ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues 2011: Tamper Resistant Receptacles

According to the info I've read, approximately 24,000 ER visits for electric shock/burn injuries occur each year from receptacles being probed, poked or similarly prodded with metallic objects.

Most of these injuries are in children less than 4 years old. I didn't see any statistics on fatalities. Given the number of children in close proximity to electrical outlets, this is a pretty small number, but TR receptacles will lower it considerably (or so the thinking goes).

The TR safety curtain can be defeated, but not without some foresight and planning on the child or person who is attempting to do so. Sure, some kids will probably get shocked from a TR receptacle they have succeeded in defeating, but the toddlers and young children who try to stick a key or bobby pin in a hot socket will hopefully be saved from a shock or burn. Seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

Bigplanz,

I can see how at Lowes a box of 10 Tr receptacles are not expensive. However what happens if you don't have these big box stores nearby? The local supply houses can mark up those TR receptacles a lot and then the cost to install might be an issue.

As for when a house becomes full of children, shouldn't the parents of those children take responsibility for the well being of their own children? I know I had tons of those little plastic plugs in the receptacles when my children were growing up.

When are these kids going to learn about danger?
The world is a dangerous place but we are isolating our kids from it to the point that they have to go create danger, hence "extreme sports".
What ever happened to "don't do that". For some reason "no" has become a taboo word.

Of course parents are responsible for their children's safety. I say, "no" to my two-year old daughter 1,000 times a day, so believe me, I am aware of that issue.

A TR receptacle is a 'passive' device that is 'on' 24/7. It will deter/prevent/reduce the likelihood of a small child getting shocked/burned. The risk isn't 100% eliminated, but it is reduced significantly. To me, the cost/benefit ratio is well over on the 'benefit' side. When my daughter moved from her crib to her 'big girl bed' there was an standard outlet right next to her bed. I took it out, and put a blank face plate on it. When I replace it, at some point (no real need to now) I'll put a TR receptacle in.

You can't keep your child forever in a risk free environment. You can protect them from preventable injury, however, while at the same time rigorously teach them about the dangers around them.

Now if we could just make the tamper resistant toaster.

I suppose the T/R lamp socket will be next.

There is much to be said for a contray approach ...

Rather than try to make things 'kid proof,' would we not be better served making our kids 'house proof?'

It sure goes a long way toward being "Big Cruel World Proof"

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.

That is a lawyer problem, not a safety problem.

It's your problem, if you happen to be the electrician who gets sued.

"See, your honor, there really isn't a safety issue. Yeah, the kid got burned, but, you know, parents need to be more responsible. Society is taking this 'safety' thing too far. They only require these TR gadgets in the NEC because, you know, the influence of companies who make these things. There really isn't a safety issue, per se. It was just, you know, one of those things, the kid getting burned. You should be putting the parents on trial, not me."