Who is at fault?

[AZMSGT]

I was reading a post about someones equipment that was ruined due to a leak. I'm trying to keep it vague as I don't think the manufacture needs to get thrown under the bus and neither does the owner. You can call it a question of ethics and there is no right or wrong answer. However recently Revtree posted a Question of the day on blame and it all got me thinking about this.

Here is the situation:

1. 2 components same manufacture, both have water running into and through them.
2. The manufacture states in the manual the items can be stacked or side by side.
3. Owner elects to stack them for space saving reasons.
4. Manufacture states to ensure all connections are tight and use a proper tool to tighten nut. (steps in the manual)
5. Owner proceeds to use equipment.
6. Equipment leaks from top item to bottom item and ruins the bottom item.
7. The point of the leak is where the manufacture states to use a tool to tighten a nut.

What we know:

a. Items can leak if not properly installed by the owner
b. The manufacture states in the manual that they won't be held accountable for leaks, in a warning for the installation specifically of the item that leaked.
c. The manual doesn't state to do a leak check on components.
d. The owner did not do a leak check after installing parts, if they had they would have seen the leak and prevented the damage.

What we don't know because the owner hasn't said specifically in their post

a. Did the owner use a tool to tighten everything? Owner was asked in posting but didn't respond to that question.

I have my opinion on the matter but will refrain from posting it for now.

 

[MixedFruitBasket]

IMHO (I am not a lawyer), something like that sucks, but it's not really the MF's fault--as long as it's not due to a design flaw especially if known. And they can say all day they aren't responsible, but if they know there is an issue or has been an issue, they know they have given poor storage suggestions, or have sold faulty equipment, then yes, they are responsible. However, by advising the owner that they can stack the items, they could have very well made themselves liable. You can argue all day long about how the MF isn't responsible for user error (i.e. improper instillation) and you can even be right, but when you give directions like that and it results in an issue/accident/disaster, then sadly you can be held accountable (right or wrong aside). For example: In many states if you the driver of your car wave on another driver, you know, wave them to let them know they can cut in front of you, that they can go first at a stop sign (we've all done it) if they are in an accident, such as, you waved them to go ahead and they whip out and hit a pedestrian, run off the road, lose control and smack into another car, or another car hits them because it came down the road too fast, you are liable for the accident. By waving the person on, giving them direction, you are taking on that liability. Same with helping someone park, etc. I know this, from about 15+ years of defensive driving courses. I do not know if it is the same in all states however or only applicable to the state I worked in. That's also been almost 7 years ago now, so the law could have also changed, although I doubt it. Again, not a lawyer--however, I do believe in personal responsibility--so just because my opinion about what a company might or might not be liable for doesn't mean I agree with it.

 

[bsr2430]

So here’s what I think and don’t be blame me because most will think like this.

If you ask the owner if he tightened everything, there’s no other answer than yes. He’s not going to sit and say he didn’t, he doesn’t want to show he’s at fault.

Maybe he truly righted everything 100%.
He should’ve still done a leak test before using them full-time. That’s like buying a tank and not doing a leak test.

The manufacturer says you can stack them because it’s been done and shown it’s safe(when it’s not leaking that is).

If this company was at fault, it’s still going to be very very hard to show it. How do we know this guy didn’t have another tank leak and it damaged the bottom one? Yes you could provide a video, or even images. Once the product is damage, maybe the guy decided to make it look like it was on that company? Not blaming him, but as a manufacturer, you have to look at all sides.

Here’s the real problem, the company says it can leak if not tightened. This should’ve been an automatic red flag for a leak test.

If you bought a new car, the Manuel says check the oil, would you never check the oil and trust your car is fine?

 

[clm65]

I’d say owner‘s fault, unless there was a defect in the product. A leak check should be performed when adding any new equipment, whether stated in the instructions or not. That should be SOP.

 

[bsr2430]

IMHO (I am not a lawyer), something like that sucks, but it's not really the MF's fault--as long as it's not due to a design flaw especially if known. And they can say all day they aren't responsible, but if they know there is an issue or has been an issue, they know they have given poor storage suggestions, or have sold faulty equipment, then yes, they are responsible. However, by advising the owner that they can stack the items, they could have very well made themselves liable. You can argue all day long about how the MF isn't responsible for user error (i.e. improper instillation) and you can even be right, but when you give directions like that and it results in an issue/accident/disaster, then sadly you can be held accountable (right or wrong aside). For example: In many states if you the driver of your car wave on another driver, you know, wave them to let them know they can cut in front of you, that they can go first at a stop sign (we've all done it) if they are in an accident, such as, you waved them to go ahead and they whip out and hit a pedestrian, run off the road, lose control and smack into another car, or another car hits them because it came down the road too fast, you are liable for the accident. By waving the person on, giving them direction, you are taking on that liability. Same with helping someone park, etc. I know this, from about 15+ years of defensive driving courses. I do not know if it is the same in all states however or only applicable to the state I worked in. That's also been almost 7 years ago now, so the law could have also changed, although I doubt it. Again, not a lawyer--however, I do believe in personal responsibility--so just because my opinion about what a company might or might not be liable for doesn't mean I agree with it.

I do agree with your overstatement but here in Virginia, laws can be very challenging. Let me give you an example on what you used.

My sister was waved on by a car to go ahead and turn in front of her, then a car came up the side and hit her head on. She was a fault. Even though the party that waved her on stayed and And she explained to the police she was waved on, they told her that means nothing and you must pay 100% to your surroundings.
This could be different by state by state.
Virginia is very weird with laws.

 

[William Mumford]

I do agree with your overstatement but here in Virginia, laws can be very challenging. Let me give you an example on what you used.

My sister was waved on by a car to go ahead and turn in front of her, then a car came up the side and hit her head on. She was a fault. Even though the party that waved her on stayed and And she explained to the police she was waved on, they told her that means nothing and you must pay 100% to your surroundings.
This could be different by state by state.
Virginia is very weird with laws.

I never trust the wave on from people.

 

[LiamPM]

If they followed the manual and directions and it still leaked then its a manufacture defect.... The nut capable of leaking is leaking although its 100% tight then to me its manufacturing. If its leaked and you investigate to find the nut is not tight and a simple tightening up stops the leak then its user error.....Think its pretty simple to determine.

Anything capable of holding or carrying water gets a thorough check when installing and for 30 minutes when running for me.

I do agree with your overstatement but here in Virginia, laws can be very challenging. Let me give you an example on what you used.

My sister was waved on by a car to go ahead and turn in front of her, then a car came up the side and hit her head on. She was a fault. Even though the party that waved her on stayed and And she explained to the police she was waved on, they told her that means nothing and you must pay 100% to your surroundings.
This could be different by state by state.
Virginia is very weird with laws.

Dont really see whats wierd about that....The police are right, why would you trust the random human waving you on to make a maneuvre in a heavy metal vehicle? 100% you should never move without knowing your full surroundings, i thought that was just the basis of driving in general.

 

[bsr2430]

I never trust the wave on from people.

Right! I drove a semi and you wouldn’t believe the nice people out there who want you dead!hahaha

If they followed the manual and directions and it still leaked then its a manufacture defect.... The nut capable of leaking is leaking although its 100% tight then to me its manufacturing. If its leaked and you investigate to find the nut is not tight and a simple tightening up stops the leak then its user error.....Think its pretty simple to determine.

Anything capable of holding or carrying water gets a thorough check when installing and for 30 minutes when running for me.



Dont really see whats wierd about that....The police are right, why would you trust the random human waving you on to make a maneuvre in a heavy metal vehicle? 100% you should never move without knowing your full surroundings, i thought that was just the basis of driving in general.

I’m 100% with you. I also feel the people who wave you on never look too.

 

[MixedFruitBasket]

I do agree with your overstatement but here in Virginia, laws can be very challenging. Let me give you an example on what you used.

My sister was waved on by a car to go ahead and turn in front of her, then a car came up the side and hit her head on. She was a fault. Even though the party that waved her on stayed and And she explained to the police she was waved on, they told her that means nothing and you must pay 100% to your surroundings.
This could be different by state by state.
Virginia is very weird with laws.

I'd have to see a better explanation as to the lay out of this---if she was hit head on it would seem she was either in the wrong lane (which would make it her fault) or the other car was (which would make it their fault). The "wave on" applies to something like this (assuming all other driving laws are being followed). You come to a 2 way stop. Traffic east to west is free flowing. You are at the north stop sign other person is at the south. You see no cars, and wave them to go ahead of you to pull out. They do and are hit by another car. You are then liable. Not necessarily at fault, but liable. There is a difference. And NO, no one should trust the wave on. I know that, lots know that, but I can guarantee you some of us have trusted it and or done it without thinking about it. But again, this may be different in other states, I don't know.

And to get back to the original question: Liable vs At Fault, are two different venues. A company can be free from fault, and still liable. Just as you can be at fault for something and not liable: I.e. Good Samaritan laws. Person collapses and I incorrectly administer first aid, maybe even CPR which breaks ribs and punctures a lung--I am at fault but the Good Samaritan law protects me from prosecution. Now whether or not you are protected from liability, I can't say, cause...I'm not a lawyer...but I seem to recall that it does, but don't quote me on that.

In the end it boils down to the simplest equation: The one with the most money wins. The one with the most money either A: Settles to their liking or B: Fights and drowns the other person in court.

 

[AZMSGT]

Guys, please stop derailing the post with the traffic stuff. Thanks

 

[sarcophytonIndy]

From the school of hard knocks, I assume everything will leak or break eventually. So, I try to place items with that in mind. For example, my tank build is in the basement. I always try to place controllers above and away from water. My Apex is not under or next to the tank, but on the other side of a wall

 

[Mr Fishface]

I think this is a tough situation to be in honestly. I agree that a leak test should have been done prior to the stacking to make sure things were in working order. In this case I think the user is at fault for not double checking things prior to running them. Even if the reason it leaked is a manufacturing error, I think it's on us as consumers to not just take a companys word as gold and to question everything.

A really good company would probably make things right if possible but if they chose not to, I would only blame myself for being in that situation. A company wants to make money, bottom line. We need to be checking them for faults before things get put to use is my personal opinion.

 

[Joekovar]

It'd be a lot easier to answer this question if I had the actual failed product and a new unopened one.

Those will tell me exactly what happened and I wouldn't have to figure out who the better liar is.

 

[crusso1993]

I was reading a post about someones equipment that was ruined due to a leak. I'm trying to keep it vague as I don't think the manufacture needs to get thrown under the bus and neither does the owner. You can call it a question of ethics and there is no right or wrong answer. However recently Revtree posted a Question of the day on blame and it all got me thinking about this.

Here is the situation:

1. 2 components same manufacture, both have water running into and through them.
2. The manufacture states in the manual the items can be stacked or side by side.
3. Owner elects to stack them for space saving reasons.
4. Manufacture states to ensure all connections are tight and use a proper tool to tighten nut. (steps in the manual)
5. Owner proceeds to use equipment.
6. Equipment leaks from top item to bottom item and ruins the bottom item.
7. The point of the leak is where the manufacture states to use a tool to tighten a nut.

What we know:

a. Items can leak if not properly installed by the owner
b. The manufacture states in the manual that they won't be held accountable for leaks, in a warning for the installation specifically of the item that leaked.
c. The manual doesn't state to do a leak check on components.
d. The owner did not do a leak check after installing parts, if they had they would have seen the leak and prevented the damage.

What we don't know because the owner hasn't said specifically in their post

a. Did the owner use a tool to tighten everything? Owner was asked in posting but didn't respond to that question.

I have my opinion on the matter but will refrain from posting it for now.

This situation is really a tough one to make a determination on without more info. Does said nut need to be tightened with "proper tool" under any chosen layout? For example, why would said nut need to be tightened with "proper tool" on the stacked design and not in a side by side or single item design? Also, what is the recommended tightening of said nut? In my experience, without specification, such as feet pounds per sqaure inch, installing said nut is a guess, at best. For example, I happen to be a strong person and my "finger tight" or "hand tight" is generally much tighter than the average finger tight or hand tight.

In a nutshell, there is the ethical and smart business thing for the manufacturer to do and the legal thing to do. Many times these things are not the same. Having been a business owner, if I were the manufacturer, I would simply give the customer a new item, take the loss and hope the customer share their experience of what great customer service they received.

 

[mike550]

Okay. Back to the tank question. The product was not defective and can be stacked. So this really comes down to did the buyer "ensure that all connections are tight and use a proper tool to tighten nut". What is "tight"? Guessing manufacturer didn't provide a torque setting. In my world "tight" means things don't leak -- and I should check for that. Totally on the buyer.

Put another way, a new reefer asks how to build a mixing station and someone posts "make sure your connections are tight", and five more people "like" the post. Doesn't mention leak test or anything like that. New reefer makes a mixing station and water leaks all over the house. Are the people who posted at fault?

Let's be honest. For some events, we have to take responsibility for our own actions.

 

[AZMSGT]

This situation is really a tough one to make a determination on without more info. Does said nut need to be tightened with "proper tool" under any chosen layout? For example, why would said nut need to be tightened with "proper tool" on the stacked design and not in a side by side or single item design? Also, what is the recommended tightening of said nut? In my experience, without specification, such as feet pounds per sqaure inch, installing said nut is a guess, at best. For example, I happen to be a strong person and my "finger tight" or "hand tight" is generally much tighter than the average finger tight or hand tight.

In a nutshell, there is the ethical and smart business thing for the manufacturer to do and the legal thing to do. Many times these things are not the same. Having been a business owner, if I were the manufacturer, I would simply give the customer a new item, take the loss and hope the customer share their experience of what great customer service they received.

In either configuration the nut has to be tight. No torque value is listed. I will say that the parts in question are plastic and there is a rubber compression seal.

 

[link81]

I chose "both"
but in this instance i would lay the blame solely on the owner. this is an installation error pure and simple.

 

[User1]

I was reading a post about someones equipment that was ruined due to a leak. I'm trying to keep it vague as I don't think the manufacture needs to get thrown under the bus and neither does the owner. You can call it a question of ethics and there is no right or wrong answer. However recently Revtree posted a Question of the day on blame and it all got me thinking about this.

Here is the situation:

1. 2 components same manufacture, both have water running into and through them.
2. The manufacture states in the manual the items can be stacked or side by side.
3. Owner elects to stack them for space saving reasons.
4. Manufacture states to ensure all connections are tight and use a proper tool to tighten nut. (steps in the manual)
5. Owner proceeds to use equipment.
6. Equipment leaks from top item to bottom item and ruins the bottom item.
7. The point of the leak is where the manufacture states to use a tool to tighten a nut.

What we know:

a. Items can leak if not properly installed by the owner
b. The manufacture states in the manual that they won't be held accountable for leaks, in a warning for the installation specifically of the item that leaked.
c. The manual doesn't state to do a leak check on components.
d. The owner did not do a leak check after installing parts, if they had they would have seen the leak and prevented the damage.

What we don't know because the owner hasn't said specifically in their post

a. Did the owner use a tool to tighten everything? Owner was asked in posting but didn't respond to that question.

I have my opinion on the matter but will refrain from posting it for now.

You are ex-mil - specifically Air Force. We use torque wrenches for a reason. People can under and over tighten which can cause bad things to happen. I've seen this a few times. My point is hobbyist may or may not know when to stop tightening a nut, bolt, etc. Not saying this is the case - just putting it out there.

Other than that I've got nothing nor really an opinion.

 

[AZMSGT]

I said I would post my thoughts on this issue. My background is that of a mechanic. Leak checking things is standard procedure. Any fluid going through a connection gets leak checked. For me it’s second nature.

I came across the thread in question and the person that had the leak is determined to blame the manufacture for their failure to do a proper leak check. They keep referring to the manual and saying the unit shouldn’t leak.

I’ll say the manufacture could have done more to prevent the issue and the loss of equipment.
1. In the manual they could add a leak check caution.
2. They could coat the equipment in a water proof coating too.

To me they (the owner) are unwilling to accept the responsibility for the leak and cost of repair or replacement.

In the thread in question I did tell the OP that I thought it was their fault. They didn’t appreciate being told that.

 

[Silent]

It would make zero since for the manufacturer to be at fault. Can you imagine every uv, calcium reactor, other reactors, ro units, and threaded connections that we use, and then blame the manufacturers if they leaked because we didn't tighten them or leak check them?