Insteon now or wait?

"Rather than make the component change at the assembly line and sell through the current inventory, we made the decision to replace the component that contributed to the flicker and re-work our existing inventory. That process started last week, with the hiring of technicians and running an overtime shift on Saturday."

I interpret that to mean that they HAVE been selling the old switches with the flicker defect until very recently but will NOW convert their remaining on-the-shelf inventory. :-( While it makes sense to wait until the fault was clearly diagnosed it's not fair to the people who bought the switches and who then experience the flicker problem.

The fact that they're going to rework current inventory tells me that the problem is perhaps more widespread than believed. They're balancing the cost of modification against the cost of potential returns and the cost of bad publicity in continuing to sell duff switches.

Apparently that analysis comes out in favor of opening each and every unit and reworking it. They wouldn't do that unless it was cost-effective. I suspect they're doing it because their previous decision to continue selling the duff switches has had bad consequences for them already.

If I had hired a contractor to install 50 switches that I had to hire

Why am I so suspicious? Once Smarthome sold switches they knew had the problem without notifying users, they lost my trust in them as an honorable merchant. For all we know sales have dropped off so precipitously that they feel they have to assure potential purchasers they're doing something other than hoping that people who buy the duff switches don't encounter the problem.

I'm afraid it's now a case of fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Well, we were fooled once. That means they no longer get the benefit of the doubt. Clearly the switches they've continued to sell have also needed reworking but they sold them anyway. They probably didn't want to crimp their product rollout and they *especially* didn't want to lose sales to competing protocols. That's a marketing decision that may very well haunt them for a long, long time. Product faults take on a certain immortality on the net.

There are, of course, exclusions to limited warranties, and we are all familiar with them: they are covered by expressions like "as is," "with all faults" or other language which calls the buyer's attention to the exclusion of warranties and makes plain that there is no implied warranty. I don't recall seeing those switches listed "as is."

The best example of "limited warranties be damned" is a medical technology firm selling a heart device they know is bad. It kills someone. Although their warranty says "all we're liable for is replacement of the defective device" you can bet your butt that's not going to save them from a raft of wrongful death suits and the medical costs of removing and re-implanting a properly functioning device in everyone who bought one. The "removal and reinstallation of switches" sounds very, very similar. Look up Guidant lawsuits for further details on that litigation. Oh heck, I'll do it:

The rest is legal history. Guidant's value, BTW, has dropped a significant amount. IIRC, this recall will cost the company nearly a billion dollars by the time it's over. Some of the principals will probably be indicted on criminal charges, as well, since there's already an insider trading lawsuit in play.

One other thing to note is that the 'alleged' Smarthome rep (could be anyone, really) at ACCESSHA said they would be replacing a component that "contributed" to the problem. That seems to imply there's another contributor. Is that other contributor lurking in those switches or did he mean something like an external dimmer?

If the contributor is IN the switch, are they going to have to rework the board's wiring as well? Will the new reworked switches have new reliability problems induced by the reworking? I can imagine desoldering and soldering chokes (and whatever else is involved) as fast as you can all day is going to be less than a 100% successful endeavor. People get tired doing monotonous work and make mistakes.

Hopefully they'll do a quality test afterward, but if I were going to buy any Insteon's, I'd wait until they made the change at the assembly line and not buy the current batch. I also believe they should (but probably won't) re-label these modified units as "refurbished" or "remanufactured" switches. After all, they didn't notify customers they were buying switches that they knew were defective. Why notify them now that they are buying reworked ones? :-(

I wish Smarthome had taken the high road and stopped selling the switches when the problem became apparent. I suspect they didn't for the same reason that a lot of wrong things are done all over the world: They thought they could get away with it. Bzzt! Wrong choice!

The coverup is *always* worse than the original crime. Just ask Bill Clinton. Or Dick Nixon. Or Martha Stewart.

-- Bobby G.

Not to get into a whole legal debate, but they do disclaim any implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.

But let's look at the real issue: Flickering - which I think we can all agree is somewhat less egregious than bouts of cardiac arrhythmia!

First, let me describe exactly what constitutes a flicker - at least in my installation - which is the only one I have experience with. When an Insteon signal is transmitted, some lights, described more fully below, may brighten to full intensity for maybe 100ms - less than the blink of an eye - and return to normal. Multiple signals may cause multiple 'flashes' which is probably a more accurate word than 'flicker.'

As many here know I have about 50 Insteon devices installed now being controlled primarily by a JDS TimeCommander through a (for now) 2414X translator (beta version). Most of the devices control incandescent lighting and most are dimmed. The flicker only occurs when Insteon signals are transmitted and only at loads that contain multiple incandescent bulbs that are already dimmed. Each of the affected loads add up to 200 or more watts. Single bulb dimmed loads, like my desk lamp, and larger non-dimmed loads never flicker or flash.

At most, I have 4 wall switches that demonstrate the problem due to the larger loads attached to them. The LEDs in all the switches, modules and Keypadlincs also flicker when signals are received but I actually consider that to be a useful diagnostic "feature." Other than the flickering (and the modules subject to safety recall) I am satisfied that these products are performing properly. There is no MAJOR defect, and certainly not one that affects every light in the house or seriously impedes the utility of the system as a whole.

So, will I rip out all 50 and replace them? No. Instead I'll exchange the ones that are controlling the larger loads (as well as the recalled units) and be done with it. I will however, ask Smarthome if they will agree to a free warranty extension on the units that I do not replace. That would seem like a fair compomise that would save them having to replace them all today - or perhaps ever - and give me peace of mind that I can if and when I need to. If they don't agree to that then I MIGHT, over the term of the regular warranty, replace them all.

I really can't fault Smarthome for continuing to sell units while they were working on the problem. Most people will not be controlling and dimming larger loads so I think it's fair to say that less than one in ten will actually need upgrading. Rather than fault them for not stopping sales completely, I think they should be commended for modifying existing stock rather than just selling it off and replacing the possible 10% that might come back as returns.

BTW, modifying a product after initial manufacture but prior to first sale does not constitute refurbishment or remanufacture. It is still, in every way under the law, a brand new product. I had personal experience in this matter where an initial batch of telecom products we produced in China needed modification here prior to sale. We had about

But the legal principles are essentially the same. While I'm sure both Guidant and Smarthome disclaim warranties of merchantability and fitness, those disclaimers have to be considered within the circumstances of the sale. If such blanket disclaimers were truly effective, there wouldn't be any product liability lawsuits whatsoever, but we know that's just not the case. In fact, most such warranties add "not valid where not legal" or some such language to acknowledge many states don't care what you disclaim. The maker is responsible for producing defective products, period.

my installation - which is the only one I have experience with. When an

'flashes' which is probably a more accurate word than 'flicker.'

Agreed as to you installation, but IIRC, there have been reports of bulbs blowing out. That's not just annoying, it's plain dangerous. If someone's blinded, SH will be on the hook for some very big $$ indeed if a smart lawyer can put the blame at their feet. Exploding light bulbs cause plenty of injuries every year, Such was the case with ?Desperate Housewives? actress Teri Hatcher, who suffered an injury to her eyte from an exploding light bulb.

I'm sorry, Bruce. Although we agree on a lot of things, there's no way I can agree with you here. They did the wrong damn thing. When the reports of problems were confirmed, sales should have stopped. They did wrong to everyone who purchased switches between then and now. They knew better, but they didn't DO better. Those customers deserve a level of compensation that exceeds what original buyers or the folks that purchase reworked switches should receive.

I think they ought to be thinking in terms of gift certificates for people who have to return the entire stinkload of flickering switches and not just $5 ones. Something in the $100 to $200 variety would be appropriate. Why? Because if even one in ten people see this problem, it means they failed to do a comprehensive beta test and shifted that development costs onto first adopters like you. While it seems like an expensive solution for them, history shows that companies are likely to end up paying a lot more if some class action lawyer decides he's underworked or bored and prevails.

Why? Apparently they didn't do a thorough enough beta test. Should those interim customers be the ones to bear the cost of that testing in the real world?

Whoa! I don't think *either* one of us can make an assertion about how

They *should* have stopped selling them when they KNEW for certain they had a design problem. That's the ethical position. They know full well that at least *some* people are going to incur considerable electrician's expenses swapping switches in and out. Were I in that position, I'd feel very confident in filing against them, pro se, in a California court for those expenses. I wouldn't need any internal "smoking gun" memos. I'd just need the information I can provide from net. I'm pretty sure they'd settle, quietly, less they lose and set a public precedent. IIRC, there were at least 100 such "hush money" settlements on the Ford Explorer before the lid blew off.

Wait a gol-durned minute. Reward them for being shamed into *finally* doing the right thing? No, I believe they're reworking the switches because their legal counsel has told them that they have exposure, not because they suddenly developed a conscience. If it's obvious to me that they've screwed people, it's obvious to legal counsel, too. If no one faults them for screwing those people who bought defective switches when SH knew they were bad, what process will keep them from doing it again?

From some emails I've gotten I have reason to believe that some irate buyers have already forwarded my comments in an attempt to negotiate. Maybe that's why they showed sudden largesse in deciding to modify the stock on hand and not sell any more flickering switches. Something tells me they've re-evaluated their exposure to be more in line with what I am suggesting.

But I'll admit it could be equally likely that they couldn't do the mods until the ETL testing was complete. Or, maybe ETL found something *else* that needs to be fixed in addition to the choke. Something safety related. Maybe they'll choose to let us know which. All we know is that *something* made them decide to modify all the switches everywhere in the pipeline, and apparently, in only the last few days. And I know I wouldn't buy any of the hand-worked switches, either.

We clearly differ in our belief in how vendors should behave. I'll bet that someone who built a new house and had electricians put in lots of the switches and who dims large loads won't feel anywhere near as generous as you're feeling. They won't be as interested in forgetting the past and back-slapping SH for finally doing the right thing. Consider, too, Bruce, that you can both do the electrical work yourself and got a substantial discount. That already makes you a lot more "whole" than many other purchasers.

in every way under the law, a brand new product. I had personal

That's what you hired him to say, whether you realized it or not. It's what I am certain you wanted to hear. I'm sure he would have been happy to represent you had you been sued, though, and would have continued to support his contentions all the way through to a judgement against you.

When he said "first sale" he could have meant before they were ever offered for sale. Were you a disgruntled buyer, unhappy because you bought what you believed to be a reworked product that was not advertised as such, I'll bet nickels to navy beans you could easily find a lawyer that would tell you that you have a cause of action. That's just lawyering.

Everyone here, I am sure, has at one point or another bought a product that appeared absolutely brand new in every respect except for a refurb sticker. For the big boys like IBM, leaving that out, even in the circumstances that you relate personally, leave them open to exposure. I'll bet your lawyer made a judgement call specific to your circumstances and location of business. My understanding of the refurb laws is if you sell some, find out they're bad and then pull them all back from anywhere in the channel to correct them, you're in murky legal water. It's that "informed consent" idea I discussed previously.

What I wonder about is what happens to all the switches that are being returned from customers for modification? They're not new by any means. Somehow, I get the feeling based on actions up until now, they won't be marked "refurbished" either. Wouldn't you agree that those switches would fall under anyone's interpretation of "refurbished?"

-- Bobby G.

No, no, no. I've seen no reports of bulbs exploding. There have been some reports of such a bad flicker (rapidly on/off) that the bulbs "blow" (i.e. stop emitting light) not "blow up" (i.e. explode).

snip

We'll have to agree to disagree on some of the other items that were above but on this point we agree completely. Any item sold and returned from a customer can only be resold as "B Stock" which is typically offered at a significant discount and with a less generous warranty. I really don't think they'd try to pass those off as new as they don't do that with returns now.

BTW, while my atty may have told me what I wanted to hear, he and his firm have never hesitated to tell me what I DIDN'T want to hear. The particular firm specializes in consumer protection matters and tends to err on the side of caution so I believe that their opinion was based on a thorough reading of the law rather than any desire to please me.

While we'll probably never find out for sure, it wouldn't surprise me if SH offered special deals, discounts or refunds to those who need an electrician to change a switch. However, if one is bright enough to bring an action pro se in court, I have to believe that they could handle replacing a switch - unless, of course, they actually ARE an attorney!

I suspect too that they will offer compensation to those installers. They tend to treat their dealers pretty well so I think they may offer some big discounts or free products to those who have to bite the bullet.

I just read through that whole HACCESS thread again. (You know, the one with the "Join Date" prominently displayed where just about every other message program IN THE WORLD usually displays the send date!) I was looking for that message or at least some missing message numbers because I clearly remembered someone implying catastrophic bulb failure so severe it made me think they had mis-pulled two hots off different phases to the bulb instead of a hot and a neutral. But HA stuff is so balkanized now, I can hardly remember what I've read and where anymore with any accuracy. Just ask Dan!

But all that aside, a smart lawyer would take the "blow out" feature and with little effort convince a jury (via an expert witness) that flickering bad enough to cause a new bulb to burn out could create unusual enough stress to rupture the bulb. I'm sure that's exactly how the bulb manufacturer's expert witness would testify in any case involving a bulb injury: The other guys did it! (-: There's no doubt the bulbmaker would be sued, too, if someone was seriously injured by an exploding bulb on a Wingding switch. That's the famous legal theory known as "sue ALL the deepest pockets."

I got the impression from both your experience with your LM14A and the Insteon-related posts that this type of switch-induced "burn out" occurs quite rapidly. I wouldn't want to be a lawyer faced with convincing a jury that a switch that causes bulbs to burn out within days, hours or minutes

Let's consider this. Would you agree that if a bulb is to fail catastrophically - in other words explode - it's more likely to do so when the filament fails than at any other time? Filament failure is the moment when the bulb is subject to an inrush current at least several times its nominal rating. Anyone who's examined a burned-out bulb knows that some filament failures are quite violent, causing flashbulb-like bright flashes, molten metal to splatter on the inside of the bulb, and, on occasion, the glass envelope to shatter. According to one website

So, if bulbs are most likely to explode when the filament fails and these switches are found to cause bulbs to burn out prematurely, doesn't that imply the user is exposed to more potential danger opportunities than they experienced before installing said "burn out" switch?

I'm sure you know that civil cases are decided on a preponderance of the evidence, not "beyond a reasonable doubt" as they are in criminal trials. A civil suit plaintiff doesn't have to proof *conclusively* that the switch contributed to the injury; they merely have to prove it was more likely it did than not.

I think SH should have suspended sales when that first 'blow out' messages appeared. They knew they had a problem but continued to ship the product. Bad move. Bad ethically and even worse for their reputation, I fear.

I've be re-reading some of the threads, searching for the message we both apparently saw regarding blown bulbs. Something that I didn't catch from the first readthrough was the comment from SmartMike: "We have found a field fix that is simple to apply to a problematic dimmer that has 'mild' flickering."

That implies there's more than one flavor of flickering. There may, as a result, be different sets of consequences for each.

-- Bobby G.

"Robert Green" wrote in news:pKSdnaiSEu-KdVjZnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@rcn.net:

You are really going off on the deep end here. It's one thing to claim a bulb burned out prematurely due to excessive flicker. It's completely ridiculous to claim that a switch, even a defective one, could blow up a light bulb in the manner you seem to be implying.

This whole discussion has gotten silly.

Hey Jimbo,

It happens in Hollywood every single day! Special effects!!

Like on TV: As soon as a car's tires leave Terra-firma - it explodes!

Right?

Car goes over a cliff, but long before it hits... Kaboom!!

Nobody's being silly here. We know these things happen... We ALL have seen TV and movies!

Jack ;-)

James Himmelman wrote:

The LM14A was killing bulbs in a matter of several weeks or a couple of months as opposed to the several years life I've become accustomed to since I started using X-10.

Exploding (standard household type) light bulbs are very rare and usually the fault of the bulb itself but I'm sure your lawyer will cite this precedent to prove they can indeed occur (although the bulb in question may not have been a standard household type).

As an aside, I have heard from some>I got the impression from both your experience with your LM14A and the

There's been some discussion about whether bulbs can explode.

I have seen bulbs used for TV set lighting explode, but they're certainly not normal household bulbs. I've never seen a household bulb explode.

I've seen high-intensity, commercial lamps explode but these draw 1,000 Watts and were installed behind a lens in a stage lighting fixture. On one occasion a bulb blew with a loud report that almost made the speaker at the podium in our church duck. There was a bright flash of light and a loud bang. He thought it was a shot. :^)

The two occasions I've seen this were both due to over-voltage. An error in the electrician's work allowed a common ground to "float". After a wiring change the circuit was accidentally fed 220 VAC in stead of 110 VAC. The result was quite dramatic. It took a little while (and two $30 bulbs) before we discovered what the problem was.

I know that flickering can cause premature burnout but I have not heard of it causing a bulb to blow though it may indeed be possible.

In my many years I have seen the glass envelopes on bulbs fail twice; once when a drop of water hit a hot bulb and once when a bulb was turned on for the very first time. Neither resulted in an "explosion." I am NOT concerned that the occassional flicker/flash phenomena will result in a shower of glass shards raining down in my living room. It is interesting to hear from so many experts who have never even the flickering problem or, for that matter, even seen an actual Insteon installation.

From a 50+ device Insteon user who KNOWS from experience, limited though that may be, here's the deal as I know it to be:

1. There is an occassional flicker problem on dimmed loads of greater than 200 watts when Insteon signals are received. The flicker will present itself about 70% of the time.
2. The flickering can be an annoyance in a busy system or completely unobtrusive in less active systems or those without larger dimmed loads.
3. The flickering results in a bulb briefly being brought to 100% intensity. There is and can be no "overvoltage" issue unless there is already an electrical problem in the home where more than 120vac is presented to the switch.
4. Nothwithstanding the imagined skills of an attorney to make a group of people too dumb to get out of jury duty believe otherwise, the flickering is not a dangerous condition and does not cause bulbs to explode.
5. Smarthome claims to have found a solution, is willing to honor all requests for replacements and is only shipping corrected units albeit some are modified post manufacture.

If you're not in a hurry, wait a month or two if you're concerned about the field corrected stock. Otherwise, if choosing between X10, UPB or Insteon, I can state from personal experience that Insteon has the most robust signaling.

You reminded me of the time our plant maintenance man wired two new eight foot fluorescent fixtures to 208 volts instead of 120. They were REALLY bright -- until we smelled smoke and turned them off.

Sounds like yet more Hypothetical Hyperbole.

Here's what *real* Hippo-talk sounds like in the wild:

While I agree in principal, I wonder how many pro Insteon installers there really are? Since software and hardware controller support has been fairly slow in coming, how does a pro handle the configuration?

I have around 30 Insteon devices installed and have never seen the flicker. I will probably follow Bruce's plan and swap when convenient or near the end of the 2 year warranty to get any improvements and the latest firmware.

Sounds like a pool party I went to recently!

Unfortunately, I feel you've missed the point of the discussion. Would it surprise you if I gladly agree that the risk of bulb failure from a faulty switch is extremely unlikely? What I won't agree to is that it's a *zero* possibility. That non-zero number is all a good lawyer needs to drag Smarthome into any bulb injury case where a defective switch was involved. I think it was an incredibly risky business decision for Smarthome to continue selling a switch they knew had ANY KIND of a design defect. If you'll allow me, I'll try to explain why:

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. 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?

How many years did the NASA experts say those foam panels just *couldn't* damage the shuttle? They said it up until seven people died in a foam-caused accident. It was 'ridiculous' to some that lightweight Styrofoam could break the space shuttle badly enough to cause a catastrophe. But the ridiculous became the very bitter truth when they did the actual testing and analysis and stopped relying on their "gut feelings" about what could and what could not happen.

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

If the expert somehow managed to claim on the stand it was ridiculous for a complex, new electronic switch to a cause a bulb failure, the lawyers would counter by asking, "Didn't maritime engineering experts pronounce the Titanic unsinkable before she sailed?" The more certain the expert, at least in matters like this, the less credible they seem to jurors. Why? Well because every juror knows that "stuff happens."

Juries believe that "mistakes happen" far more readily than they believe the claim "mistakes could never happen." If they show any signs to the contrary, the opposing counsel would cheerfully remind them of the all the world's Titanics, Three Mile Islands and other "impossibilities." Lawyers are found of saying "never say never."

More importantly, can you say, for sure, that bulb failure simply can't happen *without* looking closely at the switch internals, the schematics, the power line and wiring with tools like an oscilloscope? And if you made that claim, how credible would it be without running such a series of tests and studying exactly how bulbs fail, whether normally or prematurely, when connected to Smarthome switches?

If a client has been injured by a shattering light bulb connected to a defective switch made by WingDing then WingDing gets an invitation to the defendant's table. It's almost guaranteed in our legal system. I've seen enough civil suits to know that's how it works. The dragnet is cast. The first thing the bulbmaker would do if sued would be to search the net and Lexis for any lawsuits or admissions of defect by WingDing. They would do so in the strong hope of pointing the finger away from them and at WingDing , who they will loudly trumpet, sold "known bad" switches.

I've seen cases where a big manufacturing concern like a bulbmaker will pretend to be on the co-defendants side, but before court, will settle out and leave the little guy hanging. They do it both to avoid setting legal precedent and so that the public documents only point the finger at the remaining litigants like the switchmaker or the installer.

Companies like GE and Philips have pockets far deeper than a company like Smarthome. They can afford fairly big payouts to keep product liabilities out of the legal search engines. Little guys can't. Lawyers know that as soon as even one client prevails in a product liability case, the floodgates are opened. Ask Merck, the makers of Vioxx about that principle. They've set aside nearly a billion dollars to fight off the lawsuits they know are coming now that even a very few clients have won big verdicts.

Lawyers in a bulb injury case wouldn't be playing to electronically smart guys like you James. Believe it or not, we're *both* smart enough to know that catastrophic light bulb failures are NOT at all likely to be caused by defective switches. But lawyers work VERY, VERY hard to keep smart people like you OFF juries. They have their best luck with retired schoolteachers and homemakers, to whom they get to explain the problem according to strict legal principles and rules of evidence. Rules which often obscure the very truth of the matter.

If you, as a potential juror, ventured your opinion of switches blowing up lightbulbs being "ridiculous" at voir dire, you'd be outta there faster than an Insteon pulse. The truth is, by holding any opinion at all about what can cause bulb failures, you'd be stricken from the jury pool.

The jury would not be allowed to consult outside sources of ANY KIND on the subject of light bulb failure either. They would only be permitted to connect the dots they were shown in court. If you talked to your wife, the juror, about your theories of bulb failure and she told another juror, she would be removed from the jury and very likely the other juror as well. It happens EVERY day and if the jury contamination is bad enough, it's grounds for a mistrial. Judges take outside influences very seriously and will tell a jury several times during a trial to not consider any external sources of information.

To win their cases, lawyers LOVE to put out dots that really don't connect but that they are certain jurors can't help but join together anyway. I believe that's the case here.

If they got you on the stand, James, could you really say that a newly-designed, complex, multi-function light switch, connected electronically to all the house's other light switches, can't have some serious interaction where the loads are briefly subjected to extreme voltage spikes? They would ask you if subjecting a light bulb or fuse to voltage and current far outside the normal range isn't one way to cause serious physical failures of those devices?

Can you say for an absolutely certainty there is NO WAY for an electronic circuit, using any of the components in this newly designed, lightly-tested electronic switch, to accidentally provide more voltage to a lightbulb specifications allow?

Could you testify knowledgeably to the potential harmful effect of any filament vibration induced by the switch? Could you say for sure that switch couldn't cause vibrations serious enough to effect the seal between the base and the glass envelope? Their are plenty of reports in the field of X-10 dimmers causing serious and annoying buzzing. You'd have to explain why buzzing happens only with electronic switches and why that buzzing couldn't possibly weaken the bulb.

Isn't extreme overheating or vibration capable of inducing fatigue? Hasn't metal fatigue caused tails to fall off airplanes:

Hasn't unexpected metal fatigue causeed the hulls of WWII Liberty ships to crack in half?

Couldn't stressing the bulb in ways the manufacturer did not envision cause an envelope separation? Isn't any AC device with a capacitor and very little else able to produce significant voltage spikes?

A smart lawyer would take you over all those hurdles and more until you admitted that newly designed equipment sometimes has unusual, never-before-seen failure modes. If you remained intractable, they would paint you as the kind of engineer that allows shuttles to crash, ships to sink and tunnel panels to crush drivers. It's a no-win situation when there's an admitted defect in a product. That's why I think Smarthome screwed the pooch by not halting sales.

The lawyers may conclude by getting the expert witness to admit that the design engineers never meant for a flicker problem to get into the switches but it did, anyway. Then they will ask if some *other* design defect couldn't get by those same engineers as well - this one having to do with bulb failures. If the expert admits to one, and not the other possibility, they lose credibility. Even my second grade teacher could make that connection.

I wouldn't be calling it silly if you paid an electrician to install 25 or so switches that you'll have now have to pay him twice as much to take out and put back in. I'd be calling it angry. I'd wouldn't feel comfortable with defective switches deployed throughout my house if they accelerate the rate of bulb burnout. Less time between burnouts means more net exposure to burnouts and the possibility that one of those burnouts becomes a blow up.

Worse, still, *something* made Smarthome decide, after ETL had seen the new design, to stop selling unfixed switches and to fix all the switches in their possession immediately. That wouldn't me feel comfortable about owning older, 1st generation switches with the flicker defect, even if I wasn't seeing the flicker currently. I'd be afraid that ETL discovered something we're not aware of, but that was serious enough to motivate reworking the entire inventory. Do you think if Smarthome or ETL found another, more serious defect that they'd be singing it from their rooftops?

You don't have to shatter the bulb to cause serious injury. You just have to cause it to break from its base and fall on a hard surface. We have to remember that an electronic switch can also be a fire hazard all by itself if the components are not properly sized or the case is too small and heat can build up. We'll know soon enough what changes they've made. That's the great thing about the Internet. :-)

What's "silly" about this whole affair is that SmartHome would decide to put themselves, the installers who use their products and their customers at risk for a just few months' worth of sales. Someone's got their priorities wrong in upper management.

In my laymen's opinion (and it is only that, I am not an attorney) they've exposed themselves and others to serious liability. That opinion is based upon sitting through some pretty amazing trials in my role as a litigation support consultant. A smart lawyer doesn't have to convince *you* James, that a switch with a flickering defect can blow up a bulb; They have to convince *your* mother or *your* retired second grade teacher. Those are the people that sit on civil juries.

You can talk toroidal chokes, inductance, triacs and millihenries to my mother (and I'll bet plenty of other mothers who might end up as jurors) until you're blue in the face. All that non-techie jurors will understand is that your client sold switches they learned were defective in March until one day in July, when they suddenly (after an ETL review, FWIW) decided they had better fix them ALL before selling even another single switch.

I believe, from watching jurors get the thousand-yard stare when exposed to complex technical testimony, that's all the jurors will *ever* understand. Smarthome admitted there was something wrong with the switches but continued selling them for several months after they learned of the problem. Everything else will be yada yada yada Henry choked Millie. Civil awards don't depend as much on the pure facts as they do a non-technical jury's interpretation of those facts. Judgement for the plaintiff in the amount of $500,000. :-)

If you have any doubts about the power of a jury to both connect dots that don't connect and to disconnect dots that do, think "OJ."

-- Bobby G.