Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Just when you thought you heard and seen it all, you get fooled:

http://www.chicagoinjuryattorneyblog.com/2010/04/libertyville_woman_files_cook.html

When FOX news first reported this, I couldn't help but think of the Kirby hair/head and pet massage tool which has always come standard with new Kirby vacuums.  The Kirby user claims she was under the bed vacuuming with the hose attached and the hose/wand came 'broke" apart and sucked off about 1/3 of her hair from her scalp.  A picture of the vacuum shows the lady's hair embbeded around and in the fan/shaft well of the Kirby.

Believe it or not.

Carmine D.

It could only happen in America!

CarmineD wrote:

Hi Carmine,

I have come across no picture of the Kirby but this story has been out for a bit.  Some of the reader comments at different spots I've sited this article at have not been, shall we say, empathetic.   It sounds a little odd.  Then again what can I say, a tree attacked my car once.

Please note that one article states that the hose connector broke.  This makes for a seemingly plausible argument though I can't conjure up a picture of the break.  Nonetheless, Kirby has a safety mechanism that normally won't let the machine run unless a cleaning head or hose connector is properly locked in place. 

On the other hand If this accident is supposed to have happened via the user end of the hose with a wand in place, her name has to be Rapunzel and she's got a boyfriend named Rumplestilskin.  Who else has hair that long?

Unless this is some kind of freak accident -- meaning the part off the hose connector broke without causing the machine to shut off -- Kirby still  states a warning in its manual, against allowing your hair or clothing to come in near vicinty of moving parts, I don't think she has much chance legally. Last thing I just thought of is that Kirby runs full speed when in attachment mode and that's loud,  Why would anyone have their head that near to one?

Venson

vacmanuk wrote:

GIve it abouit 50 years plus or minus a few and it will happen in the UK.  Isn't that about how long it took for political debating to catch on. 

Carmine D.

lol, but you guys still seem to have UFO alien abductions. We only seem to get UFOs sometimes..

vacmanuk wrote:

Not abductions [that's passe].  But UFO sightings are still a regular occurence.  

Carmine D.

Venson wrote:

Hi Venson:

That's the key question.  Product liability doesn't require products to prevent users from hurting themselves due to their own stupidity.  That's on the users.  The Kirby user, and her lawyer, argue that she was vacuuming under the bed, presumably causing her to get up close and personal with the hose, wand and attachment.  That's a bit far fetched.  Was she using the light of the vacuum to see under the bed?  Maybe and she and her lawyer might argue that view to make her case.  I don't buy it.  You and I vacuum under beds.  We don't physically get under the bed to vacuum.  We position ourselves on each bed side and vacuum as we normally do, up and down and/or side to side.  Perhaps she found a new way to vacuum under beds?  Kirby will argue in its defense that it's been making/selling vacuums and tools since 1920.  Never had this happen before, if in fact it hasn't.  First in my lifetime that I've heard and seen such a thing happen.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Hi Carmine,

I didn't know they even made modern beds high enough for you to get under anymore.  I haven't seen the like since I was kid.  I had a high appreciation for beds like that back then -- especially when my granddad was about to take out after me with a strap but, need for refuge past, I find them kind of ugly now.

I've cleaned under beds all my life.  You stoop, twist or lower the vacuum wand and guide it back and forth over the area you want to clean OR, if possible, you pull the bed out if you want best view of your work. 

We know the cleaner's suction could not rip off her hair and that the length of the hose alone wouldn't allow even long hair of expected length to come in contact with the  fan -- if that's what's being claimed.  As I said, if there were some sort of weird break in the hoses connector to the cleaner that would have allowed her hair to be pulled in and yanked by the fan or driveshaft.  Yet considering teh noise factor I can't fathom why anyone would have their head that close to a Kirby running full speed.

My feeling is that the reportage regarding this case is a little off and the matyter is not being presented as clearly as it could be.  The news reporters involved so far don't appear to know anything about the vacuum in question.  That might prove a plus point for the "victim" as l don't suspect that lawyers or judges know much about vacuums either.  Wonder if she knows the folks who claimed their kid had been carried off in a weather balloon last year.

Venson

The part in question on the 2000 Editon in the camplaint had a  Suction/Blower connector assy broken. But where it was broken I have yet to duplicate. Sure you can make a break in the hose but the break looked further back than that into where the heavy plastic is. Why would you be so close to the cleaner when you have a long hose and wands. My wife said it sounded stupid. But stranger things have happened.

                                                                                                         Procare

                                                                                                                                                                             

Venson, Procare:

When FOX news reported the story, Megan Kelly had two lawyers debating the matter.  Defendent and plaintiff lawyers.  One a woman [plaintiff lawyer], the other [defendent] a man.  Both were ill-informed on vacuuming under beds much less with a Kirby.  Megan, also a lawyer, served as facilitator.  She was not up on the matter either.  The man probably the least informed on vacuums and vacuuming of the 3.  He mentioned he had a HOOVER, and the Kirby suction must be much better to do this.  NOT!  So, what's the point.  Lady is asking $100,000.  She'll settle out of court for $10,000, probably what Kirby will pay to put the matter to rest rather than waste it's time in court.  My own opinion.  Is she entitled to anything?  Yes, to have the Kirby repaired free if it broke due to a defect.  Is this the case?  Remotely.  Did the coupling break off the vacuum.  Possible.  We have seen that happen.  But would that cause her hair to be ripped off from the scalp?  Defintely not.  If anything, the vacuum would turn off at that point.  $10K is a quick and dirty way to get the matter settled. 

Carmine D.

PS:  I can picture the lady, after the coupling broke off, getting up close and personal with the Kirby.  Even getting close enough to manually hit the attachment switch.  With her loose hair this close to the suction opening, it would pull off her hair from the scalp and clog/wrap itself around the fan/shaft well.  Is that her fault due to her stupidity?  Or a Kirby design defect?  We all know the answer.

I work with someone that actually has long hair and was vacuuming one day with a hoover.  She noticed something under her couch (don't remember what it was) and got down on the floor in front of the hoover while it was still running to pick whatever it was up. Her hair was drawn in by the beater bar. While it hurt and was a chore to reach the switch to shut the vacuum off, no damage was done to her hair. I don't think this woman has a case and I hope Kirby calls her on it. Even if the coupling did break, she probably kept running it into things while vacuuming with it on and caused a crack in it which eventually broke. I also have vacuumed under the bed with the attachment hose of a kirby, but  the kirby was never next to my head.

Sincerely,

Bud

budmattingly wrote:
Here, here! Companies like Kirby can argue the case - but in actual fact so can all brands - its the fault of the woman who obviously couldn't be ars** to move the vacuum out of the way. Mind you, there was an accident in the early 1980s in the UK about a woman I had read in a local newspaper where she was standing next to her Kenwood Chef with long hair and the beater caught a strand and she had to have all her hair cut off as it got caught up in the mixer. I guess she soon learnt her lesson!

vacmanuk wrote:

Hi vacmanuk,

Following is a link to the only video I have seen having something to do with the incident:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36876503#36876503

What is shown is that the entire front part of the Kirby hose connector is broken off.  Apparently the front of the connector broke off and the remaining piece stayed locked on allowing the machine to run.  (Look at the extension on the connector that applies pressure to the safety switch to the left of the suction port.)

I have never seen this happen before and I'd also ask the guys in the know here to stop the video and look carefully at the break plus the piece that separated.  The break looks very clean and therefore very odd.

Venson

Well I don't know anything about Kirby other than the fact that I have used a couple of the uprights - as an upright vacuum on carpets. I'd say though that it does show up the thought that if the hose connector doesn't stop the brush from moving at the front then it could be a design fault that Kirby need to look at. If the hose locks on at the front there's every possibility that the hose connector has become weak with age and the lock fastener has lot its lock rigidity or whatever abuse the hose has had in years of ownership then both the company and the owner will have to discuss ways in which an agreement can be reached.

I have however looked at this video again, but not at the section suggested by you, Carmine. If the news company reported this in 2010 and Kirby's release statement showing that the incident happened in August 2009, why are Kirby only getting wind of this now? Obviously the woman concerned has waited for her hair to grow back before her and her husband can take action but during that time Kirby could well have improved designs etc. Also aren't Kirby machines supposed to be regularly serviced? We're not told how long she has owned the model, whether she bought it second hand etc - see what I'm getting to here - it may be down to consumer negligence rather than the fault of the actual vacuum cleaner.

vacmanuk wrote:

The nozzle for upright use has to be detached from the motor unit to use the hose.  Originally, the hose locked on to a metal connector which also used an additional convertor for blowing.  To simplifiy things in later years the connecting piece became an all-in-one affair permanently attached to the hose that could be used for hooking up either for suction or blowing without a lot of fiddling around.

Kirby does suggest regular annual service checks but that would usually mean bringing in the cleaner itself without attachments other than the rug cleaning head.  Though they do/did have an ongoing rebuild option for fire damaged machines, I don't think Kirby does long-term warranty on attachments.  Normally if a vacuum hose, especially after more than a year of ownership shows damage, it is up to the user to have it repaired or replaced at his or her own expense.

Venson

This is very uncommon,

Never ever seen a clean break at that part of the machine hose end,It looks like someone has a personal VENDETTA against kirby, Or maybe owned stock in berkshire hathaway...........

The white substance around the convertor looks to be glue, Its possible that the end broke from being picked up or dropped while using the hose. Somethings wrong here.

MOLE

Yes but can someone tell me, if the hose is connected to the fan at the front, does it stop the brush bar from moving? Is it like the old Hoover Junior design whereby when the hose is fitted at the front, it removes the drive belt temporarily to stop the bar from moving or does the brush bar keep spinning regardless?

vacmanuk wrote:

You're confused.  In order to use the Kirby attachments, as Venson posted, the head nozzle with the brush roll, has to be completely removed from the Kirby vacuum.  Then, the user attaches an adaptor/coupling with the hose to the front of the Kirby over the fan shaft opening.  This coupling when installed on the machine opening engages a higher speed for attachment cleaning with the Kirby.

Carmine D.

Venson wrote:

Hello Venson:

Your original question is the crux of the legal mattter.  How and why did the poor lady get so close enough to the attachment suction opening on the Kirby to allow her hair to get sucked into the fan shaft opening?  That is the question without an answer now.  The case against Kirby and for the lady's credibility hinges on that question and the lady's answer. 

Not surprising that the lawyer waited this amount of time before suing.  As the lawyer said to ensure hair hair growth and scalp damage healed and is all back to normal before suing.  As Kirby stated the suit has not been served yet.  So Kirby is mum on the matter.  Lady's lawyer's comments lead me to believe he/she are both agreeable to an out of courst settlement.  While the break is abnormal, it is not entirely impossible.  $10,000 and a new Kirby hose/coupling should end the matter without the lady answering the Venson question.

Carmine D.

vacmanuk wrote:

Once the rug cleaning head is disconnected from the front of the cleaner -- which must be done, the plastic hose connector has two hooks that attach to the bar you see toward the bottom of the machine in the picture.  You would swing the connector upward and flush against the face of the  cleaner and pull down the latch above it to hold it in place. The little plastic "arm" would automatically align and press against the safety mechanism that allows electrical power to the motor AND also ups the motor speed for attachment use.

What you see in the picture is that the portion of the hose connector that locks on to the cleaner's face is still in place -- the latch is locked, the switch trigger is in place but everything else is broken off.  Therefore this machine can run off the main switch with driveshaft and fans exposed despite the rest of the connector being broken away.

Venson

Venson wrote:

Hi Venson, et. al. :

Originally, the FOX news report lead viewers to believe that the hose coupling breakage caused the lady's hair to be sucked into the fan shaft well opening.  Saying she was vacuuming under the bed when the hose/coupling broke off.  That obviously is not where she lost her hair as in under the bed.  Why?  The vacuum could not have been physically located under the bed while she was vacuuming.  Maybe close by.  Especially if she were using the light of the Kirby to see under the bed.  She may have been under the bed with the hose and wand attachments but when the hose and wands broke off, she came out from under or near the bed to see what happened to the vacuum.  Most persons' natural reaction after the hose coupling breakage is to shut off the vacuum.  She did not.  She investigated the break and got close enough to allow her hair to get sucked into the fan shaft opening.  Stupidity?  Product liability?  Both?  What percent for each?  If the lady's stupidity is more than 50 percent of the cause of the problem, by not shutting off the Kirby, she's entitled to nothing except a new hose and coupling if the Kirby is still under warranty.  If Kirby is more than 50 percent liable for a defect/design flaw due to the break, then Kirby is liable.  Will the lady's lawyer argue that this break in the coupling is to fault?  Either because of the break, or the inability of this break to shut off the vacuum, or both.  Most likely.  Will the lady's lawyer also argue that Kirby should have a clear written warning label on the Kirby machine to shut the power off if the hose coupling breaks/malfunctions.  Most likely.  So what have we got?   Out of court settlement?  That's my feeling. 

Carmine D.

I'm betting Carmine that Kirby's user manual probably warns about the hose and the vacuum being switched off, but we don't know any info of whether she actually brought the machine off Kirby. Do Kirby honour warranties for vacuums that aren't sold by themselves? Hoover UK has a habit of denying liability if their vacuums are not bought from a registered stockist.

vacmanuk wrote:

No.  There are often great deals for new Kirby and Aerus vacs on eBay and elsewhere but, per their web sites, both companies state that they will not recognize warranty in regard to new machines sold by unauthorized vendors.  This is their way of corraling buyers I guess.

To that I say, so what.  However, if warranty coverage is a big issue there's little you can do but go with the flow for the best price you can wangle.  What that is I do not know.  I recently made mention of having learned of being able to get a Lux Guardian at under the $1,000 mark to a Manhattan Aerus dealer and he nearly swore by all that's holy that that was impossible.  I didn't see the worth in arguing but there's a salesman I'd never trust farther than I could throw him..

Venson

CarmineD wrote:

Hi Carmine

Who knows how or why people do the things they do with their vacuums.......sometimes....the less we know the better off we are.

Only in America....sad but true.

turtle

So much for common sense!

compact wrote:

Common sense is very uncommon.

Carmine D.

Common sense in very uncommon because the public fool system no longer teaches the art of logical, rational thinking. It has been supplanted and subverted by policical correctness. Never mind the facts.

Trebor wrote:
MM like when Dyson took one of his own vacuums and decided to vacuum the lawn to find a ring that his wife's friend had lost.

Trebor wrote:

Common sense, manners, kindness, charity and the need for prayer get best results when taught at home.  Yet, sometimes it unfortunately takes a bad experience or two to get people to awaken as it were.  Example . . .

I was about eight or may a little beyond nine and my grandad was out on the tractor working in one of the back fields.  However, he'd put a pot of beans on the stove to cook slow, not uncommon, and be ready by dinner time.  He may not have set the burner on our electric stove quite low enough because in a while smoke started coming out of the pot. 

Mind you, I was a very bright country kid who was pretty good in school, loved to read and who knew how to do all kinds of practical stuff.  BUT I guess my thoughts could grow so lofty that sometimes the obvious could easily escape me.  I'd no problem realizing that something needed to be done and my snap decision was that, gee, I'd better tell my grandfather about this pronto.  I ran like a race horse all the way down to the field to get the old man but by the time we'd got back to the house the contents of the pot had caught fire.

Grandpa handled everything very methodically.  First, he turned off the stove, doused the stuff burining in the pot and then set it aside to let it soak to make cleaning out the charred beans easier.  Next, he came looking for me.  I got my behind blistered.  Why? Failure to exercise plain old common sense.  All I had to do was turn off the stove when the pot had first begun to smoke and there would have been no problem whatsoever.  The moral to the story is that sometimes it takes all that to make us do something very simple -- think.  Yes, I got the message but it didn't quite sink in.

School was out for the summer and I was home.  My grandfather had to drive into town but before he left the house he specifically told me that I was not to turn the TV on.  Well, I was bored and not at all pleased with the idea. "What the heck," I cleverly thought, "I'll just turn the thing on and then turn it off when I hear the car come up the driveway." 

As expected, about an hour later I heard the car, I jumped up, turned off the TV and sat down in our kitchen making a best attempt at looking innocent.  Who knew that the first thing Grandpa would do was walk into the living room and place his hand on the top of our tubed TV to see if it was warm?  Needless to say, things turned out for me exactly the same as they had over the bean incident.

Common sense says there are some things that there's just no getting round.  Thus, the woman with the Kirby had to learn the same the hard way as also a most unfortunate young man I read of who set himself alight while using a vacuum cleaner to draw gasoline from a motor vehicle.

Venson

Your grand father sounds like a smart man who was testing and teaching his grandson the lessons that can only be learned from the school of hard knocks.

Carmine D.