Cincinnati Injury Lawyer Alerts U L Sued For Faulty Smoke Detector Standard

Attorney Serving Cincinnati, Mason, Hamilton & Nearby Areas in Ohio

As a personal injury lawyer I have represented burn injury victims. The last burn case I had there was an issue of whether there was an adequate smoke detector. What the public does not know is that there are two types of smoke detectors: photoelectric and ionic. The ionic is designed more for flame and the photoelectic will pick up smoke in time for you to depart the premises. So there could be perfectly good ionic smoke detectors in your house or apartment and they may not go off and you could die in your sleep, especially if the fire was initially mostly smoke. Recently a lawsuit was filed in Alabama that made allegations against underwriters laboratories. Here are some of  the allegations taken from the complaint:

(Negligence or Wantonness of Defendant Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. [“UL”]Plaintiff Latosha Hosford, individually, and as the mother of the minor decedenNevaeh Nichole Johnson, and Plaintiff Chad Barley, allege as follows against Defendant UL :39. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding allegations. 40. UL is a corporation which develops safety standards for products and testsproducts for compliance with those standards. 41. In the late 1970's, UL eliminated its separate ionization-smoke-alarm andphotoelectric-smoke-alarm safety standards and promulgated a single smoke-alarm safety13standard known as UL Standard 217.  The ionization smoke alarms installed in the subjectdwelling were designed, manufactured and sold after UL Standard 217 was promulgated,and complied with UL Standard 217. 42. It was foreseeable to UL that designers, manufacturers and sellers of ionizationsmoke alarms would only design, manufacture or sell ionization smoke alarms that couldpass UL Standard 217 and achieve an independent testing laboratory’s Listing Mark. 43. It was therefore foreseeable to UL that consumers and users of ionizationsmoke alarms could suffer injury or death if UL did not exercise reasonable care in itsformulation and implementation of UL Standard 217.44. Defendants BRK, A, B, C, D, E and F relied upon, or were influenced by, theirionization smoke alarms’ ability to pass UL Standard 217 when they designed, manufacturedand sold those smoke alarms, including the smoke alarms installed in the subject dwelling. 45. If the ionization smoke alarms designed, manufactured and sold by DefendantsBRK, A, B, C, D, E and F, including the ones installed in the subject dwelling, had not passedUL Standard 217, and thereby acquired a Listing Mark, said Defendants would not havedesigned, manufactured or sold said smoke alarms.  Said Defendants would only havedesigned, manufactured or sold smoke alarms that passed UL Standard 217. 46. If UL had exercised reasonable care in the formulation and implementation ofUL Standard 217, with respect to slow smoldering fires, ionization smoke alarms would nothave passed UL Standard 217.  Only photoelectric and combination ionization-photoelectricsmoke alarms would have passed.  Such smoke alarms, if installed in the subject dwelling,would have sounded in a timely manner and thereby prevented the injuries to Plaintiffs andthe death of the minor decedent. 47. Defendant UL was negligent or wanton in one or more of the followingrespects:14a. By modifying the smoldering fire test in UL Standard 217 to eliminatematerials that presented foreseeable challenges to ionization smokealarms.b. By increasing the minimum obscuration levels required for ionizationsmoke alarms to pass UL Standard 217's smoldering-fire test.c. By failing to formulate and implement safety standards for ionizationsmoke alarms that require ionization smoke alarms to detect slowsmoldering fires in a timely manner and to sound in a timely manner inthe presence of smoke as opposed to flame.d. By formulating and implementing a safety standard that an ionizationsmoke alarm would pass without detecting slow smoldering fires in atimely manner and without sounding in a timely manner in the presenceof smoke as opposed to flame. 48. As a proximate result of said negligence or wantonness, Plaintiffs weredamaged as aforesaid, and the minor decedent Nevaeh Nichole Johnson was killed.
  Fire and Smole Inhalation Claims Are Extremely Complex - A Burn Injury Lawyer Can Help

The importance of preserving ALL the evidence can not be emphasized enough. And it's just as important to hire an real expert in this area and a personal injury lawyer familiar with fire cases. One only has to recall the beverly hills supper club fire. SOME BELIEVE THE REAL TRUTH IS STILL UNKNOWN Anthony Castelli Attorney Cincinnati personal injury lawyer welcomes you to call for a free consutation about a fire injury or wrongful death or other personal injury. 513-621-2345