civil/penal responsibility of designers

[acasali]

Good morning to all, I tried to read the new machine directive and the single text, but I lose myself in the meanders of the lexicon "forensese". I wanted to ask for clarification: according to the new machine directive (and/or single text), what are the civil/penal responsibilities of a machine designer? I explain: I am an employee, so I work in the technical office, and I take care of "design" (between quotes because it is a big word, seen as we do) of washing machines. the drafting of the technical dossier, with risk analysis, etc. is it my responsibility or the head of the technical department? and the declaration of conformity? here they claim that both the designer/designer to draft the technical file (and there can be) and to sign the declaration of conformity, responding civilly and penally. Is it true that the new machinery directive and/or the single text provide for this? My impression and my colleagues are that they are experiencing a great operation of "barile landfill"

thanks to all for the help
alessandro

 

[gerod]

First of all:

according to the new machine directive (and/or single text)

eh no!

• the machine directive is 2006/42/ce and has not yet been received in Italy (there is a draft of Legislative Decree)
• the single text is Legislative Decree 81/08 and subsequent modifications.

eye that are not the same things ("and" not "or"): One is a product directive, the other is a social "directive".

According to the machine directive (new or old little change) the responsibility is of the manufacturer, i.e. those who redige (redarre does not exist:biggrin the declaration of conformity. liability is civil and criminal.

the designer is responsible for what competes with him and that says the unique text. If you sell the machine, the designer is covered by the manufacturer. the designer is the one who signs the project somewhere.
the responsibility of the designer also depends on how much they pay you, or the agreements.
you answer however penally but civilly usually responds the company.

that you then endorse the signing of the declaration of conformity... here is to be discussed. who signs is respondable in the tote of the machine. I would never do that unless there is a written agreement and do as I say and above all that they pay me 20 thousand heur per month (so I do a good insurance and pay my lawyer!).

read the civil and criminal code well, more than the actual laws.
Ocio!

 

[acasali]

Thanks for the answer.
I apologize for the two inaccuracies:
- with "according to the new machine directive (and/or single text), what are the civil/penal responsibilities of the planner of a machine?" I meant "according to the new machine directive and/or according to the single text..." in the sense if one or both foresee something about it, but I clearly have two distinct things
- incorrect conjugation of the verb "redigere"
Both are due to the rush of writing, next time I will be more careful.

returning to us: from what you say, gerod, I can oppose the fact that my manager claims to put my name on the declaration of conformity, right? He's in charge of the office, and like that paid.

Thanks again

 

[gerod]

Thanks for the answer.
returning to us: from what you say, gerod, I can oppose the fact that my manager claims to put my name on the declaration of conformity, right? He's in charge of the office, and like that paid.

Thanks again

the signature on the ddc (declaration) is of the manufacturer (usually the legal representative of the company). the technical manager will have the skills on the project, on the calculations but not on the whole machine, unless there is a document that you wait for it.
therefore the question is: who is the person indicated by the company that is defined manufacturer?
the technical manager, the designer, the designer are responsible epr what competes according to their duties. If you miss a calculation and the machine breaks (res 1.3.2) will always be the manufacturer who answers it. you then answer the manufacturer because you made the calculation wrong.

if you are paid for 1000 euros per month and you have to take responsibility for the conformity of the machine I would say that minimum you have to rethink your compensation.
responsibilities are paid!
Did I clarify your position?

 

[acasali]

thank you gerod, on behalf of my colleagues!! !
we are going right now to a meeting where they want to officialize our new responsibilities: your answer has clarified the ideas just in time!!! Keep in mind that it all started last night, so we only had this morning to inform us quickly and fury about everything.

Hopefully good!

 

[Fulvio Romano]

the signature on the ddc (declaration) is of the manufacturer (usually the legal representative of the company). the technical manager will have the skills on the project, on the calculations but not on the whole machine, unless there is a document that you wait for it.
therefore the question is: who is the person indicated by the company that is defined manufacturer?
the technical manager, the designer, the designer are responsible epr what competes according to their duties. If you miss a calculation and the machine breaks (res 1.3.2) will always be the manufacturer who answers it. you then answer the manufacturer because you made the calculation wrong.

if you are paid for 1000 euros per month and you have to take responsibility for the conformity of the machine I would say that minimum you have to rethink your compensation.
responsibilities are paid!
Did I clarify your position?

in quotating gerod, I would like to emphasize the meaning of "responsible".
the "responsible of the staff" or the "responsible of the technical office" can take also 1000€/month. He's responsible in the sense that he's boss, but he's not responsible for anything.
the "safety manager" or similar figure, must earn enough to pay for a good insurance and a good lawyer. typically go around with the dosemeter, and after a certain number of complaints have to leave the place to someone else.. .

 

[gerod]

well specified lightning!

responsibilities are paid. and it doesn't rain on it.

we are going right now to a meeting where they want to officialize our new responsibilities: your answer has clarified the ideas just in time!!! Keep in mind that it all started last night, so we only had this morning to inform us quickly and fury about everything.

Let us know.
you write the ftc (technical dossier of the building) but always sign to the manufacturer!
I realize ftc for my customers but who signs is the customer, always! also the responsibility of the ftc is of the customer who very often does not comply with the res although I explicitly say so. I write what I do, I put the prescriptions in preliminary relationships and, where there is no conformity I mark it.
learn and do so, protect yourself!

 

[pollo]

the technical manager, the designer, the designer are responsible epr what competes according to their duties. If you miss a calculation and the machine breaks (res 1.3.2) will always be the manufacturer who answers it. you then answer the manufacturer because you made the calculation wrong.

hi, I agree on everything but I have doubts about the above: the machine breaks and you designer responds to the manufacturer, sole manager. Are we sure?
to me it seems that it is: you designer answer (even penally), as well as the manufacturer.
Unfortunately I do not have certain references, and I cannot give it, but I have seen magistrates who send warnings of guarantee both to one and to the other (at least during preliminary investigations).
it would be appropriate to deepen.

 

[gerod]

the machinery directive speaks of manufacturer. He doesn't talk about a designer.
the unique text on safety also mentions designers.
It is obvious that if you sign a calculation you take responsibility (civil and criminal).
It doesn't rain on that.

 

[acasali]

Good morning, guys! !
We did it! we managed to get something very important: attend a course (although only 8 hours) on the new machine directive.
You will say "Well, what's strange?" and instead, knowing the environment in which I work, it's a conquest of great level, so much so that the whole company talks about it, we were gone on the moon! Besides that, the name that will appear on the ftc will be that of the technical director...maybe, because the next day he pulled back, just him who wanted to make my, by name.
I try to make my contribution:
- 2006/42 provides for the indication of who is required to set up the ftc, in essence a contact between the company and the control body that asks the ftc itself. this person is not responsible for what content, he only has to present all the material. the responsibility of how it is done and what contains the ftc is of the constructor (or its agent)
- the signature in the ddc is of the builder (and his responsibilities)
in the light of this, my fear was unfounded, but better to clarify and, in doubt, not to sign, as we managed to achieve.

thanks to all for the help and patience in reading
alessandro

 

[Lumassina]

in quotating gerod, I would like to emphasize the meaning of "responsible".
the "responsible of the staff" or the "responsible of the technical office" can take also 1000€/month. He's responsible in the sense that he's boss, but he's not responsible for anything.
the "safety manager" or similar figure, must earn enough to pay for a good insurance and a good lawyer. typically go around with the dosemeter, and after a certain number of complaints have to leave the place to someone else.. .

Hello everyone,
I try to repropose my problem more effectively in this discussion, more relevant:
I have a three-year degree in industrial design, and work in the technical office of a small mechanical industry where, in addition to drawing, I follow some bureaucratic and organizational things by assisting the engineer responsible for design.
in view of the exit from the engineer's company, the management has given me the possibility to become responsible for the technical office.
I have pointed out that I have neither the title nor the skills to assume the responsibility of the design, but the company, perhaps tempted by the possible savings, minimizes without having too many problems and I step by paranoid. . .
First of all I ask confirmation of the foundation of my scruples. . .
...then I would like to find something written (norms, laws, regulations, ...) that indicates the figures/titles enabled to mechanical design and their level of responsibility, in order to effectively argue my will not to become responsible for the design, for honesty and for the protection of all (final user, builder, mine...).
Can anyone help me with this? How do you advise me to move? Thank you.

 

[gerod]

design is a vast field and therefore we should first identify what is meant by this definition.
What are you doing? What do you plan?
Then responsibility is also discussed at the economic level, in the sense that if you want me to take responsibility you must:
1. pay me well
2. do what I say I'm a designer
3. compel according to what I say.
the responsibility ends at the planning stage, beyond stopping.
If I say you put that vine and you put a different life from the project means that responsibility is no longer of the designer if something goes wrong but of those who did not according to the designer.

Hi.

 

[Er Presidente]

to be "responsible" seriously (going to jail) serve a number of things.
You must be autonomous in your area and you must have the powers and resources to manage your area.
The first stake is the management, if you have to be "responsible" you must be protected from a separate contract, that of the executives.
You also need to be delegated the portion of liability of the company's legal representative.
That's what it's called because it's legal.

So if you're not a manager and you don't have a delegation, you're only responsible for the company as any department.

being responsible for the technical office means being responsible for how you work, in the technical office not of the items you produce.
You're an employee with subordination and you'll do what they tell you to do.

a manager with a contract as executive has a different bond.

The problem may arise if you accept a delegation without having the title and without having the cover of a contract (direction), but you would be a fool to do something like that.

Therefore, as head of the technical department, you will need to check that the office components work alacremente and comply with the internal design procedures, do not fall asleep on the coffee machine, and do not place themselves on the phone, like any department.

In fact, if you want to do the pignolo, give the job and you will see that you will find nothing dramatic.

That other one is called technical director, something different.

Hi.

 

[Lumassina]

thank you President,

a little clarity about roles makes me consider this much more serenely.

 

[Exatem]

I kindly ask for clarification on a debated matter in the office.
our office designs details that will then be used on board units. if one of these details is not used as expected, who responds?
or better, to those who compete to give indications on the correct use of the equipment (e.g. maximum load applicable). by the way, should the user manual be done by us?
If a equipment yields because it is used for purposes other than those for which it was made, is it our fault that we did not indicate the correct use?
Thank you.

 

[Tequila]

I kindly ask for clarification on a debated matter in the office.
our office designs details that will then be used on board units. if one of these details is not used as expected, who responds?
or better, to those who compete to give indications on the correct use of the equipment (e.g. maximum load applicable). by the way, should the user manual be done by us?
If a equipment yields because it is used for purposes other than those for which it was made, is it our fault that we did not indicate the correct use?
Thank you.

In theory you answer it, because if the correct use of such details is not written anywhere, how does one use them? always in theory (but I know more practice) you have to provide a manual with the correct type of use as well as surely attack a specific plate on these details. These are "stupid" proof!
I had opened a question of the kind that I have to design the machines so that if one wants to commit suicide we can't. but also depends on the type of product and how it is framed in the directives. if you can try to specify more what you produce

 

[Exatem]

In theory you answer it, because if the correct use of such details is not written anywhere, how does one use them? always in theory (but I know more practice) you have to provide a manual with the correct type of use as well as surely attack a specific plate on these details. These are "stupid" proof!
I had opened a question of the kind that I have to design the machines so that if one wants to commit suicide we can't. but also depends on the type of product and how it is framed in the directives. if you can try to specify more what you produce

Thank you.
we do not produce in the strict sense of the term.
we are a technical office at the dif. ministry and "we maintain in efficiency" the uu.nn of the same. so we do interventions of all kinds, both on hull and equipment boarded.
now it has happened that a very simple "cross", for the maintenance in position of a platform, has bent.
the calculation of the beam is more elementary and is not in question.
in question is the use that could have made the crew.
If this beam is designed to sustain a few hundred kg, you can't hang a cannon (it's an example).
It's obvious, however, that if we have to get used to it, we don't go out.

 

[Tequila]

Thank you.
we do not produce in the strict sense of the term.
we are a technical office at the dif. ministry and "we maintain in efficiency" the uu.nn of the same. so we do interventions of all kinds, both on hull and equipment boarded.
now it has happened that a very simple "cross", for the maintenance in position of a platform, has bent.
the calculation of the beam is more elementary and is not in question.
in question is the use that could have made the crew.
If this beam is designed to sustain a few hundred kg, you can't hang a cannon (it's an example).
It's obvious, however, that if we have to get used to it, we don't go out.

I understand your dilemma, but think of sticking in a clearly visible place a plate with writing the maximum supported load would be ideal, since on particular type this that mentions the manual is not provided (also because it does not make sense). If you have the doubt that those who then use these equipment can naively sin a plate at least could safeguard you from any problems.

 

[Er Presidente]

...a plate at least could protect you from any problems.

ruin the mismatch and then, "dammit door"!
:biggrin:

 

[Fulvio Romano]

Leave the plates alone. They have no meaning.

a "cross" does not need any instruction. If it is part of a device, it is the device that has to have the manual, not its elementary components.
If I disassemble an iron and use the resistance to play ping pong, then, reassembled the iron I cannot complain to the supplier because it no longer works.

However, the problem must be seen on the side of reference legislation. For example if it is a machine, read the machine directive, if it is an electrical framework, read the low voltage directive, etc.

the military field has rules aside, and I do not know how they are regulated.