Re: Insteon now or wait?

["Robert L Bass" <robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> What I won't agree to is that it's a *zero*
> possibility...

Agreed, but it isn't really necessary to guaranty zero possibility of
failure to protect oneself against product liability.  Certainly anyone can
sue with or without just cause in this country.  However, most serious cases
require some sort of proof that the maker "knew or should have known" that
there was a real hazard.

> All it takes for a bulb to seriously injure someone
> is for the envelope to quietly separate from the
> base and fall to a hard surface...

That would depend in part on the type of bulb.  I've spent considerable time
designing and installing lighting systems and I've seen lots of equipment
failures but none of the type we're considering here.  A common 110V,
screw-in light bulb won't separate from the base due to flickering.  The
filament will burn out early but the bulb itself won't rupture and it won't
come away from the base.  Those bulbs sometiomes separate when they've been
screwed in too tightly or if they've been allowed to rust, say in an outdoor
fixture, but the separation is due to physical force used in trying to
insert or remove the bulb.  The only bulbs I've seen blow up were inside
stage lighting fixtures where there was no danger to the audience.

> Imagine yourself on the witness stand.  Can
> you say for absolutely sure, beyond any doubt
> James, that a switch with a brand new, never-
> been-tried-before design CAN'T cause a bulb
> to fail in ways that have not been seen before?

Presumably the switch would have been tested quite a bit prior to release.
In order to pass UL it has to survive testing.

> How many years did the NASA experts say
> those foam panels just *couldn't* damage
> the shuttle?

The horror of it was that even while Columbia was in orbit some of the NASA
engineers warned that the damage might cause a disaster.  Management decided
not to investigate the damage more fully.  Had they done so the disaster
might have been prevented.

> What about Boston's "Big Dig?"  If a product liability
> case against Smarthome were underway this week,
> a smart lawyer would remind jurors, through cross-
> examination of the witness, that highway officials were
> *certain* that those epoxied roof bolts would hold.

Apparently that was not the case, Bob.  Recent news reports claim that
highway officials were warned that there was a serious danger.  They decided
to ignore the reports.

> For every degree of certainty an expert expressed,
> opposing counsel would remind the jury of each and
> every case where experts were flat out wrong.

TTBOMK, product liability claims need to show that the maker (or installer)
"knew or should have known" that there was a danger.  If one builds in good
faith, follows the standards and codes (in this case, UL, NEC and
establishged engineering practices), takes reasonable precautions to assure
the user's safety and warns of any known hazards, the manufacturer will be
reasonably safe from lawsuits.

FWIW, I don't exactly side with Smarthome.  I don't want to bash them but
suffice it to say I'm not interested in selling Insteon or most of their
name brand products.  Others like them and feel they're getting decent
quality for the price.  I won't debate that.  Value, like beauty, is in the
eye of the beholder.  I just disagree with you about Smarthome being in
danger of a product liability suit due to what appears to be just an
annoying design problem.  I could be wrong.  I'm not a lawyer though I did
study business law.  I did not, however, sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last
night.  :^)

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
941-866-1100 Sales & Tech Support
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>