AFCI Law Suits

[romex jockey]

Re: AFCI Law Suits

wouldn't the application of the TVSS would need to be before the buss full of afci's ?

just wondering....

btw~ many of us here tried to investigate the efficy of AFCI's on our own. Myself i solicited UL and basically got a brush-off reply in '99

the real skinny didn't appear in print until after 210.12 was pontificated in the '02, the onslaught of expected rop's have simply been roundfiled since

these people knew the spec's all along, from the hamhead reps like B. Foley who's apparent job was to be a debate stifling infiltrator on the 'net, to the UL reps (D. Dini) that also sit on CMP-2

the bottom line is , these sorts have opened the door for coroporism cloaked in the guise of safety to compromise the premis of the NEC

now some of you may chuckle and say welcome to the world , wake up and smell the coffee Steve, yet this presidence reached a new platitude here.

so much for what i'm told is the 'democratic process' of the NEC eh?

[ September 28, 2003, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: romex jockey ]

 

[pierre]

Re: AFCI Law Suits

No matter what these days, there are going to be law suits. Lawyers have to make a living.

Where would the space program be today if they had given up after the first rockets had been total failures?

GFCIs caused pretty much the same ruckus 30 some odd years ago, but our nation was only just learning that litigation was the future.

AFCIs, some day when the technology gets better, are going to be the way to go. Either AFCIs or some other technology that we do not know about yet will be part of this industry's future.

Technology is racing in front of us and this industry is going to be continually affected by it. Either we join the band and dance,or stand there and watch it pass us by.

I am not one to stand by and let things happen, complaining is only okay if you are willing to do something about it.

This has been my Sunday morning sermon.

Pierre

 

[pierre]

Re: AFCI Law Suits

An interesting thought about the jurisdictions that have removed the requirement for AFCIs.
The decisions are made by Public officials who need a vote. They took what was an easier path and did not make it required, to keep their constituants happy. But notice they did not say it is prohibited, just not required. This removes the responsibility from their hands and puts it squarely in the hands of the contractor. Nice job ... but that is what they are trained to do.


Pierre

 

[tonyi]

Re: AFCI Law Suits

Originally posted by romex jockey:
wouldn't the application of the TVSS would need to be before the buss full of afci's ?

just wondering...

If you put the TVSS connections on the top two slots of the panel, and keep the sensitive stuff towards the bottom they'll be better protected (and living in a cooler environment which is a good thing too)

Ideal situation - main panel is just a feeder distribution center for subs, AF/GF things live in the subs. If you're not into running track meets dragging a ladder around multiple times fastening up gobs of homeruns think about it...

 

[roger]

Re: AFCI Law Suits

Talk about litigious stupidity, go here and take note of (B)(2) on page 2.

It seems as though the whole burden of the snake oil in question is going to rest on our shoulders, we will even be responsible for recommending it.

Note the manufacturers (per this document) are basically going to wash their hands of any blame.

I like these areas that have removed the requirement more and more.

Roger

[ September 28, 2003, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: roger ]

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: AFCI Law Suits

Tonyi,

Do 20 year old GFCI breakers still work?

A study by a major manufacturer of GFCI receptacles showed that about 57% of GFCI receptacles and breakers were not functional after 7 years in areas that have thunderstorms. I see the AFCI having the same problems. Neither of these devices "fail safe". That is when the electronics quit working, the circuit stays energized.

Cars have had computers under the hoods for decades now doing all sorts of various tasks and that's a lot harsher environment than in a indoor residential panel

Not really, car computer systems are not routinely subjected to high voltage surges. As far as older computers, they are fairly well protected by their power supplies. There is no room in the AFCI device for a transformer and filters that are used in computer power supplies.

So, I'd say if people test their AFCI at the end of a month and its still working, then they're good to go for a long time.

If you really expect that the average homeowner is going to test the AFCIs, I have some ocean front property in Iowa that I'd like to sell you.

I wonder if anyone has ever thought about making recepticals designed like a sprinkler head or firematic valve on oil tanks?

There is a proposal that was rejected that would require the use of such a product.
One more thing. In my proposals to delete the AFCI requirement, I cited the same fire cause statistics that were used to prove the need for AFCIs and CMP 2 said "the data cited has not been substantiated". If that is the true how did we ever get this requirement in the first place?
Don

 

[pierre]

Re: AFCI Law Suits

The comments on GFCIs is from the units designed and built prior to Jan of '03. There is a new standard that manufacturers are now making the units to and the standard addresses some of the very issues being discussed about GFCIs on this thread. Nothing is perfect, but there are so many 'forces' that work for and against theses issues that moving forward, even with the technology is time consuming.

One thing I can say and I am sure there is no one who will argue this, AFCIs have divided the industry and related people, it will just be a matter of time to see where the issue is headed.

Square D has not been idle. They have a new listed Combination unit AFCI that will be on the shelves by early this coming year. It will perform the way most of us thought these units should, and then it will be interesting to see how the other manufacturers follow, with the same or even more advanced technology.

[ September 28, 2003, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: pierre ]

 

[tonyi]

Re: AFCI Law Suits

Originally posted by don_resqcapt19:
Neither of these devices "fail safe". That is when the electronics quit working, the circuit stays energized.

So? What components of any electrical system are guaranteed fail safe against "acts of god"? A lightning strike could torch any number of things in a house resulting in damaged/dangerous stuff.

If AFCI electronics fail in a lightning hit, then you're just back to NEC 99' functionality on that breaker. It sounds to me like people using this argument are implying standard inverse time breaker functionality is somehow "unsafe" - yet that is precisely what they want to go back to! There is no logical consistency to that position IMO.

Would you stop mandating seatbelts in cars because they occasionally fail?

IMO, an electrical system is just that - a system. Systems need occasional maintenance and routine health checkups to ensure proper operation. You can only idiot proof something so much because they're always coming up with more creative idiots who will ignore all warnings, ignore all maintenance schedules, etc. and bring disaster upon themselves in a myriad of ways.

There's very little in the NEC concerning mandatory prevention of damage to electrical components due to exceptional circumstances like lightning. Its more about the condition of the system when you walk out the door for the last time and hand the keys over. After that, as far as I'm concerned, everything else is routine maintenance.

Who's fault is it if someone never checks the oil in their car and runs it till the engine seizes?

 

[romex jockey]

Re: AFCI Law Suits

afci's are not a s 'fail safe' per manufacturer's insinuations Tonyi

nor do i, as an EC , relish Rogers pdf info that would take aim at blame shifting

1/2 the truth is a lie folks

that's the crux of the matter....

 

[iwire]

Re: AFCI Law Suits

Originally posted by tonyi:
So? What components of any electrical system are guaranteed fail safe against "acts of god"?

A Fuse

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: AFCI Law Suits

tonyi,

So? What components of any electrical system are guaranteed fail safe against "acts of god"?

My only point is that the average homeowner does not test these devices and would have no idea that he has lost the safety protection that he paid for.
Don

 

[tonyi]

Re: AFCI Law Suits

Originally posted by roger:
Note the manufacturers (per this document) are basically going to wash their hands of any blame.

AFCI literature has always used the phrase "mitigate the effects of..." or words similar. I don't know any vendor that has ever boldly claimed "install this gadget and your place won't burn down".

An AFCI is kinda like an insurance policy. Some things are covered with certainty, others are not. If you fail to pay the premiums (i.e. hit the test button occasionally) your coverage may expire.

I'd bet a sharp lawyer could put it all back on the consumers head after a fire. Just look for the stickers with the test history record and if they're blank, or only have the first entry from the installer's tests, then the homeowner is guilty of violating the specific instructions and labling that goes along with the device's listing.

We do all put those stickers on right?

 

[bennie]

Re: AFCI Law Suits

The test button only verifies the AFCI was working, not is working. A law student would win a case like this.

 

[roger]

Re: AFCI Law Suits

Tony, I must say I admire your passion on this and the AC issue. Do you have stock in an AFCI company?

That was humor.

Roger

 

[tonyi]

Re: AFCI Law Suits

Originally posted by bennie:
The test button only verifies the AFCI was working, not is working. A law student would win a case like this.

Contributary negligence on the homeowners part would be easy to prove though. You can't get away with suing Ford because your engine seized if you never checked/changed the oil and the crank case is a dry as the Sahara. People need to step up and take some responsibility for their own safety.

I lost a 17 year old cousin in a Durango crash last year. The passenger side airbag didn't fire for whatever reason, his head bounced off the windows and he was a neurological flatline. Parents pulled the life support plug a week later. Chances of suing Chrysler successfully? Zero.

IMO, it would be easier to win a case against Southwire for selling intrinsically defective and obviously unsafe cable (i.e. Romex).

[product liability lawyer in front of jury for demonstration]

"Ladies and gentleman, just look at this stuff, its THIN PLASTIC (said sarcastically and drawn out). Now look at these other examples of wiring systems that are also available TODAY that might have saved Mr. Wildrockcutter from electrocution! (waves hand towards a table full of EMT, RMC, and various armored cables). Let me demonstrate: (grabs a sheetrock knife and wails away at the Romex and the other stuff). This THIN PLASTIC wire is clearly cut to ribbons with bare live wire exposed, but these other SAFER SYSTEMS are hardly scratched!

Similar lawsuits against anyone making backstab capable recepticals and switches could also be successful. We all know its not a matter of IF they'll fail, rather WHEN. With an AFCI, its only known potential vulnerabilities are due to exceptional EXTERNAL INFLUENCES (i.e. lightning).

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: AFCI Law Suits

Contributary negligence on the homeowners part would be easy to prove though.

Wouldn't matter. The jury would side with the plaintiffs even if they didn't use the test button. While the judgement would likely be reduced on appeal, the manufacturer would still pay. Look at the McDonald's spilled coffee case for an example of where the plaintiff was at fault but still won a large judgement. With the current status of the legal system, the injured party is almost never at fault.
Don

[ September 28, 2003, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: don_resqcapt19 ]

 

[tonyi]

Re: AFCI Law Suits

Originally posted by don_resqcapt19:
The jury would side with the plaintiffs even if they didn't use the test button.

Perhaps, BUT the government is on the hook as a defendant then too - CPSC is apparently recommending people install GFCI and AFCI protection.

Have any breaker manufacturer successfully been sued on a product liability basis because a GFCI breaker failed due to lightning strike damage?

 

[tonyi]

Re: AFCI Law Suits

I'd bet if any of these dire AFCI no-trip lawsuit predictions people are wailing about ever came to pass, we'd soon see ALL electrical components right down to a lowly staple shipped with a licence agreement that included a FORCE MAJEURE clause and implemented similar to software's "bust the shrinkwrap and you agree to this licence" stuff.