C of C Liability - Person who signs a certificate of conformance

[Bobh@pte]

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...

[Koala]

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.

[qualityboi]

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.

[Jim Wynne]

Originally Posted by Bobh@pte

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...

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.

[Wes Bucey]

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.

[Statistical Steven]

Originally Posted by qualityboi

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.

[Jim Wynne]

Not if it's a criminal matter.

[Statistical Steven]

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.