The Ionization Smoke Alarm Fraud - Litigation Concerns
Could Perpetrators be Charged with Manslaughter?
“The proof showed that sometimes the ionization detectors wouldn’t even go off at all, and yet they continue to manufacture them, continue to sell them, continue to stand by them.”
For more information:
- Richard Taylor Esq, Taylor Martino, ‘The Defect in Smoke Alarms’- Proposed Class Action Law Suit:www.theWFSF.org/classaction- ‘The CAN Report’ (page 10)
Jim Hacker, Hacker Murphy LLP
(see press release - page 4)
Suppose your know your car’s brakes are faulty. You ask Max your mechanic to check them.
“Sure, go around the back.”
Max hops in, turns on the ignition and puts his foot on the brake. He yells,
“Great, your brakes are ﬁne.”
On the drive home your brakes fail causing a fatal, head-on accident. Given you relied on Max’srepresentations, would you consider suing him? Could Max be charged with manslaughter?If you are advised the ionization smoke alarms in your rented property are safe, and you rely on this (false)representation, what happens in the event of your alarms failing to respond reliably to the presence of smokewhich leads to death, injury or loss of property? Could your landlord, real estatecompany or smoke alarminspection company be charged with manslaughter (in the event of a death)
if they were advised/had PriorKnowledge proving your ionization alarms were faulty and failed to act on that Prior Knowledge?
It is not a valid defence to state ionization alarms are covered by Australian Standard 3786 when empirical,Australian Government scientiﬁc test data reveals they have been unable to pass the test for visible smokesince 1993, AND when this information has been
in the Public Domain for over Five Years
(see pages 6~10).
Jim Hacker, Hacker Murphy LLP in ‘Deadly Delay’ TV Interview
- Ionization smoke alarms,
“a legal cause of the deaths.”
Hackert vs BRK:www.theWFSF.org/hackertcase
| Projected Publish Date: 30 Jan, 2012 | Check for latest version at:www.NFPTV.com/safer
3 of 14