dutyofcare3

1. How many U.S. free ionization smoke detector give away programs are sponsored by some of the world’s largest smoke detector manufacturers who
are currently defendants in a proposed class action law suit for false representations in relation to their ionization smoke detectors?

2. Given the overwhelming scientific evidence proving that ionization smoke detectors are not fit-for-purpose, could Fire Departments be held
liable in the event of injury or death for failing to disclose the known, life-threatening limitations of ionization detectors to consumers?

Part 2: extracted from CBS - “Deadly Smoke Detectors” Expose

Fire Departments have a 'Duty of Care' not to cause foreseeable harm to people and their property, though they are exempted from this in the carrying out of certain of their duties, due to the nature of those duties. However, this is not a blanket exclusion and relates, in the main, to their fire fighting duties. The fire service still has the obligation to take all steps necessary to ensure that where possible they do not cause foreseeable harm to citizens or property.

Consider:

A fire department promotes a life safety device, such as a smoke alarm/detector, to the citizens in its area, yet does not disclose the known limitation of that device and these known limitations result in injury or death. Could the fire department have taken reasonable step to prevent this harm?

A fire department did not know the limitations of such a device when they first started promoting it, but they find out later, yet they then choose not to alert the citizens in their area to what they have found out and people who had earlier relied upon the fire departments recommendation are injured or killed. Could the fire department have taken reasonable steps to prevent this harm?

In fact, at law, it is not just whether they do know of the severe limitations of such a device, but whether they reasonably should know.

People and organisations in positions of power and influence have, arguably, a greater duty of care than those without that power and influence.

By promoting smoke alarms in the manner they have, fire departments have a duty of care to warn their citizens of any known limitations of those devices. When a fire department sells, distributes, or installs such devices then their duty of care is all the more.

- - - - - - - - - - Further Reading - - - - - - - - - -

‘Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro -- Class Action Law Suit’

‘Recommending, Selling or Installing Ionization Smoke Alarms, A Criminal Act of Negligence?’

The S.A.F.E. Report

Hackert V BRK Brands Inc and First Alert Inc.

In February 2007, the CDC and other key government
organizations were sent, by registered (certified) mail,

The CAN Report warned about the known, life-

threatening limitations of ionization smoke detectors

In February 2010 after discovering that ionization detectors have a deadly flaw CBC reporter Jennifer Mayerle questioned a senior US Government representative about the relative merits of ionization v photoelectric smoke detectors. The Government representative stated:

CDC: “They both will give you equal time to react and get out of a fire.”
CBS: “But as we’ve shown you in our tough questions test, that’s not true.”

The people and organisations that regulate, legislate, manufacture, and promote fire safety products have a special social contract with implicit responsibilities towards others in society and as such they are required to adhere to a standard of reasonable care because their acts could cause harm to others; and none more so than the standards, regulatory, and fire safety organisations.
These organisations have a special duty of care - for it is they to whom the public looks to as their protectors, and as such; their moral responsibility is greater than that of the manufacturers and promoters. The standards, regulatory, and fire safety organisations have a greater responsibility to perform their decision-making and industry supervisory functions in such a way as to take all reasonable steps to prevent future harm.
Given the weight of evidence surrounding the efficiency of different smoke alarm types, it is not enough that standards, regulatory, and fire safety organisations recommend photoelectric smoke alarms - they have a duty of care to warn the public of the known, life-threatening limitations of ionization smoke alarms.
In fact, it can reasonably be argued that for some organisations, such as those that regulate and enforce the installation of smoke alarms in homes, that failing to warn the public about ionization smoke alarms, is more than just a failure to act with a reasonable Duty of Care - it could be deemed a Criminal Act of Negligence (see The CAN Report). The failure to act has far-reaching implications not just for the organisation as a whole, but also for the individuals within an organisation.
If you work for such an organisation, you need to be aware that your failure to act may 'pierce the corporate veil' and see you held personally liable. Abrogating your personal responsibilities in these matters could see you charged with criminal offences, some of which carry custodial sentences.
For these reasons, we implore you to carefully examine this S.A.F.E. Report, The CAN Report, and review the evidence on our website for yourself - www.TheWorldFireSafetyFoundation.org

Part 1: extracted from The SAFE Report

Karl Westwell, CEO, Co-Founder

The World Fire Safety Foundation

Tauranga, New Zealand

August 2009

“Every single family in America, if they have a smoke detector, in their  house, they’re affected by this. The proof showed that sometimes the  ionisation detectors would’t even go off at all, and yet they continue to  manufacture them, continue to sell them, continue to stand by them.”

Jim Hacker, Hacker & Murphy LLP re Hackert v First Alert Inc & BRK Brands Inc.

Jim Hacker
Hacker & Murphy LLP, NY, USA

Part 3: extracted from

‘Saving Face or Saving Lives’

“I have long held the view that persons in positions of significant public influence appear to underestimate the ‘weight’ of their comments. In so doing they often neglect their public responsibilities and duty of care obligations to provide proper information to the public to allow the public to make informed decisions on cost

and safety.”