The World Fire Safety Foundation
Hosford vs BRK Brands, Inc; Underwriters Laboratories Inc; et al
 
Hosford vs BRK Brands, Inc; Underwriters Laboratories, Inc; et al (scroll down page for law suit documentation)

Download
Here > > >

Hosford vs BRK Brands, Inc; Underwriters Laboratories, Inc; et al Taylor Martino Law Suit - Lodged 28 December, 2011, Alabama, USA

iPad controls

Scroll Document (iPad controls below)
More > > >disa.htmlshapeimage_9_link_0
Richard H Taylor Esq
“The UL Standards will not change unless or until the smoke alarm
 manufacturers are forced to change by jury verdicts or legislation.”
The Defect in Smoke Alarms
Richard H Taylor, Senior Partner, Taylor Martino, Mobile, AL, USA
The Defect in Smoke Alarms
by Richard H Taylor
Taylor Martino Zarzaur, LLC | 51 Joseph Street, Mobile, Alabama 36602, USA Phone: +1 251 433 3131 +1 800 256 7728 | TaylorMartino.comdisa.htmlshapeimage_17_link_0
“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 knows the ionization alarm has a 15-30 minute delay in
 sounding when compared to the photoelectric. However, this is not revealed.”

“How do we get ionization smoke alarms off the market? At least three states
 have ‘outlawed’ ionization only smoke alarms in new construction.”
“Underwriters Laboratories is, so to speak, “in bed”
 with the smoke alarm manufacturers.”
Richard Taylor, Senior Partner, Taylor Martino, Mobile, Alabama, USA. ‘The Defect in Smoke Alarms’, August, 2009, page 4, para 4
Hosford vs BRK Brands Inc,; Underwriters Laboratories Inc; et al, page 13, clause 47
(scroll down page for complete law suit documentation)
How Safe Are Products Bearing the UL Mark? This award-winning, 1999 article exposes UL’s flawed. Smoke Alarm Standard despite decades of warnings.
and tens of thousands of needless deaths and injuries.
More > > >ul.htmlshapeimage_24_link_0
John Drengenberg
Underwriters Laboratories (UL)
Consumer Affairs Manager
Underwriters Laboratories 
“. . .when the smoke hits that (UL listed) alarm it will sound.”
The World Fire Safety Foundation 
“Not according to recent, independent, scientific and fire fighter testing conducted in the USA, Australia and New Zealand.
Adrian Butler
World Fire Safety Foundation Chairman, Co-Founder
John Drengenberg in WTHR’s ‘Deadly Delay’, UL investigation, April 2007
Dr B Don Russell, Texas A & M University
"Their (UL’s) science isn't any good, frankly. As a scientist, practicing science that doesn't replicate what the world really is, in terms of physics, is worthless."
Dr B Don Russell
Has UL Committed Scientific Misconduct*? *fraudulent scientific testing of ionization smoke alarms
More > > >ul2.htmlshapeimage_35_link_0

“The corruption that occurred
  within the United States ...
  that’s been exported.

Has UL’s Alleged Corruption Been Exported?

Stop The Children Burning (full documentary)

Australia’s Flawed Smoke Alarm Standard

What they (UL) have done is
fraudulent, dishonest, corrupt.”

R M Patton, Fire Protection Engineer
Sacramento, CA, USA

Richard M Patton

Fire Protection Engineer, chairman,

world’s first fire detection code

“This is the test for the smouldering fire at.
Underwriters Laboratories. They put ponderosa.
pines sticks on a hot plate, heat it to 700 degrees,.
create a type of smoke that will set the detector off..
So they have a false test for the smouldering fire. test . . . This is why we have the confusion.”

More > > >

Patton Testifying Against UL

at City of Albany Hearing

Trailer: 60 seconds

Extracts:

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.

. . . 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.

Karl Westwell

A Special Duty of Care

The CAN Report
Sent to UL by by registered (certified) mail, Feb, 2007

Karl Westwell, CEO, Co-Founder, The World Fire Safety Foundation

Tauranga, New Zealand  August 2009

“

”

More > > >dutyofcare3.htmlshapeimage_42_link_0

  1. a.By modifying the smoldering fire test in UL Standard 217 to eliminate materials that
    presented foreseeable challenges to ionization smoke alarms.  . . .

c. By failing to formulate and implement safety standards for ionization smoke alarms that
    require ionization smoke alarms to detect slow smoldering fires in a timely manner . . .”

“Defendant UL was negligent or wanton
  in one or more of the following respects:”

Canadian Federal Government “On Verge of Issuing a Recall” David Minnis Deposition, Mercer vs Pittway Corp, April 1998

Silent Alarms

Canadian TV’s award-winning documentary featured the landmark
Mercer v Pittway case, aired on national Canadian TV, Jan, 2000.
“He claimed the company rigged their alarms to pass safety checks.”
“So many of the First Alert alarms failed, according to the Minnis
 deposition, that our federal government was on the verge of issuing a recall.
“So what happened as a result of your suggestion? They redid the tests and enough units passed to cloud the issue.”
UL-Approved Smoke Alarms May Give False Sense of Security
Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the worlds leading testing and safety organization puts its seal of approval on millions of smoke alarms that may not work in a deadly fire.
Watch WTHR’s film on You Tubehttp://youtu.be/cwl1biSvTiYshapeimage_52_link_0
So why does Underwriters Laboratories endorse smoke detectors that often remain silent in a room full of smoke? Award-winning, leading U.S. investigative reporter, Bob Segall shows you why UL-approved smoke alarms may give you and your family a false sense of security.http://www.wthr.com/story/4809527/bob-segallshapeimage_53_link_0

Bob Segall, Investigative Reporter

“Is there any scientific explanation for why in this real word situation we have smoke detectors that are not going off in a room full of smoke?”
Bob Segall, Investigative Reporter, WTHR, Indiana, USA July, 2007
More > > >http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=6552929shapeimage_56_link_0
DEADLY DELAY
In 2007, WTHR’s ‘Deadly Delay’ twelve-part investigation exposed what Indiana's State Fire Marshal called, "the most important life safety issue the fire service will face in our lifetime." 

WTHR’s investigation revealed hundreds of millions of ionization smoke alarms, the type in most homes around the world, may not activate during the most deadly (smoldering) stage of house fires resulting in needless deaths.

An ionization smoke alarm that is 'certified' by a testing laboratory (eg, Underwriters Laboratories (UL)  British Standards or Standards Australia) affords no protection to any person who BOTH has power to swap these alarms for photoelectrics AND who is aware that Ionization alarms are not fit for purpose.  Note: In the Mercer v Pittway case (May, 1998) the Defendants were afforded no protection merely because the ionization alarms were compliant with UL217, America's current smoke alarm standard.

Once a landlord, building owner, real estate agent, fire official etc, becomes aware of the fact that ionization alarms are proven not fit for purpose (as evidenced by the amended Australian Standard, AS3786, in acknowledgement of flawed testing) then 'prior knowledge' exists together with a duty of care to inform all home owners/tenants that their existing ionization alarms are dangerously deficient.  Failure to warn in these conditions may render the official liable for prosecution in the event of death, injury or loss of property.

Could Landlords, Real Estate Agents, Fire Officials etc. be held liable?