Assume you would be caught by one of the 'Who Cares' crowd described above. The preponderance of product liability cases in the USA (more prevalent and way more money awarded than in European product liability cases) should be coercion enough to do whatever you can to make your product safe.

Be aware that certification authorities such as UL, CSA & TUV certify compliance with accepted, national and international standards of product safety, performance and reliability, but they give no warrantee or indemnification in case of liability problems.

Even the various Standards setters are not liable if they sanction a product's safety; e.g. NFPA (National fire Protection Association) "…does not accept any liability resulting from compliance or noncompliance with the provisions given, for any restrictions imposed on materials or processes, or for the completeness of the text. NFPA has no power to enforce compliance of NFPA Fire Codes."

The most important point in all this is that, in general, complying with 'safety standards' does not transfer product liability from the manufacturer to the certifying regulatory agencies nor does it indemnify the manufacturer. It mainly increases the safety of products by reducing the potential for damage caused by a product failure or misuse as gauged by very studied and accepted criteria and it provides substantial legal posture if faced with litigation.

Although, as of this writing (August 2004) there is a case in or near the Supreme Court, which may effect the ability of people to bring suits against prescription drug and medical device manufacturers. So the litigation over product liability could change for some industries.