An interesting conundrum here ... you are quite correct regarding someone being injured or worse. However, how about a thought experiment ... what if the equipment is either intrinsically 'safe' or never experiences a set of circumstances that cause it to either fault or a fault occurs but the circumstances are such that no one is hurt? Is the company negligent at this point despite having no 'competent' designers or engineers. Does it need these people or is it already acting within its own boundary of competence?
Nothing is perfectly safe or will remain that way indefinitely ... moth or rust eventually corrupt! In our litigious society, which let us assume for the moment came to the UK from 'across the pond', we have forgotten this very fact and believe that we can insulate ourselves from all risk. What kind of topsy-turvy world do we live in when a packet of peanuts has to carry the disclaimer that 'This packet may contain nuts!'? More so, in our daily lives it is someone else's fault if we are inadvertently put at risk by their deliberate or unknowing actions!
Unfortunately, in my opinion, society is going backwards in pursuing the current path of litigation, it is yet another money making scam which profits the few, often not those in need, whilst taxing the many. We would not have any of the technology that we have today if the current risk averse approach were taken in its development. Bridges have collapsed and trains and aircraft have crashed costing lives because of 2 things. Firstly lack of knowledge at the time of load carrying capacity, material decay characteristics and cyclical loading leading to fatigue as well as other often previously unknown phenomena. Secondly, and in my view this is unacceptable, the selfish pursuit of putting profit before delivery. Deliberate profiteering or gross negligence by using substandard or inadequate materials, processes or approach to solving a problem.
If this company or any other body, let us say a someone with a Electrical Trainee qualification, is operating within the bounds of their competence or skill, delivering a product or service that is as safe as reasonably practicable in their chosen technology then so be it. However, if the same entity is deliberately profiteering or demonstrating a reckless disregard for public or employee safety then they should be dealt with under the full force of the law. More importantly in my view is the fact that the customer retains responsibility for being sufficiently informed regarding the safe use or operation of the product or interaction with the service. They should not be able to vexatiously claim liability against the manufacturer or installer.
