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:

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.