1 How would you evaluate the design of a battery operated drill - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 52
About This Presentation
Title:

1 How would you evaluate the design of a battery operated drill

Description:

An autorotation system allows an aircraft to glide slowly to the ground whenever ... design of the copter s autorotation system before the product was distributed, ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:47
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 53
Provided by: meQue
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: 1 How would you evaluate the design of a battery operated drill


1
Design Evaluation and Product Liability
  • 1) How would you evaluate the design of a
    battery operated drill ?
  • 2) What is meant by Duty of Care ?
  • 3) How is negligence defined ?
  • 4) Design a suitable warning for a
    hand-operated power saw. Be sure to indicate
    where the warning should be placed.

2
Design Evaluation
  • Fit, Function, Features
  • Primary Function
  • Secondary Function
  • Preparation for main action, placing, locking
  • Tertiary Function
  • Storage, maintenance, identification
  • Safety

3
Design Case Studies
  • Reach Toothbrush
  • Dental Syringe
  • Writing Instruments
  • Kodak Disc Camera

4
Screwdriver
5
Staple Gun
6
Safety
  • Accident and Errors
  • Hazards
  • Risk Assessment

7
Accidents and Errors (Chemical Industry
Accidents)
  • Inadequate standard operational procedure 19
  • Error in recognition 15
  • Error in judgment 14
  • Poor inspection 12
  • Inadequate directives 10
  • Inadequate communication of operational
    procedures 10
  • Operational error 6
  • Unskilled operation 6
  • Poor maintenance 2
  • Other 6

8
Hazards
  • Entrapment
  • Contact
  • Impact
  • Ejection
  • Entanglement
  • Noise and Vibration

9
Risk Assessment
  • Review existing standards
  • Identify known hazards
  • Identify unknown hazards
  • Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS)
  • HAZOP, HAZAN, FTA, FMEA
  • Determine characteristics of hazards
  • Eliminate or minimize hazards

10
Safety Devices
  • Inherent
  • Added
  • Warning

11
(No Transcript)
12
Product Liability Impact
  • 10,000 TV set explosions
  • 70,000 toy injuries
  • 110,000 total injuries
  • 30,000 deaths
  • Lawn Darts, 600 injuries per year
  • Banned in 1988

13
Product Liability
  • Canadian Common Law
  • Tort Law
  • Product Liability
  • Negligence
  • Strict Liability
  • Implied Warranty
  • Express Warranty

14
Canadian Common Law
  • Criminal
  • Contract
  • Tort
  • Civil Code

15
Tort Law
  • Restitution, not Punishment
  • Plaintiff vs Defendant
  • Damages
  • Duty of Care
  • Breached Duty
  • Caused Injury

16
Tort Law
17
Product Liability
  • Probability of Harm
  • Gravity of Harm
  • Burden of Precaution

18
Product Liability Negligence
  • Design defective
  • Inadequate safety devices
  • Reasonable alternatives uses not foreseen
  • Manufacturing defective
  • Improperly advertised
  • Inadequate warning

19
Sources of Defects
  • Manufacturing 45
  • Design 37
  • Warning 18

20
Design Defective
  • Best practices
  • Standards of Design
  • Evaluation
  • Testing
  • Materials choice

21
Reasonable Foreseeable Use
  • Legal requirements by codes or statute do not
    automatically meet the requirements for
    reasonability in tort (civil) cases.

22
Unsafe Refrigerators   Unti11956 more than a
dozen children perished each year because they
would climb into a discarded refrigerator. The
door latch would then shut, trapping the child
inside. In that year, Public Law 930 was passed
and required that all new refrigerator doors
should need no more than 15pounds of force to be
opened from the inside. Of course today magnetic
gaskets are used to hold doors shut and require
little force to open.    
23
The Patent Danger Rule   In Campo v. Scofield
(1950), the plaintiff claimed that the
manufacturer of an onion topping machine was
negligent in failing to include safety guards in
the design. The plaintiff had been feeding onions
into the machine when his hands became caught in
the steel rollers, resulting in severe injuries.
24
The court concluded that the manufacturer of a
machine or any other article, dangerous because
of the way in which it functions, and patently
so, owes to those who use it a duty merely to
make it free from latent defects and concealed
dangers. Accordingly, if a remote user sues a
manufacturer of an article for injures suffered,
he must allege and prove the existence of a
latent defect or a danger not known to the
plaintiff or other users.  
25
Shot Shell Reloading Machine   In 1976 the
Alberta Supreme Court (Appellate Division)
decided the case of George Ho Lem v. Barotto
Sports Ltd" and Ponsness-Warren, Inc. The
plaintiff, an experienced hunter, purchased a
shot-shell reloading machine that was in no way
defective if operated in accordance with its
clear instructions, the machine would produce
only normal shot-shells. The plaintiff received
personal instruction on the use of the machine,
but he did not follow instructions nor did he
follow the instruction manual. He did not realize
the consequences of not following the
instructions. The machine mismanufactured some
shot-shells, the chamber of the plaintiffs gun
burst on firing, and the plaintiff was injured.
26
The shot-shell reloading machine was manufactured
by one defendant and sold to the plaintiff by
another defendant. The plaintiffs claim was that
the defendants had failed in their duty to warn
him adequately of the possibility of
mismanufacture of a shot-shell that would
nevertheless be normal in appearance.
27
The Appellate Court held that adequate
instructions for the use of the machine had, in
fact, been given. The plaintiff lost his case
because he had not followed clear and simple
instructions. The manufacturer's responsibility
was to warn of dangers related to its product
this warning was given. The damage suffered by
the plaintiff was not caused by failure in a duty
owed to him by either of the defendants. Rather,
the court held that damage was caused by the
plaintiffs own fault. The manufacturer had met
the very high standard of care expected of
manufacturers of potentially dangerous
28
The Runaway Lawn Mower   A self-propelled lawn
mower was neglected by its operator. The motor's
vibrations caused the control lever to move into
the engaged position. The mower injured the
plaintiff. The manufacturer should have designed
against such a shift in the position of the
control lever .    
29
Upset Appliances   Ritter v. Narragansett
Electric Company is a case that hinged on the
issue of foreseeable use. The defendant
manufactured a small freestanding 30-in gas
range. The plaintiff, a 4-year-old girl, opened
the oven door and used it as a step stool to look
into a pot on top of the stove. The stove tipped
forward, seriously injuring the plaintiff. Expert
testimony concluded that the oven door could not
hold a weight of 30 lb without tipping.  
30
The issue was whether the use of the open door as
a step stool was so unforeseeable that the
manufacturer should not be held liable. Note,
however, that had the stove tipped because a
homemaker used the open door as a shelf for a
heavy turkey, there probably would have been no
question of the manufacturer's liability since it
could be argued that one of the intended uses of
the door was a shelf for checking food during
preparation. But, as a step stool, was that
foreseeable? The jury said yes and attached
liability to the manufacturer.
31
Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.   Mr.
Greenman was operating a combination lathe, saw,
and drill-press machine when a piece of wood
struck his forehead, resulting in a serious
injury. He alleged that the product had been
improperly designed since it lacked adequate set
screws to prevent such an accident.
32
The case was eventually appealed to the
California State Supreme Court, which concluded
that a manufacturer is strictly liable in tort
when an article he placed on the market, knowing
that it is to be used without inspection for
defects, proves to have a defect that causes
injury to a human being. Furthermore, ... the
purpose of such liability is to insure that the
costs of injuries resulting from defective
products are borne by the manufacturers that put
such products on the market rather than by the
injured persons who are powerless to protect
themselves.
33
The Dangerous Door   A shipment of doors was laid
in 42-inch-high stacks that were then placed in
cardboard packing held in place by two steel
bands. Unfortunately, the doors were not solid
Each door had a large opening for a glass window
that was to be installed at a later date. The
wooden ends were exposed, thereby giving the
impression that the doors were entirely solid.
The cardboard containers were simply marked "fine
doors." The accident occurred when a stevedore
walked across the doors while carrying a 100 lb
sack of flour. He fell through the nonsolid
(open) Portion of the doors, sustaining injures.
34
The court concluded that the manufacturer was
indeed liable for failing to anticipate such a
foreseeable use of the door shipment.  
35
Patent Danger Versus Reasonable Design   Mr.
Micallef was an operator of a photo-offset
printing press. It was standard practice that
operators would remove any foreign objects
(called "hickies" by printers) that inadvertently
come in contact with the plate by inserting a
piece of plastic against the rapidly rotating
plate. This is known as chasing the hickie and
eliminates the need to shut off the machine,
thereby saving the three hours that would be
required to restart the machine. Unfortunately
one day the plastic became caught in the machine
and drew Micallef's hand into the press.
36
Although the danger was obvious to Micallef and
other operators, the New York court recognized
that it also would be reasonable to expect the
manufacturer to include safety guards in order to
prevent such accidents. As a result, it concluded
that the patent danger rule (i.e., liability for
nondisclosure of concealed dangers) would be only
one of several criteria used to determine if a
design was defective.
37
A Helicopter Crash   On July 9, 1962, Cloyd
Berkebile perished when the helicopter that he
was piloting crashed into a hillside.27 His wife
sued the manufacturer (Brantly Helicopter
Corporation) of the two-seat copter under strict
liability law. An autorotation system allows an
aircraft to glide slowly to the ground whenever
the power fails during a climb. Brantly had
modified their original design of the copter s
autorotation system before the product was
distributed, and the company felt confidant that
their design was safe and dependable, and one
that "beginners and professionals alike agree is
easy to operate, as their advertisements claimed.
38
Purchasing the helicopter in January of 1962,
Berkebile was flying solo when the seven-foot
outboard motor section of one of the three main
rotor blades suddenly separated, leading to the
fatal crash. The Brantly copter required that
the pilot activate the autorotation system within
one second of power failure. The plaintiff (Mrs.
Berkebile) claimed that this was insufficient
time for the average pilot to respond. The
defendant responded that its system satisfied
the. standards set by the Federal Aviation
Administration and that Mr. Berkebile had taken
off with a nearly empty fuel tank.
39
The final court decision held that FAA
regulations set a lower limit-but not a ceiling
for such antirotation systems and that under
strict liability law Brantly was indeed liable
for the accident by failing to produce a
reasonably safe product. Full compliance with
government standards does not ensure that one has
satisfied his or her duty to the user under the
strict liability concept.
40
Labeling Case Study
  • Customer was a professional engineer
  • Commercial product used
  • Injury due to explosion and fire
  • Plaintiff Customer (L.)
  • Defendant Lastoplex Chemicals Inc.

41
Labeling
  • Text Size
  • Symbols
  • Content of message

42
Text Size
43
Message
  • A general warning will not suffice where the
    likelihood of harm may be increased according
    to the surroundings in which it may be reasonably
    be expected that the product will be used.

44
Symbols
45
(No Transcript)
46
  • ..

47
(No Transcript)
48
(No Transcript)
49
(No Transcript)
50
SIGNAL WORD
  • Hazard
  • Consequences
  • Instructions

51
DANGER
Impact Hazard
Impact may cause injury or death
Remain outside marked areas at all times
52
Design Evaluations and Product Liability
  • Questions
  • 1) How would you evaluate the design of a
    battery operated drill?
  • 2) What is meant by Duty of Care ?
  • 3) How is negligence defined ?
  • 4) Design a suitable warning for a
    hand-operated power saw. Be sure to
    indicate where the warning should be placed.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com