• This forum is the machine-generated translation of www.cad3d.it/forum1 - the Italian design community. Several terms are not translated correctly.

employeeee designer responsibility

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marco93!
  • Start date Start date

Marco93!

Guest
I wanted to understand that criminal and civil liability has an employee mechanical designer engineer.

I have been graduating for 3 years and am framed as an ex 5 level in a company with the role of mechanical designer and my duties are put on the table, design and structural checks of complex parts and machines. I am not enrolled in the register. I have a superior who is the head of the technical office.

We have an automatic procedure that makes my name appear on some tables under the approved item, I have been aware of it for a few days that my name appears among the endorsers. I am not the chief project nor the head of the technical office. in my office everyone can approve both expert and engineer drawings. something I need to clarify.

if I design and approve only a mechanical component of a machine and not the whole machine. (I don't sign the machine and not the project as a whole) if that component I designed breaks and hurts someone who is responsible? What risk?
Thank you.
 
regolamento:(1) questions
- before posting it is good to look with the appropriate search button (vehicle navigation bar at the top right) if possibly the topic has not already been dealt with and resolved. requests posted on multiple subforum will be deleted by moderators.This is an argument already dealt with several times:in your post you do not mention these or other discussions so I assume that you have not read them
 
MassiVonWeizen said:
regolamento:(1) questions
- before posting it is good to look with the appropriate search button (vehicle navigation bar at the top right) if possibly the topic has not already been dealt with and resolved. requests posted on multiple subforum will be deleted by moderators.This is an argument already dealt with several times:in your post you do not mention these or other discussions so I assume that you have not read them
Click to expand...
I read them.

I'm worried about that approved coming out on the drawings. Does that approved automatically give me responsibilities?
 
MassiVonWeizen said:
You can see that you didn't read it well
Click to expand...
I read it, and as you say who puts his acronym on approved has responsibility. but responsible for what? i.e. if that piece breaks the responsibility is mine because my name is written on approved and not the head of the technical office?
if that component is used on a group that has approved the acronym of another person, of whom is the responsibility?
 
read what writes fulvio criminal liability of the technical profession and also subsequent posts.

that then, excuse but reason for a moment, breaks the component of which you "approved" the table (attention to this passage), how do you establish that it is your fault if you broke up? and if instead it is the fault of the installer that to put the bearing on us instead of heating it used a 500 quintals press? or the component of another "projectist" that has mistaken indication of welding making the entire kinematic chain weaker? or the engine supplier who sent a leak?
You will understand that to trace back to the actual responsibility of damage within an apparatus made of hundreds of building components, which have passed through the hands of different people, and commercial is complicated.

Remember the phrase I told you to be careful? What does "approved" mean on a table? not certain that the component has been "designed" correctly because alone that component does not serve anything and the only design does not explain where it will be used or how, and maybe that component I can use it on different machines with slightly different functions.
means that the design has been designed, controlled and then judged valid for its function that is to build that particular or, in the case of assembled, to allow the assembly of those components between them.

attention that these are reasonings dictated by my working experiences and are not based on any norm or law.
 
Last edited:
But if you have a boss who is responsible for what you do, what are you worried about?
If it breaks something and you've made the calculations, there's always someone who covers you and is your boss.
then jurisprudence is always strange but if you want a confirmation, you feel a trusted lawyer.
the designer is called into question if he has objective responsibility but if the designer is a subject of an organization that must watch and control what the designer does, responsibility will fall on the apical figures.
 
Thank you very much for the answers.

I can't find information about it even on google. if there is my name under the voice “approved” I am assuming responsibility regarding “disegned by” or “controlled by” ?
I'm doing everything, and no one controls anything. I don't want to take any civil and criminal liability without knowing. the name of my head of the technical office never buy in any design and approves among us employees.
 
gerod said:
But if you have a boss who is responsible for what you do, what are you worried about?
If it breaks something and you've made the calculations, there's always someone who covers you and is your boss.
then jurisprudence is always strange but if you want a confirmation, you feel a trusted lawyer.
the designer is called into question if he has objective responsibility but if the designer is a subject of an organization that must watch and control what the designer does, responsibility will fall on the apical figures.
Click to expand...
What does he say he's the boss and my manager? the theme on the drawing or the organization?
 
Theste said:
Thank you very much for the answers.

I can't find information about it even on google. if there is my name under the voice “approved” I am assuming responsibility regarding “disegned by” or “controlled by” ?
Click to expand...
and a scale of "responsibility" I think quite obvious: first you draw, then you check and finally you approve; it would make no sense to draw, then approve and finally check. therefore those who approve valid that the design is correct and therefore the control has been accurate. if the design is not valid means that those who checked did not do it well and those who did doisegnato made mistakes.
Theste said:
I'm doing everything, and no one controls anything. I don't want to take any civil and criminal liability without knowing. the name of my head of the technical office never buy in any design and approves among us employees.
Click to expand...
you at most are responsible that the design has been hurt and the piece that costs 5000€ is good only to use as a restroom for the smoking area, but also in this case they can not come to beat cash from you. read carefully what is written in your contract and what ccnl says (which seems unknown to many) about your frame.
Theste said:
What does he say he's the boss and my manager? the theme on the drawing or the organization?
Click to expand...
if it is a structured company, especially if it has the iso 9002, the organization. a theme song on the drawing doesn't need anything but know and who pulled those lines and who said you did it well.

Look, even without knowing anything about the legal system of a company, if you were even remotely responsible, you would have the obligation of insurance, because if you also run away "only" the wounded "so dick". think about the car, insurance is mandatory because you are responsible for the car causing the accident.
You think a company would keep a loose cannon without insurance? Of course not.

What are your responsibilities? You need to clarify it with the company. What are your mistakes? dicks, dicks and dicks
 
which then, but sorry, would not be more logical and especially reassuring for you to talk to the company?
I want to say that you should first of all talk about it with the head of office, so you know your doubts and this possibly incorrect application of the signature on "approved"; It is also a matter of trust because if you do not ask him for clarifications, which are absolutely legitimate, for fear that you crash or tell you dances then the situation in the office is not healthy.
then you can ask for confirmation to those who manage the quality part of the company or however of the staff.

I believe that inquiring transversally on the internet or similar is useful, but that it serves, for certain subjects, only to have an infarination with which to deal and process the information received from official sources.
 
Theste said:
What does he say he's the boss and my manager? the theme on the drawing or the organization?
Click to expand...
contract of employment, corporate organization, skills, etc.
as the other forum colleagues said, there are many variables to consider.
you should be covered but not 100%. If you make a mistake and somehow you cover it to not get caught and then something happens, I think no one can save you.
In the context of accidents at work, for example, the designer is responsible both penally and civilly in case of injury/damage. But first we must identify who is the designer and normally, in an organization, is the technical responsibility, not the workers who depend on him.
Then, it will be the technical responsibility that will look for who fucked up and if he finds it, he will dick it. Of course, if the Technical Response has to monitor and control, it is always a responsibility to see the errors and fix them, otherwise what would it do?
 
MassiVonWeizen said:
which then, but sorry, would not be more logical and especially reassuring for you to talk to the company?
I want to say that you should first of all talk about it with the head of office, so you know your doubts and this possibly incorrect application of the signature on "approved"; It is also a matter of trust because if you do not ask him for clarifications, which are absolutely legitimate, for fear that you crash or tell you dances then the situation in the office is not healthy.
then you can ask for confirmation to those who manage the quality part of the company or however of the staff.

I believe that inquiring transversally on the internet or similar is useful, but that it serves, for certain subjects, only to have an infarination with which to deal and process the information received from official sources.
Click to expand...
thanks to the advice

I will also ask my manager in the company. It's not a good question to do but just ask.

I asked in this forum because I wanted to know from your experience if there were similar cases. I am framed as 5 metalmechanical level (current c3) are not a picture or a leader here.
 
level c3:

belong to this level the workers who have responsibility on the conduct and the results of specific activities with the appropriate autonomy of initiative within the scope of the corporate forecasts

what worries me is that there is written responsibility
 
Theste said:
level c3:

belong to this level the workers who have responsibility on the conduct and the results of specific activities with the appropriate autonomy of initiative within the scope of the corporate forecasts

what worries me is that there is written responsibility
Click to expand...
civil and criminal only has the managing director and corporate owner.
If you consider serious and irresponsible behaviour, you will be suspended from a few days' work and/or fine to be paid to the social security body.
Fortunately it is still so...
 
meccanicamg said:
civil and criminal only has the managing director and corporate owner.
If you consider serious and irresponsible behaviour, you will be suspended from a few days' work and/or fine to be paid to the social security body.
Fortunately it is still so...
Click to expand...
thanks to the answer

from what I have seen on the railway accident also the technical manager and the maintenance manager can be condemned
 
in accordance with the @meccanicamg I bring back an excerpt of the motives of a court ruling, in which the employee was deresponsible by the damage caused for imperative:
‘the subordinated worker cannot be held to compensation for damages to the employer, caused by imperative or negligence in the performance of the job, and that because the lack or bad performance of the labour falls into the risks of the enterprise and the employer has all the possibilities (proof course, subsequent checks, etc.) to assess the above negative qualities of the worker himself.In the event of a complaint or breach of specific technical directives or disciplinary rules, a liability for damages to the undertaking may arise in the worker.the alleged contractual failure of the worker may not be abstractly measured on the ability and performance of the worker type, almost as if a worker was assimilated to a machine of high precision, but compared to the capacity and practical diligence of the same worker, that the employer, under his supremacy, is always able to ascertain".I can also cite a personal experience in a company where I was called as a part expert; the case of an employee seller who, for imperative, had chosen undersized motorizations that caused legal implications and a substantial economic damage due to the damages to the customer for fixed plant.
It was just redeployed.

But this does not exclude the suggestion that you have been given, to ask your superiors what may be your legal involvement in the event of your mistake and/or others and to keep in mind all the documents that report your signature but that you have not drafted. periodically, you can communicate them to your manager through internal communication, highlighting your extraneity.
in case of litigation are decisive.

I do not see analogies with your work and your responsibilities.
if you want to read look here the judgment of Cassation.
 
Last edited:
TETRASTORE said:
in accordance with the @meccanicamg I bring back an excerpt of the motives of a court ruling, in which the employee was deresponsible by the damage caused for imperative:
‘the subordinated worker cannot be held to compensation for damages to the employer, caused by imperative or negligence in the performance of the job, and that because the lack or bad performance of the labour falls into the risks of the enterprise and the employer has all the possibilities (proof course, subsequent checks, etc.) to assess the above negative qualities of the worker himself.In the event of a complaint or breach of specific technical directives or disciplinary rules, a liability for damages to the undertaking may arise in the worker.the alleged contractual failure of the worker may not be abstractly measured on the ability and performance of the worker type, almost as if a worker was assimilated to a machine of high precision, but compared to the capacity and practical diligence of the same worker, that the employer, under his supremacy, is always able to ascertain".I can also cite a personal experience in a company where I was called as a part expert; the case of an employee seller who, for imperative, had chosen undersized motorizations that caused legal implications and a substantial economic damage due to the damages to the customer for fixed plant.
It was just redeployed.

But this does not exclude the suggestion that you have been given, to ask your superiors what may be your legal involvement in the event of your mistake and/or others and to keep in mind all the documents that report your signature but that you have not drafted. periodically, you can communicate them to your manager through internal communication, highlighting your extraneity.
in case of litigation are decisive.

I do not see analogies with your work and your responsibilities.
if you want to read look here the judgment of Cassation.
Click to expand...
I produce machines where in case of particular faults they would cause death.
for example how to design the road train axle.
is sized right? with the loads given by my boss in voice yes. I have been in this company for 4 months so I don’t know what security there is on the data it gave me. For the verification a fem analysis has been used and fatigue audits are met according to eurocode. He told me not to check that there is no time. He does not want to make a relationship of alcohol because there is no time and according to his is not required by the client. in the design of this axle there is my name because he told me approves you that I do not have time. then designed and approved by me. then this axle is inserted into one set and inside another together etc.
If he breaks and kills, I'll go to the judge as an investigator?
 
Theste said:
for example how to design the road train axle.
is sized right? with the loads given by my boss in voice yes. I have been in this company for 4 months so I don’t know what security there is on the data it gave me. For the verification a fem analysis has been used and fatigue audits are met according to eurocode.
Click to expand...
If you are sure of your verifications based on the data your superior provided, be quiet.
risk analysis for people can't do it for you.
In case of liability I consider remote the possibility that you are called into question, from what I understand, before you are many to have to answer.

It is important, however, for your peace of mind that for each project you create a card, if you have not already done it, where you indicate the data you have provided, the sources and the modalities (verbal, in writing, attaching any documents, etc.) the details that you have designed and those that you have only approved (on request), the checks carried out and the outcome or who told you that they were not required, etc. and a copy you submit your own
seems to be a useless bureaucratic procedure but this is the way, perhaps after many years, to prove that your task has accomplished it diligently according to the specific demands, therefore the problem if they will put it others above you.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
44,997
Messages
339,767
Members
4
Latest member
ibt

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top