, 20052005-05-31
Hello Jim,> Neeerp! An officer cannot be sued _personally_, corporate shield and > all that... unless the criminal negligence condition can be proved.True. But there were times when it was proven and then it was off to Club Fed.> A PE with signing authority can... that's part of the "responsibility" > section of the law.Yes. However, all these license boards don't seem to understand that there are by now several fields of work where PL insurance simply isn't available anymore. "Decline to quote" was the usual answer. When talking to them it seemed that checking the "med" box has the same effect as disclosing a prior stroke or something like that on a health insurance application. So it seems that as a PE you can have a legal obligation to carry insurance but can't get any. Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com
Reply by ●May 31, 20052005-05-31
On Tue, 31 May 2005 09:23:03 -0700, GMM50 wrote:> Note that this requirement will probably trickle down to the engineer. > Management will ask the eng. to state that the product complies. > Guess who gets the blame. >The Tech. )-:< Thanks, Rich
Reply by ●May 31, 20052005-05-31
Hello Luhan,>> I believe it's not "and a PE" but "or a PE". Meaning that people who >> work in med may be better off without PE since you can't get insurance >> anymore. > > In this case, I was hired as an electronics engineer. The guy I worked > for had a PHD in biomedical engineering (or some such thing). Therefor, > I was not the 'medical' professional on the project.The academic title isn't too important. What counts is who called the shots. With a PE that can be different because they can stamp and seal. Doing that on any piece of documentation carries a great responsibility. Then again, so does the action of any engineer who is bound by the IEEE code of ethics (but that doesn't count in a legal sense). Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com
Reply by ●May 31, 20052005-05-31
Tilmann Reh wrote:> Each material must be RoHS conform, for example contain less than 0.1% =lead> (similar tresholds exist for the other "evil" substances). >=20 > As an example, often an IC is used: it consists of > a) the die itself > b) the leadframe > c) the expoxy encasing > d) the surface finish of the leads. >=20 > *Each* of these materials must conform to the RoHS directive. >=20 > Another example is a simple cable, where the metal wire is defined as a=single> material and the plastic insulation as another material, and both must =conform> to the RoHS limits. >=20 > For assembled boards, this extents to the PCB base material, its surfac=e finish> (HAL) where it persists after soldering, the solder, and all parts (for=those> see above).What do you make of: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/l_037/l_03720030213en0019= 0023.pdf "Applications of lead, mercury, cadmium and hexavalent chromium, which=20 are exempted from the requirements of Article 4(1)... 7. =97 Lead in high melting temperature type solders (i.e. tin-lead=20 solder alloys containing more than 85 % lead)" Why would they make an exception for solder that has over double the=20 lead of that most commonly used for electronics? Does this mean that=20 if producers of electronics can find a way to use 85% lead solder,=20 they are exempt?
Reply by ●May 31, 20052005-05-31
On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:03:48 -0400, John Popelish wrote:> Tilmann Reh wrote: > >> Each material must be RoHS conform, for example contain less than 0.1% lead >> (similar tresholds exist for the other "evil" substances). >> >> As an example, often an IC is used: it consists of >> a) the die itself >> b) the leadframe >> c) the expoxy encasing >> d) the surface finish of the leads. >> >> *Each* of these materials must conform to the RoHS directive. >> >> Another example is a simple cable, where the metal wire is defined as a single >> material and the plastic insulation as another material, and both must conform >> to the RoHS limits. >> >> For assembled boards, this extents to the PCB base material, its surface finish >> (HAL) where it persists after soldering, the solder, and all parts (for those >> see above). > > What do you make of: > > http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/l_037/l_03720030213en00190023.pdf > > "Applications of lead, mercury, cadmium and hexavalent chromium, which > are exempted from the requirements of Article 4(1)... > 7. - Lead in high melting temperature type solders (i.e. tin-lead > solder alloys containing more than 85 % lead)" > > Why would they make an exception for solder that has over double the > lead of that most commonly used for electronics? Does this mean that > if producers of electronics can find a way to use 85% lead solder, > they are exempt?Probably because they're bureaucrats, i.e., have no concept of the way real reality works. ;-) -- Cheers! Rich ------ "A woman can never be too rich or too thin."
