Does anyone have any experience as to whether a person who signs a certificate of conformance would be liable if the product failed or was found to be defective?
Is a certificate of conformance a binding legal document?

Our NADCAP Auditor says it is a binding document. He also said the person who signs this document can be held liable, if something were to happen.
i.e. a flight part that fails etc... :ca:

I believe the person who signs (even electronic certification signatures) can be held liable if product fails- my company has had many discusions on this as well. We are an aerospace company and we have Nadcap as well. Also- we have been told by our Auditors that the inspectors who sign the travelers or stamp accept- indicating that their operation has passed- can also be held liable.

More and more companies are pushing liability down to the contributor level, especially when regulatory issues arise. In this respect we see companies using training records as proof of competency to switch the burden to the employee. However, consider a non-regulatory issue and a manual inspection. More burden would fall upon the company to error proof such an inspection as humans are fallable and the company is ultimately responsible for the employee. I feel it is a case by case situation.

Does anyone have any experience as to whether a person who signs a certificate of conformance would be liable if the product failed or was found to be defective?
Is a certificate of conformance a binding legal document?

Our NADCAP Auditor says it is a binding document. He also said the person who signs this document can be held liable, if something were to happen.
i.e. a flight part that fails etc... :ca:
First, the obligatory disclaimer: If you want legal advice, it's best to speak with an attorney.

In general, before an individual will be found liable in this type of situation, negligence (missing something you can reasonably be expected to catch) or fraud (deliberately falsifying records, e.g.) will have to be proven. Not an easy thing to do, unless the transgression is gross, nor is it likely to be an issue unless people get dead as a result. Certificates of conformance are mostly useless documents (in the US, at least) because under the Uniform Commercial Code and most state statutes, the seller issues a tacit warranty of fitness for use (conformance with the purchase contract) just by shipping material against a purchase order. Certificates of test, and test reports themselves are another matter.

I agree. The issue of personal liability only arises when and if the claim is made of fraud or negligence.

One of the major protections against a claim of fraud or negligence is a proper record of the activity the signer did to assure himself the document was correct and proper. If you are signing such documents (C of C) and have never handled the product nor examined the test reports to ascertain they matched the product in identity, quantity, dates, etc., you have a reason to be worried about liability. If you are following good, solid procedures and processes, you have nothing to worry about.

More and more companies are pushing liability down to the contributor level, especially when regulatory issues arise. In this respect we see companies using training records as proof of competency to switch the burden to the employee. However, consider a non-regulatory issue and a manual inspection. More burden would fall upon the company to error proof such an inspection as humans are fallable and the company is ultimately responsible for the employee. I feel it is a case by case situation.
Any lawyer worth their weigh could care less about who signs the C of C. That person does not have enough money to make it a worthwhile suit. It is the Company, with the deep pockets they want to go after.

Not if it's a criminal matter.

As you said before, that is REAL hard to prove. Criminal intent is really hard. Even death resulting from DWI usually is manslaughter. And criminal matters are brought to court by the DA.

Any lawyer worth their weigh could care less about who signs the C of C. That person does not have enough money to make it a worthwhile suit. It is the Company, with the deep pockets they want to go after.
I've been a professional witness in some cases. (for both plaintiffs and defendants in civil matters, prosecutors and defendants in criminal matters.)

My personal observation is that attorneys in civil matters build cases meticulously, brick by brick. They often get low level employees to "flip" to rope in the corporation and the high level officers. The theory behind this is based on "joint and several" obligation and liability. Once they find the corporation even 1% negligent in overseeing the work of the low level guy, they can collect ALL the money from the defendant with the deepest pockets. So they put pressure on the low-level guys to get them to say something like, "My boss knew I didn't have time to do a thorough inspection, but he pressured me to get the product off the dock. So he knew I was signing those certs without actually checking them."

In criminal matters, you only have to look at the headlines every day to see low level guys rolling over for prosecutors to get a lower penalty by testifying against their bosses. If there are no adequate records, who is to say these guys won't commit perjury to get the better deal?

In my experience, once the plaintiff and prosecuting attorneys smell blood, they go into a shark feeding frenzy and everyone anywhere near the case gets bitten.

Some folks think I obsess too much about document management, but a good set of well-kept documents will save you more than burn you.

On a somewhat related note, France has issued an arrest warrant for a Continental Airlines mechanic in the US in relation to the Concord crash.

Here is one link http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15917520&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=concorde-mechanic-is-probed--name_page.html

There should be others you could find with a google news search.

On a somewhat related note, France has issued an arrest warrant for a Continental Airlines mechanic in the US in relation to the Concord crash.

Here is one link http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15917520&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=concorde-mechanic-is-probed--name_page.html

There should be others you could find with a google news search.
See also this thread, in which the accused posted a few messages near the end. He was aquitted:
http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?postid=108763#poststop

Two different people and cases, I think - one concerning Concorde, the other NASA shuttle.


In any regard, something to follow as the tale unfolds.

Pundits say, "The truth will out!" The problem is it often takes years between the accusation and the vindication (if any) when the truth is finally learned.

Two different people and cases, I think - one concerning Concorde, the other NASA shuttle.
I was aware of that, but worded my post poorly. I was just pointing out the apparent similarity of one to the other, and reinforcing the idea that while there might be little exposure in civil litigation for inspectors, there can be plenty of h*ll in criminal cases.

Here is a link from last month about the Quality Manager of a titanium tube manufacturer being indited for fraud for falsifying testing records.


http://www.detnews.com/2005/metro/0508/15/B01-280865.htm

Here is a link from last month about the Quality Manager of a titanium tube manufacturer being indited for fraud for falsifying testing records.


http://www.detnews.com/2005/metro/0508/15/B01-280865.htm
Yes. I wrote about this back in June in
http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=112609&postcount=15
The actual Quality Manager pled out and agreed to testify against these two executives.

It is important to note that an indictment is not a conviction. Scrushy (http://www.al.com/business/birminghamnews/junderwood.ssf?/base/business/1127035101121490.xml&coll=2) got off when everyone was convinced he would go down in flames according to the popular and business press who had him convicted and imprisoned all throughout his trial.

You can't win without good counsel. Good counsel requires money. Great counsel costs a LOT of money. The poor schmucks in the titanium tube case probably don't have funds for even mediocre counsel.

I think we are starting to get off topic somewhat. We are confusing cases of fraud with liability of sigining a C of C. Again, the top executives committed fraud, and they used the low level personnel to rat them out. The Feds basically scare them, and as Wes points out, the low level people do not have the money to hire competent legal counsel, the pled out.

Liability and c of c. I've never signed a c of c, but 27 years ago I was the heat treat supervisor in a steel mill. We sold heat treated bar stock, and sent c of a's with every shipment. One of the items we sold was heat treated bar stock for end use as bolts in nuclear reactors. As part of the program, the US government kept an archive mult from each heat of steel in a heat treat lot. (My understanding was they went to a depository near Cleveland, Ohio.) If a bolt ever fails in service, I expect the government to test the archive mult's mechanical properties. If that fails, (I'm very confident it won't.) I fully expect them to track me down, even with the time elapsed and the numerous jobs since then. I also expect that my life for at least a short time will become he**. (To clarify a "mult" was the length of bar required to produce 1 end bolt - these were large bolts, as bar diameter depending on the individual order was 6" to 8" round, with lengths of about 5 ft to 6 ft for the end bolts. Length of bar I could process in the heat treating furnaces was limited to about 22 ft long max, and an additional limitation was that this material was a VAR (vacuum melt remelt) product so 1 ingot was a heat. Lots of testing and lots of archive mults.

I'm not a lawyer, and can't comment regarding liability. Nor am I clairvoyant, but I'm fairly confident that if there is a problem your life will not be pleasant for some time and you may incur significant expenses that will not be covered by your employer.

the US government kept an archive mult from each heat of steel in a heat treat lot.
I expect the government to test the archive mult's mechanical properties.
So what's a "mult"?

Let me be a little more specific. I am the Quality Manager of a four division Corporation. All are ISO 9001. One division, The EDM (Electrical Discharge Machining) Division is also NADCAP Certified. Because I am The Quality Systems Manager as well as the "delegated management representative", I have for obvious reasons had to delegate Inspection responsibilities, including and most importantly, "release of final product to the customer" to the various department managers within this company.

This is the problem as well as the n/c that was written by a NADCAP Auditor.
Recast layer, base metal cracks, surface irregularities are some of the items that need to be checked microscopically (NDT) by an approved laboratory, as a result of machining by EDM.

The N/C was that spec. xxxx, was flowed down by the customer to us. Even though we have an approved fixed process from our customer on file, the auditor states that we are still responsible for having the Lab test performed with records of actual data available for review.

So, he say's, if we sign the C of C that we have performed all customer requirements includng spec. xxxx, we are wrong and the person who signs off on this may be held responsible. I do not totally disagree with him.
The problem is, now my "delegated inspectors, "Aint siging sh....

I thing the guy who said to consult an attorney is on my wavelength.

Thanks for the input people. :thanx:

The N/C was that spec. xxxx, was flowed down by the customer to us. Even though we have an approved fixed process from our customer on file, the auditor states that we are still responsible for having the Lab test performed with records of actual data available for review.
I'm not sure what you mean by "approved fixed process." Do you mean that your process for approval of finished goods was approved by your customer, and that it doesn't require X-ray or FPI?

So, he say's, if we sign the C of C that we have performed all customer requirements includng spec. xxxx, we are wrong and the person who signs off on this may be held responsible. I do not totally disagree with him.Perhaps you should, so long as the dispensation from your customer is properly documented.

I thing the guy who said to consult an attorney is on my wavelength.
I think you should definitely run this by the company attorney, making sure that the documentation from your customer legally supersedes the drawing requirements, if that's what's necessary.

"Approved Fixed Process" is an approval from the customer which is stamped by the customer and given a unique number, i.e. FP-0900-1 and dated. It means we have performed acceptably to requested P.O. requirements.
Once approved, the process cannot be changed without written authorization from the customer. The " Fixed Process" entails everything that is necessary to manufacture this particular part(s) to B/P.
One of the purchase order requirements is to provide a Certificate of Conformance, which states that we have to the best of our ability processed the job in accordance with the purchase order, a signature and title is required to appear on the C of C.
I have already contacted our customers regarding this issue and they say if the spec. callout is on the p.o. we are responsible. Not a problem. We will send samples (EDM) to the Lab in the future and keep the records on file and charge the customer accordingly.
The Managers are now hesitant to sign C of C's. What if they sign the C of C and the Lab results are found to be inaccurate? etc...???

"Approved Fixed Process" is an approval from the customer which is stamped by the customer and given a unique number, i.e. FP-0900-1 and dated. It means we have performed acceptably to requested P.O. requirements.
Once approved, the process cannot be changed without written authorization from the customer. The " Fixed Process" entails everything that is necessary to manufacture this particular part(s) to B/P.
One of the purchase order requirements is to provide a Certificate of Conformance, which states that we have to the best of our ability processed the job in accordance with the purchase order, a signature and title is required to appear on the C of C.
I have already contacted our customers regarding this issue and they say if the spec. callout is on the p.o. we are responsible. Not a problem. We will send samples (EDM) to the Lab in the future and keep the records on file and charge the customer accordingly.
The Managers are now hesitant to sign C of C's. What if they sign the C of C and the Lab results are found to be inaccurate? etc...???
I dealt with situations like this all the time. They are important, but there is always a workable solution which (as JSW05 suggests) should involve the following three entities at least:

top quality guy at your place
top quality guy at customer
a smart attorney who is NOT a "deal killer"
You can even sign the C of C in advance of sending material to a lab. The C of C should contain language to the effect: "We are pretty sure this stuff meets all criteria. That opinion is subject to review based on a lab analysis by a certified testing lab. If the lab analysis is at variance with our opinion, we will first seek a specific waiver from the customer. If no waiver is forthcoming, we will issue a recall of the material at our expense."

You, in turn will seek a similar certificate from the testing lab.

The whole point is you don't want to unduly add delay to the process while waiting for a lab report if you feel the lab reports will always come back "clean" because the delay means a COST over and above the cost of the lab test. (one cost is floor or shelf space for holding finished inventory, another is interest cost on money invested in product which can't be shipped, etc.)

The role of the non-deal killing attorney is to help you sell the compromise to the customer and gain agreement that both sides will look for a solution to any problems encountered BEFORE playing the litigation card.

Side note: if you have done everything possible to assure compliance but a combination of bad production and bad lab test allow you to send bad product to a customer, your company may be liable for damages, but no individuals will be penalized if the records show they made every effort according to the pre-approved planned processes. As they write on T-shirts "Stuff Happens!"

if you have done everything possible to assure compliance but a combination of bad production and bad lab test allow you to send bad product to a customer, your company may be liable for damages, but no individuals will be penalized if the records show they made every effort according to the pre-approved planned processes. As they write on T-shirts "Stuff Happens!"
Yes. They call it "good faith and due diligence." Earlier in the thread, Wes referred to the value of good documentation when it comes to litigation, and this is a perfect example. If you have documentation that shows that you were reasonably diligent in verifying product compliance in accordance with the customer's specifications, you should be safe from liability. As I said earlier, fraud and negligence are what you have to guard against, not random **** happening.

Responsible - Most certianly.
Liable - Conditionally.

We had a problem here that resulted in a recall of product.
The responsible (CC signatory) party was suspended wop - Not prosecuted.

You should consult a lawer.