Help with article 760

[physis]

Re: Help with article 760

IMHO any jurisdiction that allows smoke detectors in a dwelling bedroom to be installed on a non-afci protected circuit is exposing itself to a tremendous amount of liability.

That's the trouble with lawyers running the wolrld.

Will it be anyones fault if the smoke detector doesn't work because it is on a AFCI circuit that has tripped? Is that OK because everything's ok as long as it's in the NEC?

Edit: By the way I agree with you Bob.

Edit again: There's also a third possibilty in addition to:

AFI's do work, or
AFI's don't work.

Maybe AFI's knid of work.

And if that's true then basing their application on the assumtion that they either always work or they never work doesn't make any sense at all.

[ August 17, 2005, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: physis ]

 

[haskindm]

Re: Help with article 760

The only protection that an electrician has is to make their installations compliant with the NEC and any amendments that the local jurisdiction has made. The problem will be, why did the AFCI trip which caused the Smoke Detector not to go off?
Why did the battery backup (if required) not cause the Smoke Detector to operate?
Was the wiring faulty? Sue the electrician?
Was the AFCI faulty? Sue the manufacturer.
Was the Smoke Detector faulty?
Regardless, somebody is probably going to face a lawsuit. The electrician just needs to make every effort to insure tat it is not him.

 

[petersonra]

Re: Help with article 760

The primary issue when dealing with lawyers is to remember that regardless of the legal situation, you still have some moral and ethical obligation to do waht is right.

if putting smoke detectors on non-afci circuits is demonstrably the safer approach, the ahj ought to have the spine to have it done that way.

personally, i suspect that at some point an afci will fail to clear an arc and there will be a huge lawsuit against the makers of these things for foisting them off on an unsuspecting public. I would not expect NFPA to be unexposed as well, especially when the lawyers realize a big part of the reason for requiring them in the first place appears to be financial in nature.

[ August 17, 2005, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: petersonra ]

 

[physis]

Re: Help with article 760

Why did the battery backup (if required) not cause the Smoke Detector to operate?

See, making sure the battery's good, that's the home owners responsability. And everybody knows that home owners can't be responsable legally for their houses being on fire.

No one profits from that.

 

[marinesgt0411]

Re: Help with article 760

So just to really confuse the issue. If the fire alarm panel happens to be in the bedroom. does it have to be afci? and because it has to be on a dedicated circuit does that mean the bedroom has two circuits running to it that are afci and can the smokes be put on the same circuit as the FA panel