Originally Posted by
soundman
Karl mate...."What is compliant now may not be compliant later" is a commonly raied cop put.....it holds absolutely now water anywhere.
What matters is was it complinat at the time it was built, was it compliant at the time it was certified, was it compliant at the time it was inspected.....was it compliant when it left your hands.....what happend after that is completly irrelivent to what exsited at the time it was claimed or required to be certfied as compliant.
The law and the courts very much make a distinction between what was compliant at the time and what may have happend later......if the design or workmanship was incompetent, the regulators and insurers are very capable of making the distinction.
As far as horse floats.....my example has not a thing to do with horse float design and everything to do with documentation and modification.
The insurer and the courts made a distinction between what was compliant when the trailer was built and what was not compliant at some time later.
The bottom line is..you ( regardless of who you are or how many trailers you build) are responisble for the design, workmanship and parts selection of any trailer you make...regardless of who you are, and the law states you are responsible for keeping recrds......when the $#@t hits the fan and the case goes to court.....you better be able prove what you did and produce evidence of what you used.
When things come to court your dismissive and over simplistic arguments will not cut any ice with the opposing barister or the judge.
Remember...you cant in these peoples pockets and tell em its raining......remember these guys argue for a living and people try it on with them every day...and lose.
Not sure how you see ongoing compliance issues as a "cop out". At no time did I or will I suggest building a substandard anything, for exactly the reasons which you mention.
Not sure where you get the idea that I am trying to work to a somehow lower standard or in some way fly under the radar. You will note my comment previously relating to dodgy assessments.
I made the point that compliance is by no means a lifelong state. A simple accident causing physical damage can render compliance invalid in a second.
I also wrote that if legal proceedings were in action, that something had already gone very wrong as they were a reactive process to a failure and that the desire was to build a trailer that would withstand scrutiny as exampled by my suggestion to utilise HT fasteners, (most spring suspensions are supplied with no name mild steel bolts), as well as avoiding the use of Ally welding in structural areas. If you don't have a failure, then you don't have a case to answer.
Horse floats are an interesting case as it relates to duty of care. An argument could be made they are an unsafe design in that they often require operation in an unevenly loaded condition. I did fully understand your point regarding the horse float as it related to modifications.
OH BTW...when we are talking about light trailers.....a person inspecting that trailer is not responsible for the design, workmanship and parts used in the construction.....they are responsible for certifying the the trailer had the appearance of being roadworthy at the time they inspected it....the manufacturer..that is you..remains entirely and exclusivly responsible for its design and construction....and for the life of that trailer.
cheers