The World Fire Safety Foundation 
Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council (AFAC) - 2 of 2
 

- - - - - - - - - -  More Evidence  - - - - - - - - - -


Why is the Public STILL not being Told the Truth about Smoke Alarms?, October 2010


The ABCB -- ‘Please Explain Letter’


Closing the ‘Deadly Loophole’ in Australia’s Smoke Alarm Standard


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

Above three statements (in quotation marks) extracted from:
Australasian Fire & Emergency Service Authorities Council, ‘Position on Smoke Alarms in Residential Accommodation’ 01 June, 2006, page 3, clause 3 (emphasis added - see complete position statement on AFAC page 1)afac.htmlshapeimage_2_link_0
Extract from AFAC’s Official Position on Smoke
Alarms for all Australian & New Zealand Fire Brigades
Positions on Smoke Alarms - Australia & New Zealand: Here > > >sap_au.htmlshapeimage_4_link_0

More > > >

What does Australia’s Independent
‘CHOICE’ Organisation Recommend?

What does New Zealand’s Independent
‘CONSUMER’ Organisation Recommend?

More > > >

“Ionization smoke alarms may not operate in time to alert occupants early enough to
 escape from smouldering fires.”
“That all residential accommodation be fitted with PHOTOELECTRIC smoke alarms.”
“Photoelectric smoke alarms detect smouldering fires and fires starting in areas remote from smoke alarms significantly earlier than ionization smoke alarms.”
The Problem:
The Solution:
The smoke alarm industry has a Duty of Care to warn the
public of the known dangers of ionization smoke alarms.
“The mere presence of ionization-only stand-alone smoke alarms on the market without at the
 same time providing consumers clear, conspicuous and unequivocal information of the
 dangers associated with smouldering fires and ionization-only detectors’ insensitivity to such
 fires, as compared to combination or photoelectric-only detectors, is fraudulent, unfair and
 deceptive and creates a real risk of harm to consumers.”
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro Proposed Class Action Law Suit: 
April, 2010
The World Fire Safety Foundation believes the ongoing failure to warn the public of the dangerous
defects with ionization smoke alarms, according to AFAC’s official position of June, 2006, is
deceptive, misleading and creates a real risk of harm to the public.
More > > >classaction.htmlshapeimage_15_link_0

 Extract from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP proposed Class Action Law Suit. ‘Second Amended Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand’ page 29, clause 69 (emphasis added)
“that the smoke detector’s failure was a legal cause of the deaths of William and Christine Hackert.”
Hackert vs First Alert Inc & BRK Brands Inc: 
March, 2008

 Hackert V First Alert Inc. Summary Order. page 3, para 2 (emphasis added)
More > > >hackertcase.htmlshapeimage_24_link_0
October, 2011
Given AFAC documented the dangerous defects with ionization smoke alarms in June, 2006, and Queensland and the Northern Territory have made positive moves towards photoelectric alarms:qfrspromo.htmlhttp://www.pfes.nt.gov.au/Fire-and-Rescue/Territory-laws-on-smoke-alarms.aspxshapeimage_26_link_0shapeimage_26_link_1
US$12.5 million in punitive damages and US$4.4 million in compensatory damages were awarded after a fire that killed Bradley Mercer and disfigured his brother Travis, when an ionisation smoke alarm failed to sound a timely warning. In the Judges decision he concluded that even though
the manufacturer knew that their ionisation detectors were flawed, despite that knowledge,
they failed to disclose the known limitations of the [ionization] detectors to the consumers.
Mercer vs First Alert Inc: 
December, 1998
Here > > >mercercase.htmlshapeimage_32_link_0

 All information contained on this webpage and in this website is given in good faith as does not constitute legal advice.
For legal advice contact your own legal professional. More on Mercer vs First Alert Inc is:


Legal ramifications for
recommending, selling or
installing ionization smoke alarms

More > > >can.htmlshapeimage_34_link_0
An ionization smoke alarm that is 'certified' by a testing laboratory (eg, 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 dangerously unfit for purpose. Note: In the Mercer v First Alert Inc case 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, or any official, becomes aware of the fact that ionization alarms are not fit for purpose as evidenced by the draft Australian Standard, AS3786, in acknowledgement of
flawed standards testing (see film below, ‘Smoke Alarm Recall’, and ‘UL-Approved Smoke Alarms May Give False Sense of Security” ) then 'prior knowledge' exists together with a duty of care to inform all home owners/tenants that their existing ionization alarms have dangerous defects.

Failure to warn in these conditions may lead to litigation in the event of death, injury, or loss of property.home.htmluc2.htmluc2.htmlshapeimage_35_link_0shapeimage_35_link_1shapeimage_35_link_2
Could Failure to Warn Render You Liable to Prosecution?
“Once a landlord, fire official, building owner, real estate agent etc,
 becomes aware that ionization alarms are not fit for purpose . . .
 Failure to warn in these conditions may lead to litigation . . .”

Note:
This webpage is provided in the public interest.  It is not endorsed by AFAC.

< < < AFAC Page 1afac.htmlshapeimage_39_link_0
This webpage is provided.
in the public interest. It is not endorsed by AFAC.
< < < AFAC Page 1afac.htmlshapeimage_41_link_0
choice.html
fpaa.html
legislation_au_nt.html
nzsc.html
phaa.html
qfrspromo.html
vffa.html
position.html
Australia and
New Zealand
Positionspositions.htmlshapeimage_50_link_0
consumer.html
sa.html