Dear Ken:

Thanks for the response. I'll try to explain my question with a little more
detail. Please keep in mind I'm a technician not an engineer.

There are two types of smoke detectors commonly used in fire alarm systems.
The most popular is the photo-electric type. This SD has a round mat black
smoke chamber with an internal LED [light emitting diode] light source
pointing at the surface of the chamber and an internal light sensor
pointing at the same area. The light sensor cannot see the light from the
LED unless smoke, which reflects the light to the light sensor, enters the
chamber. Soot which is usually non-reflective black does not reliably
reflect light and therefore will not always activate the electronics and
relay of the SD. The second type of SD is of the ionization type. This type
of SD has a trace amount of radioactive material coupled to its electronics
which when in the presence of particulates of combustion activate the SD.
Ion type detectors respond quicker to the beginning or first stage of fire
whereas P/E type respond better to fire in its second stage. P/E SD's are
generally known to be more resistant to false alarms and are slightly more
expensive. The cheap battery powered SD's found in home supply stores are of
the Ion type.

In the article referenced I wondered if the alarm company had installed a
P/E type and if the soot didn't activate it would the alarm company have
faced a no-win law suit. Should we add language in the contracts item
wording with a "soot" disclaimer for P/E SD's and if yes what do we do for
the many units already in the field?

In the article referenced I wondered if the alarm company had installed a
P/E type and if the soot didn't activate it would the alarm company have
faced a no-win law suit. Should we add language in the contracts item
wording with a "soot" disclaimer for P/E SD's and if yes what do we do for
the many units already in the field?

As a side note, carbon monoxide detectors would also have saved the family
in the referenced article. The alarm industry uses these devices wired to an
alarm system. As there is no clearly defined criteria for the placement of
CO detectors as there is for SD's and HD's [NFPA] my company will not
install them. We recommend our clients purchase self contained units from
home supply stores to install themselves per manufacturers directions rather
than face additional liability for a low profit item.

Bill Bourdon

*****************
Answer:

     Dear Bill:
        My quick take on this is that there is always going to be "better and
more sophisticated" equipment available if the subscriber wants to pay for it,
and that's exactly the precise language I use in the standard security
contracts.  Like the issue whether you should specify that cellular back up was
recommended and declined, I hesitate to recommend that specific disclaimers be
used in the contract since the list could be endless.  The bottom line is that
equipment should be installed in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations
and in accordance with building and other code requirements, as well as
industry custom and practice.  It's when you go outside those lines, or install
in a negligent manner, that you are likely to suffer the consequences of
liability.  Though the contract language is designed to protect you, remember
that hard facts make for bad law, meaning that in particularly egregious
situations Judges may find ways to impose liability.