Risk mitigation / criminality
Geoff Whaling
When I sought clarification from the Product Safety Commission in Australia the staff were very specific that the information provided was "general guidance and does not constitute legal advice" & that it was "in confidence." The "in confidence" bit does not hold up in court given that it is a public safety matter. Risk management again!
Seeking specific advice from your insurer is probably the easy solution as insurers employ actuaries who calculate risk and understand claims history, hazard, probability etc. Insurers will attempt to mitigate their risk of having to pay a claim by adding riders to your policy. If the insurer wants to mitigate the risk then you should too.
Ignoring a rider or committing a criminal act generally voids insurance cover and places one at financial risk.
Ignoring or contravening legislation may actually venture into the realm of criminal negligence if there are deaths or serious injury resulting from another's use, negligent or not, of a "prohibited product" or an "unsafe product" that you supplied or manufactured.
Establishing "criminality" usually relies upon the establishment that you owed a "duty of care" to the affected party; you omitted to perform that duty; and your actions contributed/caused the event/death etc.
To much risk management is actually management by total avoidance - eliminate any possibility of a claim. Turners may wish to sell candle holders but is the potential for a claim, the risk (emotional & financial) and the probability of a claim compensated sufficiently in the sale price?
Some items / sales are not worth the risk.
It all gets back to what level of risk do you perceive personally and are comfortable to accept.