Rojo,
Whilst I can appreciate what you're getting at I do feel that it smacks of making up the rules as you go along because you and your peers can - with a defence based upon shaky precedents and a law of tort that's 70years old and crumbling. I read nothing about good-practice or exceeding the manufacturers recommendations - possibly cutting corners, for other motives, comes across to me. Do you have evidence that this line of defence works for cases involving maintenance that does not follow the explicit recommendations of the manufacturer given in service manuals and on training courses (read as written down, on paper)? Concerning your statement above:
But if a group of your peers agree that what you are doing is a valid alternative, then you are not negligent even if it goes against the established (read manufacturers) methods.
It is difficult for me to imagine a scenario ocurring that if there were a serious problem, such as the death of an individual due to electrocution or failure to receive appropriate treatment, for example, and there was overwhelming evidence that the occurrance was found to be associated with some aspect of the maintenance methods employed (or not) that a non-technical layperson (read Judge) would necessarily conclude that:
you are not negligent even if it goes against the established (read manufacturers) methods
Aren't manufacturers methods usually based on good practice? - since manufacturers are obliged to conform to standards of good practice aren't they (read Quality standards and GMP)?. This includes service literature and technical training doesn't it? Wouldn't the manufacturer of the device be obliged to produce evidence as the "expert" authority on the device? Wouldn't the manufacturer be obliged to protect the reputation of the company and the device by exposing any evidence of failure to follow maintenance guidelines?
Considering this; how much support from a manufacturer could the EBME "experts" expect if they did not follow recommendations and guidelines issued by the manufacturer? How would this look to a layperson (read as Judge or Jury)?
As I have said, the law of tort regarding the precedent established back in the 30's by the Bolam case has been superceded by other cases , conducted along similar lines, that the Judge (read as the man who makes the decision who's to blame) have found for the plaintiff - actually against the defendant and associated medical experts. Medical experts (read as bunch of Doctors who all have similar ideas that go against established methods) at that.
