Several years ago, while in between full-time positions, I found myself tasked with working on an outdated engine valve profiling machine. The original technician had converted the program from an old Siemens S5 to the newer S7 before leaving for vacation. However, upon arriving at the site on a Saturday, the factory manager was eager to know if the machine would be operational by Monday.
Despite only filling in temporarily, I took it upon myself to completely rewrite the program over the weekend. The initial conversion lacked the necessary Siemens standard sequencer logic, so I had to start from scratch. While I couldn't test the main drive due to a lack of lubrication, I did notice a critical safety issue with the grinding drive.
I promptly addressed the safety concern by removing the fuses and informing the contractor's boss of the issue. Impressed by my quick and thorough work, he offered me a full-time position, which I respectfully declined. I made it clear that safety is a priority for me, and I could not work for a company that did not share the same values.
Ultimately, I prioritized compliance with safety regulations over completing the job hastily. I never found out what became of the project, but I stood by my decision to not compromise on safety standards for the sake of expediency.
Are you in agreement with the standard of "he who was last to change it owns it"? Absolutely! The culture in this industry seems to prioritize blaming others rather than solving the actual problem. I have encountered similar situations in safety protocols, cell gate operations, and robot programming. In one instance, I was threatened that if I didn't comply with their requests, they would contact my supervisor. I calmly closed my laptop, placed it in my backpack, and as I was leaving, informed them that there was no need to contact my boss as I would address the situation with him directly.
As a former technician, I once faced a situation where I was asked to bypass a light curtain to allow operators to load components while the machine was running. Due to the absence of the tooling for the automated loader and time constraints, I had to come up with a safe solution. Drawing from past experiences in maintenance, where I had to rush an operator to the ER after an accident, I knew the importance of safety measures. Therefore, I suggested implementing a "single cycle" mode that would allow the machine to stop automatically after each cycle for hand loading. To make the process more efficient, I added a pushbutton at a convenient location to restart the machine. Despite the initial resistance, the safety measure was only used sparingly over the next four years. For me, the well-being of the operators always takes precedence over meeting production deadlines.
Imagine this scenario: you are called in to troubleshoot and repair a machine that has broken down. While you successfully fix the issues at hand, you realize that you have not had enough time to conduct a thorough safety evaluation. As a result, you are unsure of the overall safety of the system. Despite being brought in to address a specific problem, you may now be faced with the dilemma of whether the machine meets safety standards.
Saultgeorge raised a critical question: "Does the principle of 'he who was last to change it owns it' seem appropriate to you?" Absolutely! This industry often operates under the mentality of "Fix the blame, not the problem." I have encountered similar situations in safety protocols, access control systems, and automation. In one instance, I was threatened that if I did not comply with their request, they would escalate it to my supervisor. In response, I swiftly closed my laptop, packed it into my backpack, and informed them that there was no need to involve my boss as I would handle the situation myself.
It is essential to consider that if I observe any safety hazards, I bear some responsibility. Therefore, the suggested approach is to promptly close your laptop, contact your supervisor, and report the issue. It is crucial for those in leadership positions to be notified so that they can take the necessary steps to address the problem effectively and ensure accountability.
In various scenarios involving machine safety functions, different approaches can be taken to handle the situation effectively.
1. In the case where safety functions are not integrated with a PLC, it is advised not to make any changes to the PLC program if they are unrelated to safety. Instead, document your concerns and submit them to management, clearly stating your observations and disclaiming any responsibility for the machine's safety.
2. If safety functions are controlled by safety relays rather than directly linked to the PLC, modifications to the PLC program can be made but must be verified by another individual to ensure safety is not compromised. Document your actions and disclaimer of safety responsibility.
3. In instances where safety functions are managed by a safety-PLC:
- Modifications to the non-safety PLC program can be made, but verification by another person is required to confirm safety is maintained.
- Modifications to the safety PLC program are permissible only if you have access to the risk assessment, possess expertise in safety, and are assigned the task of updating safety measures. It is essential to update the risk assessment, evaluation, and validation accordingly, documenting all changes made. Take responsibility for the machine's safety concerning the safety program but refrain from addressing other safety aspects to avoid implying awareness of safety issues in case of accidents.
Case 1 is critical as it involves addressing blatant safety risks and necessitates documenting communication with relevant parties to mitigate potential liability.
In your current situation, it is important to remember the rule of "you touch it, you own it." Regardless of any changes made to the program, being aware of safety concerns and violations that were touched is crucial. In the event of an accident, legal action may be taken against anyone who interacted with the machine, including the seller. It is essential to address any safety issues promptly. I am currently facing a similar situation at work with a press machine, and implementing new controls may not satisfy production needs. To address this, consider documenting violations with photographs and estimating the time and resources required for corrections. Present this documentation to management and keep a copy for your records, including a list of meeting attendees. This will serve as evidence of your concerns and efforts to address safety issues if an accident occurs. Regards, James.
Is it crucial to have written documentation stating that the end-user is accountable for safety before using a machine that was not initially provided? How important is it to record safety concerns with photos, and what if an accident occurs due to a missed safety issue? Does offering safety advice increase your involvement and expertise with the machine? Consider these implications before proceeding.
In various scenarios with different approaches to address the situation, it is important to consider the safety measures in place for machines. Depending on whether the safety functions are integrated with a PLC or safety relays, different actions need to be taken.
If the machine's safety functions are not linked to the PLC, it is advised not to make any changes to the PLC program related to safety. Instead, document your concerns and notify management while stating that you are not responsible for the machine's safety.
When safety functions are connected to safety relays, modifications to the PLC program can be made, but verification by another individual is necessary to ensure safety is not compromised. Document the changes made and disclaim responsibility for the machine's safety.
In cases where safety functions are controlled by a safety-PLC, specific guidelines must be followed. Whether making adjustments to the non-safety PLC program or the safety PLC program, it is crucial for someone else to verify that safety is not affected. Detailed documentation of the changes made and responsibility for the safety of the machine must be declared accordingly.
It is important to refrain from mentioning safety aspects beyond the designated ones as it may imply awareness of additional safety issues. Taking precautions and documenting unsafe observations is key, especially in Case 1 where clear safety risks are identified.
The reality is that most machines do not fully comply with all safety standards, making it challenging to ensure complete safety at all times. Implementing a disclaimer in every work quote stating that the company is not liable for the machine's safety post-service completion can provide some level of protection. However, not all companies have such disclaimers in place.
In the world of business, it is crucial to protect your company by including a disclaimer in all quotes stating that your company is not liable for the machine's safety post-work completion. Not everyone includes this in their quotes, but it's a wise practice to adopt. Additionally, if you originally delivered the machine to the customer, make sure to have a clause in the contract requiring the customer to sign a hand-over certificate confirming the machine's safety at the time of hand-over. This simple document has proved invaluable in protecting my business in the past.
Working with stamping presses, ethical considerations do not factor into my job. However, fear is a driving force in my work. In this line of work, the potential for legal liability is a constant concern. Even if decades have passed since I last worked on a press, I could still be held criminally accountable or sued for wrongful death or injury if an incident occurs. This is because my actions, no matter how small, could potentially contribute to a tragic outcome in the future.
If I come across a machine that I deem unsafe, I take immediate action by documenting my findings in a letter to the customer. I make it clear that I will not work on the machine until it has been brought up to safe operating standards. Additionally, I keep a copy of the letter for my records. Even something as minor as replacing a faulty fuse or relay on an unsafe machine can leave me vulnerable to legal repercussions related to the machine's controls. It is crucial to prioritize safety in order to minimize risks and avoid potential legal consequences in the industry.
I_Automation stated that if they come across a machine that they deem unsafe, they will inform the customer in writing about their findings and refuse to work on the machine until it is made safe. However, what happens if there is an unnoticed safety issue that was not reported? How can one prove their lack of awareness? The responsibility lies on the fact that in other instances safety issues were reported, implying expertise in identifying safety concerns. The system described in the US may seem difficult to navigate, as touching a machine that was not delivered by you holds liability, as does delivering a machine that is later worked on by someone else. While it is understandable that investigations into accidents may involve all parties involved with the machine, immediate assumption of guilt seems unfair. Shouldn't one be presumed innocent until proven guilty? It is agreed that obvious safety issues should be reported, but assuming responsibility for every potential hidden safety issue in a complex machine may not be practical.
arpus4KM commented on the situation, highlighting the common issue of machines not meeting safety standards. It can be challenging for service engineers to ensure every job is up to par, especially when original drawings or prints are lacking. Many companies include disclaimers regarding post-work machine safety, but not all. If you have concerns about safety practices on site, it's important to address them with management and HSE representatives. Documented proof should be provided, and if the situation does not improve, it may be necessary to consider leaving. It's crucial to take safety seriously, as neglecting it could lead to serious consequences such as injuries or fatalities, for which blame may fall on others.
According to JesperMP, the concept of being innocent until proven guilty is not always upheld in legal proceedings. An example of this is seen in the case of a used machinery dealer who was wrongfully charged with a criminal offense. The dealer was part of a sale transaction involving a machine that had been shipped from Germany to the UK, only to have the original deal fall through. Despite never laying eyes on the machine or being involved in its handling, the dealer was unjustly accused of causing a fatal accident when the machine was assembled by the buyer without proper instructions. This resulted in a lengthy legal battle, with the dealer facing significant financial burdens in legal fees and travel expenses. Ultimately, it was determined that the buyer was at fault for the incident. This case serves as a reminder that the presumption of innocence until proven guilty can be challenged in the courtroom, contrary to popular belief.
In the United States, each company is held accountable for maintaining a safety program that adheres to OSHA regulations. If a company purchases a machine without conducting a proper safety evaluation, the responsibility falls on them. The same applies to their mechanics - if someone bypasses a safety feature, they are at fault. However, if a company takes possession of a machine without evaluating its safety measures and an accident occurs, they are liable.
While there are various hypothetical scenarios in the crane industry, the only documented case where a technician was held liable involved a situation where safety limits were bypassed to complete a lift, resulting in a fatal accident. This underscores the importance of adhering to safety protocols and reporting any evident safety issues, while also highlighting the complexities of dealing with potentially hidden safety risks in machinery.
mad4x4 mentioned the importance of addressing safety concerns at work sites. If you have worries about unsafe practices, it's crucial to speak up. Consider whether you are comfortable working in an environment where a colleague could potentially suffer a fatal or injurious accident. Take your concerns to management and Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE) representatives on site, providing evidence if necessary. If the situation does not improve significantly, it may be necessary to leave the job, citing safety concerns as the reason. Failing to address safety issues could lead to serious consequences, such as injuries or even death, for which blame may be shifted onto others.
It's not just about preventing fatalities; even minor injuries due to outdated machinery can be a concern. While it may not be ideal to halt operations completely until safety standards are met, there needs to be a compromise. The company responsible for the machinery should adhere to OSHA standards and ensure the safety of its employees. Ultimately, they are accountable for ensuring that machinery meets the necessary safety requirements, which should meet at least the minimum standards set for the specific processes involved.
Thank you for your input, everyone! Do you think that refraining from operating the machines until they are fixed is sufficient? If the equipment is not compliant with regulations and management has been notified, should the controls engineer take further action to shut down the machines? While it may not seem like an imminent threat, could the controls engineer still be legally responsible if an incident were to occur in the future? Are there any specific laws or regulations that I can use to address this issue with my employer? Often, management may not fully understand the risks involved and may simply dismiss concerns about liability.
- 18-09-2024
- ElectricalHammer
While its relevance may be questioned in the US, the Health and Safety Executive in the UK emphasizes the importance of refurbished and modified machinery in the workplace. For more information on this topic, visit the official HSE website: https://www.hse.gov.uk/work-equipment-machinery/refurbished-modified-machinery.htm.
In the United States, the employer is in charge of ensuring the safety of their employees while operating machinery. Once an injured employee accepts a settlement from Worker's Compensation insurance, the employer's financial obligation is typically fulfilled. However, the injured individual still has the option to pursue legal action against any other party that may be held liable. This often involves seeking compensation from individuals or entities with insurance coverage. Assets such as a $250,000 house with a $200,000 mortgage may not be of interest to lawyers in such cases.
When it comes to addressing safety concerns with machines, the responsibility lies with the company. If you are an employee and notice an unsafe machine, it is crucial to report it to ensure the company's liability. However, if you are a contractor working on the machine, you could potentially assume liability if you continue to work on it. Unfortunately, raising safety concerns as an employee may not always be well received, as companies often prioritize profit over safety. It is important to address any potential hazards to avoid accidents and ensure a safe work environment.
ojz0r expressed hesitance towards engaging with it, preferring to leave that task to @ASF. The question remains: where can one procure a 10-foot pole measuring 25/64 inches in diameter?
When it comes to upgrading, it's essential to address all issues at once rather than selecting specific ones to fix. It's important to tackle all aspects of the upgrade in one go, rather than piecemeal. This ensures a comprehensive and effective solution.
ASF questioned the challenge of finding a 10-foot, 25/64 inch pole, highlighting the difference in measurement units between regions. In most parts of the world, the metric system is used, measuring in meters rather than inches.
Correction: ojz0r pointed out that in developed countries, such as the civilized third world, the metric system is predominantly used over the imperial system, with meters being the unit of measurement rather than inches.
As drbitboy rightly pointed out, there is a correction to be made. Click to open up the discussion. It seems that everyone is viewing things from a different perspective.
ojz0r pointed out that "All of you are upside down." Don't envy our ability to filter out those who struggle with mental math by not relying on the metric system.
In a forum post, user drbitboy made a correction to a statement about the use of inches versus meters in different parts of the world. As a resident of Canuckistan, they acknowledged their familiarity with both standard and scientific units of measurement but admitted that they are still learning about less commonly used units like pressure. In response to the original post about safety issues, they advised documenting any issues found and proposing solutions to management rather than attempting to fix them if unable to do so safely.
Interestingly, in the United Kingdom, mechanical systems, especially pipework, continue to use imperial measurements. Rulers in the UK typically feature both metric and imperial units, and many individuals still prefer imperial measures. For example, a majority of people track their car's fuel consumption in miles per gallon, not the US gallon. Despite transitioning to the metric system in the early 1970s, imperial measurements are still widely employed in the UK today.
A classic saying goes, "A pint's a pound, the world around!" - emphasizing the universal truth that a pint of liquid weighs approximately one pound.
Whenever I am faced with a potentially unsafe situation, I make it a point to request a liability release from the company's decision-makers through their legal representation. By having my own legal team scrutinize the document for any necessary amendments, we ensure that all parties are protected. This proactive approach has proven to be effective in preventing any accidents or injuries from occurring. I often highlight the importance of assessing the value of one's fingers and hands, especially when considering the safety of loved ones. I pose the question, "Would you feel comfortable with your family members operating this machinery based on the training provided to your employees?" This straightforward inquiry has consistently resulted in a resolution without any further incidents. By taking these precautionary measures, I can rest easy knowing that I have done my part to prevent any harm from coming to others.
I declined a project because of safety concerns regarding the machine. I emphasized the importance of bringing it up to standard and outlined the necessary steps. Unfortunately, they were not able to afford the upgrades required.
arpus4KM mentioned that overlooking the point is a common issue. Safety concerns may not always be life-threatening but can also arise due to machines no longer meeting regulations. In such situations, outright refusal to work on machines until safety upgrades are made is impractical, as it could jeopardize business operations. Hence, there needs to be a middle ground, ideally with the company that owns the machine taking responsibility for their employees' safety. It is crucial for companies to comply with OSHA standards and ensure that machines meet the required safety standards. In this particular case, it is not about an old machine that is outdated or exempted from regulations. Rather, it is about a machine that was built in-house within the last five years by individuals who lacked sufficient knowledge, resulting in a machine that never met the necessary codes and standards. This machine should never have been designed or operated in the first place.
- 18-09-2024
- ElectricalHammer
ElectricalHammer mentioned that the issue at hand is not about an outdated machine that doesn't comply with current codes. Instead, it involves a machine created internally by individuals who lacked the necessary knowledge within the past five years. This machine has never met the required codes and regulations, indicating a serious oversight in its design and functionality. This raises the question of how many contractors assisting companies with reviving old machines would refuse to work on them unless provided with original build files, prints, Built-As drawings, safety certifications, and more. It is challenging to address automation issues in a short service call span of 2-3 hours while ensuring compliance with safety standards without spending additional time evaluating the machine. In such cases, charging customers for a thorough evaluation before proceeding with any repairs is crucial for legal CYOA purposes.
Many people question the higher costs of USA-made products without realizing the impact of stringent safety standards. The strict legal requirements contribute significantly to the expense of ensuring worker safety and manufacturing machinery. Similarly, healthcare costs are driven up by doctors' concerns over malpractice lawsuits. As a retired individual, I am grateful to no longer have to navigate these complexities.
When evaluating whether to work for a company or be hired to work on a machine, it is important to conduct a thorough Tech report on any deficiencies. Seeking a second opinion from another engineer can provide valuable insights. If the issues with the machine are severe, it may be necessary to walk away, but it is crucial to clearly articulate the reasons for refusing to work on the machine. In a similar situation, we informed our client that we could not support the machine as is, but offered to rebuild it and incorporate new features. Starting from scratch to address all the issues would require a significant investment of funds.
When making changes to a process, it is crucial to prioritize safety measures to prevent any negative impacts. It is not advisable to rely solely on the assumption that the original programmer correctly separated safety code from non-safety code. Programming safety-related logic in non-safety tasks is not in violation of standards, but utilizing a designated safety task is preferred. Investing in safety engineering may seem costly, but it is necessary to ensure the safety of operations. Make sure to obtain a risk assessment and verification/validation document when receiving a new machine or process. While the original equipment manufacturer may not provide these documents, you have the right to refuse business until they are provided.
Drbitboy once said, "A pint's a pound, the world around!" However, in reality, pints can weigh up to 9.5 pounds. ElectricalHammer mentioned that the issue at hand is not an old machine not meeting current codes but a machine built in-house within the last five years without following proper codes and standards. Even though I have witnessed flammable pressurized tanks built on-site before, it is important to note that manufacturing practices have evolved over time. The site with the flammable storage tank, which passed inspection, previously had a dedicated engineering team designing equipment to high standards before outsourcing became prevalent due to cost-cutting measures.
Mikeexplorer shared an experience where a manager requested the replacement of a failed SSR without shutting down the machine operating at 480 volts. Both Mike and another technician refused to comply, leading to the inevitable shutdown of the machine. This incident pushed Mike to start searching for a new job, eventually leaving a few months later.
This situation underscores the importance of utilizing work orders consistently. Without a work order, work should not proceed. By following proper protocols, such as submitting a work order before any maintenance or repairs, the machine can be safely turned off and locked out. Maintenance takes ownership of the machine until the repair is completed and the equipment is back in operation, regardless of the manager's desires. This approach ensures safety and efficiency in the workplace.
As evident from Mike's experience, this issue has been a recurring challenge.
Tim Ganz emphasized the importance of using work orders at all times to ensure proper maintenance procedures are followed. Without a work order, work should not proceed. This practice ensures that when maintenance or other departments begin work after a work order is submitted, the first step is to turn off and lock out the equipment. Throughout the repair process, maintenance takes ownership of the machine until the work is completed and the equipment is safely returned to production. This protocol prioritizes safety and efficiency, regardless of managerial preferences. If maintenance did not originally build the machine, it is crucial to adhere to lockout procedures to prevent accidents and facilitate rebuilding.
In the United States, it is the legal responsibility of the end-user to ensure the safety of machinery. Although you can legally sell a robot without any safeguarding to an end-user and avoid legal liability, it is important to consider the litigious nature of our society. Even if you are not legally responsible, you can still face lawsuits that require time and money to defend against.
Personally, I would decline a job that involves an unsafe machine, citing the potential liability it poses. Even if a customer is willing to sign a waiver, there is still the risk of being sued by others, such as the family of someone harmed by the machine. Waivers signed by customers do not protect against lawsuits from their employees' families, ultimately leaving a potential risk.
In terms of ethical and moral responsibility, I believe I am accountable only for the changes I implement. However, I do feel a personal obligation to address any safety concerns I come across, just as I do in my professional setting. While I am not a legal expert, I understand that the end user carries the ultimate legal responsibility for ensuring the safety of the machinery. Workers' Comp laws can limit their financial liability, prompting injured parties to pursue legal action against anyone associated with the machinery, regardless of their level of involvement. Even winning such a lawsuit can be costly, as highlighted by other anecdotes shared in this discussion.
Allow me to share another relevant anecdote, keeping details intentionally vague. In a previous job, we hired a contractor to perform tasks beyond our expertise. Due to errors made by the contractor, there was an explosion and fire resulting in serious injuries to two of their employees. The contractor's workers' comp insurance provided some coverage, shielding them from additional liability. Consequently, the injured employees turned to us, a larger company, for compensation. The legal battle took several years to reach a resolution. Had we been a smaller company lacking a team of corporate attorneys, the fight would have been considerably more challenging.
There are many unrealistic comments here regarding the feasibility of contract service work. A significant portion of automation systems in the US still rely on outdated single relay estops from before the 1990s. It's highly likely that you have worked on a machine without conducting a thorough safety audit. It's not always practical. If a customer requests a simple addition to a recipe template on an HMI/PLC for a packaging system, are you really going to insist on conducting a full safety audit of the entire machine before proceeding? Are you going to refuse the work if the machine lacks locking gates, Sil2 Pld safety circuits, and drive control? I find that hard to believe.
According to Robertmee, about 80% of automation systems currently in use in the United States are likely based on single relay estops from before the 1990s. This implies that many safety functions in machines are built using safety relays rather than being directly related to the PLC. If asked to make modifications to the PLC program, it is essential to have someone else verify that these changes do not compromise safety. Documenting the changes made and disclaiming responsibility for the machine's safety in writing can protect you from potential liability issues.
It may seem impractical to conduct a full safety audit of a packaging machine simply to make minor adjustments like adding a parameter to an HMI/PLC template. However, implementing proper documentation and safety disclaimers in advance can help safeguard against potential risks. In the event of witnessing any obvious safety concerns with a machine, it is crucial to document and address these issues while completing the necessary work. Being proactive in addressing safety concerns and maintaining a thorough paper trail can protect you from potential legal consequences in the future.
There is a compelling argument for holding accountable the engineer responsible for the state of a product or service through ethical committees that oversee standards. The "touch it you own it" mentality serves as a reminder that individuals will be personally liable for any potential harm caused, regardless of the complexity of the issues involved. It is crucial for lawyers and engineers alike to prioritize safety concerns and ethics, even if it means refusing work that could compromise these principles. Companies must recognize the authority of the experts they hire, rather than cutting corners to save costs, as the consequences of overlooking safety can result in costly legal battles. Ultimately, it is important to weigh the financial impact of halting operations to address safety issues against the potential expenses of a serious safety lawsuit.
Mandel314159 argued that engineers should be held accountable for the state of their work by ethical committees regulating safety standards. The "touch it you own it" mentality emphasizes the importance of engineers taking responsibility for any potential safety issues, as they could be held liable for accidents. Engineers have a moral obligation to refuse work that compromises safety, even if the company overlooks safety concerns in favor of cost savings. It is crucial to consider whether the cost of shutting down operations for safety improvements outweighs the risk of a costly safety lawsuit.
In the United States, the legal responsibility for machine safety lies with the end user, not the manufacturer. Despite this, most manufacturers prioritize safety features to prevent workplace accidents. While manufacturers are not legally obligated to include safety measures, ethical considerations and potential civil litigation may come into play if safety features are intentionally omitted at the customer's request. The rules regarding machine safety vary in different countries, such as in Europe.
In the United States, the legal liability falls on the end user to ensure the safety of their machines. Only the owner of the machine is legally responsible for conducting safety audits. While it may seem surprising, OEMs can sell robot cells without safety features and not face legal repercussions if an accident occurs – instead, it is the customer who could be fined. However, most OEMs include safety devices to prevent harm in the workplace. If a customer requests the removal of safety features to cut costs, the OEM can technically comply, but the ethical implications are significant. In Europe, the rules regarding machine safety are different. This sheds light on the complex interplay between ethics, legal responsibility, and industry practices in the engineering field.
I haven't read all the replies, but one thing is certain: it's important to communicate with higher-ups about safety issues. Document your concerns in an email, including their responses, and keep a copy at home for reference. Additionally, advise on ways to bring the machine up to code, prioritizing safety over adherence to strict regulations. When composing the email, be diplomatic and avoid sounding accusatory. It's crucial to address the issue without causing offense. As for handling the machine, proceed with caution and prioritize safety measures to prevent any potential hazards. Good luck in resolving the situation!
- 18-09-2024
- geniusintraining
Dear brstilson, Dealing with the aftermath of an accident can be a daunting experience. In the event of an injury, the lawyers representing the injured party will thoroughly investigate everyone involved. I have personally experienced this situation before. Fortunately, I had the necessary paperwork requesting a change and the engineer's signature, which cleared my OEM company of any wrongdoing. However, my customer was not as fortunate and ended up paying a significant amount of money. It's important to be prepared and have documentation in place to protect yourself in such situations. Best, James.
In the United States, legal liability is not attributed to individuals. The responsibility for ensuring machine safety lies solely with the end user. The owner of the machine is legally accountable for conducting safety audits. However, when faced with a lawsuit served by a process server, represented by the injured party's lawyer, or when dealing with insurance carriers and mediators, this responsibility becomes more complex. In the US, after accepting worker's compensation, individuals forfeit the right to sue their employer, but are free to pursue legal action against anyone else associated with the machinery involved in the injury.
In the United States, once an injured party accepts a worker's compensation settlement, they relinquish the right to sue their employer. However, they can pursue legal action against anyone else involved in the incident. This includes the process server delivering the notice of being sued, the injured party's lawyer, the mediator overseeing discussions between insurance carriers, and even your own insurance carrier if they deny coverage after a judgement is made against you. While criminal court may not hold you accountable for accidents leading to injuries, civil court allows for anyone to be sued for any reason. Though certain states have anti-SLAPP laws to deter frivolous lawsuits, filing a lawsuit can still result in the defendant incurring legal expenses for their defense.
In Michigan and various other states, technicians and engineers can be prosecuted for criminal wrongful death charges if someone dies due to an unsafe machine. Even if customers sign waivers, the families of their employees can still sue for damages. I know of a case involving a machine reseller near Detroit who was dragged into court over a crated machine that caused a fatal accident when assembled incorrectly by the customer in Minnesota. Despite never touching the machine or providing assembly instructions, the reseller had to endure an 18-month trial and significant legal expenses before being cleared of all charges. This incident underscores the importance of ensuring proper usage and safety protocols for all machinery to avoid potential legal ramifications.
According to ojz0r, measurements in the modern world are commonly done in meters rather than inches. Conversely, some may argue that inches are more prevalent in civilized societies than meters.
ojz0r argued that in the modern world, the use of meters is predominant over inches. On the other hand, saultgeorge contended that inches are more commonly used than meters in civilized societies. However, it is worth noting that in the civilized world, the standard unit of measurement for distance is feet. It can be challenging to navigate unfamiliar locations without a basic understanding of this unit of measurement.
saultgeorge remarked that in the modern world, meters are more commonly used than inches. He expressed longing for his home planet where they utilized Quagmor units, finding them to be simpler and less confusing than the various units of measurement found on Earth, such as inches, feet, yards, millimeters, and centimeters.
I_Automation expressed nostalgia for their home planet, where they utilized the user-friendly Quagmor measurement system instead of the confusing array of units like inches, feet, yards, millimeters, centimeters, and meters. They jokingly pondered how many Quagmors would equate to a metric tonne.
saultgeorge inquired about the conversion rate of Quagmors to a metric tonne. The intriguing question left many curious about the mathematical possibilities. The number 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342 was shared, sparking a conversation about the precise calculation.
I_Automation mentioned the infinite decimal representation of Pi, often searched as 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342. Click to uncover the details of this mathematical constant. So...it's like a metric ton of Pi(e)!
saultgeorge mentioned something intriguing: a vast amount of Pi(e) calculated to 100 decimal places. Interestingly, while high schools typically teach Pi to only 4 places and universities to 6 or 7, at home, some individuals delve into Pi to an impressive 100 places as early as middle school. It's a fascinating discrepancy in education when it comes to the famous mathematical constant.
I_Automation mentioned how important it is to understand decimals to a high degree of precision. It is ironic that while high schools only teach to 4 decimal places and universities to 6 or 7, I had already learned up to 100 decimal places at home by middle school. In 9th grade, I recall a classmate who diligently copied at least 10 pages of decimals in a blank notebook. Interestingly, this was the same person I competed against and defeated in a chess championship, winning two out of three matches.
American consumers are being overcharged, as a US Gallon equates to 3.78541178 liters, whereas in the UK it is 4.546092 liters. The discrepancy in measurement standards can lead to confusion and potentially higher costs for buyers.
Parky pointed out that Americans may feel cheated due to the fact that a US Gallon is only 3.78541178 liters, whereas in the UK it's 4.546092 liters. This can impact various industries, such as those dealing in precious metals, who may only receive 373.242 grams instead of a full pound.
In the UK, we use the metric system for selling food, but engineering is typically done using a combination of imperial and metric units. When we purchase petrol (also known as gas), it is measured in litres. Despite this, yards and miles are still commonly used for road measurements. The UK has a unique blend of measurement systems, which can sometimes be confusing for both locals and visitors.
Wow, this discussion quickly turned sour.
- 18-09-2024
- geniusintraining
User geniusintraining commented on how this thread quickly took a negative turn. It appears that this change in direction was long overdue.
- 18-09-2024
- WhinnieThePooh
Must-read xkcd comic strip