Defective Smoke Alarms & Smoke Alarm Lawsuits
Mobile, Alabama
Smoke Alarm Litigation
The causes of action against a smoke alarm manufacturer are well known to most lawyers. You allege product liability, negligence and wantonness. However, you should also consider breach of warranty and failure to warn.
One of the best theories of recovery against a smoke alarm manufacturer is failure to warn. It can be easily proven that the smoke alarm manufacturer knows that the ionization smoke alarm has a history of failure and defect. The manufacturer will admit the delay in sounding and will have to admit its knowledge of the consumer complaints. However, despite this knowledge, the manufacturers do not warn about the hazard. Purchase an ionization smoke alarm at a local retail store and read the package front and back before opening it. Typically, the only information pertaining to the limitation (defect) of the smoke alarm is wording such as:
“Kidde recommends for maximum protection that both ionization and photoelectric smoke alarms be installed. Ionization technology is faster at detecting fast flaming fires that give off little smoke. Photoelectric technology is faster at responding to slow smoldering, smoky fires.”
There is no warning on the package telling the purchaser how much faster the photoelectric is at detecting a slow smoldering fire. The manufacturer knows the ionization alarm has a 15-30 minute delay in sounding when compared to the photoelectric. However, this is not revealed. In fact, the smoke alarm manufacturers have testified that they do not warn about the substantial delay in sounding or the risk of not sounding. They must admit this because there are no “warnings” concerning this defect in the packaging or on the alarm.
Our firm conducted a statistically valid marketing survey of people in the State of Alabama. The marketing study revealed, among other things, the following: 95% did not know the difference between ionization and photoelectric, and 60% did not purchase their smoke alarm.
A similar survey can be conducted in your case. It costs very little and can be the foundation of your failure to warn theory. The survey should show that approximately 95% of the purchasing public does not know the difference between ionization and photoelectric. When we conduct focus groups and voir dire in these type cases, we have never had a person say they knew the difference between ionization and photoelectric. In fact, we have never had a person say they even knew there were two different types of smoke alarm technology. This alone tells you the manufacturers have done a very poor job educating and informing, much less warning, the public about the “defect.” It is the manufacturer’s responsibility to educate the public on any hazards associated with a smoke alarm which should at the very least, include an explanation of the limitations of the ionization smoke alarm. Obviously, the manufacturers have not done this since few people know the difference. Further, even though the manufacturers recommend both ionization and photoelectric smoke alarms for maximum safety, they do not adequately explain the reason. Plus, the manufacturers know people do not follow this “safety recommendation” to have both technologies because 95% of sales are ionization. Very few people (about 2.5%) have a photoelectric.
Another important fact revealed in the marketing study is that 60% of people do not purchase their smoke alarm. Did you purchase yours? Most people rent an apartment or move into a home where the smoke alarms are already present. Therefore, the plaintiff and the members of the plaintiff’s family never read or have the opportunity to read the package inserts or the owner’s manual. They only see the smoke alarm itself attached to the wall or ceiling. The smoke alarm itself is completely void of any warnings. Therefore, one should focus on the total lack of warnings on the smoke alarm itself. There is a complete and utter failure to inform or warn on the smoke alarm itself.
Most smoke alarms have a 5 -10 year express warranty and may not adequately exclude the implied warranty of merchantability. A warranty cause of action is important in states such as Alabama where only punitive damages can be awarded in a wrongful death case. If breach of warranty is alleged, then the plaintiffs are entitled to recover compensatory damages incurred before death. This would include mental anguish and pain and suffering while attempting to get out of the house during the course of the fire. These damages can be very emotional for a jury. Also, in many States there are only limited defenses to a breach of warranty claim.
