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.

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