Silent Alarms
Drag scroll bar for all four pages
An ionization smoke alarm that is 'certified' by a testing laboratory (eg, Underwriters Laboratories (UL) British Standards or Standards Australia) affords no protection to any person who BOTH has power to swap these alarms for photoelectrics AND who is aware that Ionization alarms are not fit for purpose. Note: In this Mercer v Pittway Corporation BRK case the Defendants were afforded no protection merely because the ionization alarms were compliant with UL217, America's current smoke alarm standard. Once a landlord, building owner, real estate agent, fire official etc, becomes aware of the fact that ionization alarms are not fit for purpose (as evidenced by the amended Australian Standard, AS3786, in acknowledgement of flawed testing) then 'prior knowledge' exists together with a duty of care to inform all home owners/tenants that their existing ionization alarms are dangerously deficient. Failure to warn in these conditions may render the official liable for prosecution in the event of death, injury or loss of property.
See the Hosford vs BRK Brands Inc & UL et al case where it has been alleged that UL’s testing of ionization smoke alarms is flawed.
Ionization Smoke Alarms and Legal Liability
Drag scroll bar for all seven pages
Extracts from ‘Silent Alarms’
Canadian TVs Award-Winning Documentary
Extracts from ‘Silent Alarms’
Canadian TVs Award-Winning Documentary
Note: This case was settled out of court with a confidentiality order in
2001. Case notes from Sept, 2000, regarding the appeal are here:
(c) Copyright 2012 The World Fire Safety Foundation | Last Updated: 08 February, 2012 | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Search WFSF site
For errors on, or suggestions for this ‘mercercase’ webpage, contact the WFSF WebMaster | Supporters | About | Media