Guest RJBsec Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 The design (there are other things that are not limited tpo the contract but design was the one used in the test case i mentioned) if wrong is wrong... now, next week, in a decade. Example: I designed a system for a multi-national - a few years after they built a new storage area inside the unit that completely blocked a dual-tech, so much so that it is now impossible to reach it! Let's say someone else took over the system before I became aware of the change and they didn't even know the detector was there (you can't even see it!) - is my design at fault and am I liable for the consequences of what has been done - I think not! If the new company fails to service and maintain properly am I responsible for the consequences - I think not! If the customer stops storing files and starts storing antiques, am I responsible - I think not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.wilson Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 ok roger your right and the judge was wrong securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-G Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 the judge was wrong Wouldn't be the first time. . . . PM me for access to the SSAIB members discussion area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woosh Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Just had the crowd who is taking over one of my RedGsm's on the phone wait unto you read this LOL 1. Whats the engineer code 2. Whats the alarm line number 3. Whats the STU number 4. Why are you removing the STU we want it 5. Who is your ARC Are they joking they are taking it over THEY can sort all that out on thier own.. makes me MAD.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RJBsec Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 ok roger your right and the judge was wrong No James, I'm not suggesting that the judge was wrong in that individual case, (I don't have the court papers), but I believe that factors similar to mine above would provide such a defence that a prosecution would be most unlikely to take place in the first place. Any prosecution would have to prove neglect in the design, proving that the original design was unsatisfactory for the new use would fall at the first hurdle. I agree that if there had been no changes in use, building design etc then liability may be proved but it is in no way a forgone conclusion. I rest my case m'lud! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cubit Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Wouldn't be the first time. Agreed. And this court case. Criminal court or county?? big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hpotter Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Wouldn't be the first time. Yep. & who got done. Big firm with own legal dept, small firm with local conveancing solicitor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawandorder Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Yep.& who got done. Big firm with own legal dept, small firm with local conveancing solicitor? I think the case in question must have been based on a design issue, I mean if you think about ti in more simple terms it makes sense. Lets say you buy a 10 year old Ford Mondeo which crashes a s a result of a design fault does the negligence lay with Ford or with the MOT station who gave it a test certificate? I would say it lays with Ford, obviously if the car has been modified since it's design and that modification has resulted in the crash then whoever carry out the mod would be to blame. Yes I imagine that if you design a system poorly in relation to the risk and building layout at the time of the design and that poor design results in a claim you could be held liable but it would be for the claimant to prove that the design was flawed and it would be for him to prove that the risk and building layout hasn't significantly changed. If the building has been modified since the design I don't see how you can be held accountable, my spects always had clauses in relating to this anyway and warned of the dangers of obstructing detectors et. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goncall Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Im afraid that the original installer / designer / commisioning engineer always holds some liability.The test case i mention is design where it was later proved the design was poor so even though the new company had been servicing it for 3 yrs the insurance company sued the originall installer. ie if i take over a system you have installed and certificated then i am right to assume it is fully complaint, all in areas. I can assume that you have done an ra, and designed to that ra etc. I in theory dont need to do one (if im not issuing a new cert) so all that liability is still on your cert. Maintained by you or not. Now i would liable for servicing and performance issues but you would be liable for design and installation issues as you issued the original cert. The never ends unless you cancel the cert im afraid. So all those companies that do stuff on the cheap or just quick and bad etc and issue a complaince certificate (neednt be an nsi / ssaib cert) and know its gonna be taken over so it dont matter.... sleep tight wont you have you got any info on this test case... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.wilson Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 yeah i have im trying to find a case number etc so i can link it to a web site etc. medium size firm btw (approx 10k connections) securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.