Hazard prevention measure, warning, retrofit, recall

If after-sales product monitoring establishes that a product which has been put into circulation fails to meet safety expectations, the producer should check whether a hazard prevention measure is indicated with regard to the respective product, in order to avoid liability risks. In the context of this Safety Compendium, this includes any measures to prevent, remove or reduce hazards emanating from products that have already been put into circulation (e.g. warnings, new operating instructions, safety uploads, on-site retrofits or factory recalls).

Prerequisites for hazard prevention measure
There is no general answer to the question as to when such a hazard prevention measure must be implemented. It depends on the circumstances of the individual case, taking into consideration the extent of the threatened damage and the likelihood of its occurrence. Expressed in economic terminology, the “expected loss value” is decisive, i.e. the product resulting from the extent of loss and the probability of occurrence. The producer must therefore analyze:

1. How high is the probability of the damage occurring:
Are individual batches affected or does the defect apply to the whole series? Does the damage occur when the product is applied in accordance with its intended use or only in cases of foreseeable misuse? Does it need an accumulation of multiple random behavior modes? Does the damage only occur after an extended period of use? Do the operating instructions contain a warning against this behavior?

2. What is the threatened damage: 
 Assuming that the product defect results in damage, what is to be expected? Simply material damage or minor, even serious personal injury?

Purely economic reasons (i.e. high recall costs or loss of image) are not an argument for rejecting the implementation of a hazard prevention measure, particularly when significant protected rights are at stake.

Provided the damage occurred in conjunction with the use of the product, it is irrelevant whether it’s already been possible to establish the actual cause of the damage in detail. So it is not acceptable to wait until an established engineering process has been followed concerning the cause of the damage. However, the producer will of course have the opportunity to check whether a product defect is actually present before introducing any measures. So there is no need for any knee-jerk reactions.

If the producer receives notification of damage, during product monitoring for example, he can first of all initiate some checks to verify whether the reported damage (e.g. a fragile glass part) can actually be attributed to a product defect or is purely down to transport damage or damage resulting from improper use. If it is established that a product defect is responsible for the damage, the producer must launch countermeasures, even if it has not yet been established whether the defect occurred during the temperature setting, for example, or in some other area of the glass blowing process.

Internal company risk prevention
It makes sense to set up an internal recall management procedure which, in case of an emergency, will enable a fast, efficient reaction to any product hazards that arise. Taking out recall insurance is another factor to consider.