One of the interesting issues that arise from improved (from a safety perspective) products or devices is the legal implication of NOT installing them. If, for example, an electrician were to install a standard receptacle instead of a TR, even though it was not required to install a TR by any code, and a child or other person was shocked or injured by pushing a key or screwdriver into the hot slot, that electrician could face legal action for knowingly installing a device that was 'less safe' that a similar device widely available and comparatively priced.
The court action/legal question he or she would have to face would be: "Why did you install a receptacle that you KNEW had been supplanted by a safer one that would have prevented this VERY injury?"
Good luck answering that one, fellows, if some child is dead. Answer: "Well, the TR isn't required, and, you know, costs 30 cents more, so, why bother?" Yeah, good luck with that one.
Chevy just got sued because they didn't install an emergency latch on the inside of the trunk of a Malibu. It's an 'option' on that car. Two kids got killed trapped in the trunk of a Malibu, now Chevy is trying to explain why a device that is on the market, that saves lived from EXACTLY this problem, is an 'option.'
They will lose their rear end, of course, and so would our hypothetical electrician in the scenario above.
Last edited by Bigplanz; 07/19/09 10:17 PM.
