Fibaro liability query

[fergalmccarthy 5]

Let me paint a picture. I have a Fibaro HC2, a number of flood sensors and motorised values to shutoff water in the event flood being detected.

So basically, are Fibaro responsible if the flood sensor fails to send notification to the HC2 in the event of flood ( as is currently the case with beta ), and subsequently fails to shutoff the motorised valves.

[UrSv 6]

For most countries I would say of course not. The flooding is not caused by Fibaro nor do they make any claims to stop flooding. Fibaro detects the flooding, sends an alarm and you may choose to take actions based on that detection. Why would Fibaro be liable?

[fergalmccarthy 5]

I'm not saying Fibaro are liable for the flood, there is obviously water leaking for the flood sensor to detect the flood. What I'm saying is that if I configure a scene to shut off the motorised valves to prevent more damage and this does not occur, are Fibaro in anyway liable for failing to take the action that has been configured?

At present, in the beta version ( and this is not about it not working in the beta ), if you put the flood sensor in water, there is the audible alarm, but the HC2 does not get any notification of the event. So if this were to happen in the stable version, due to a bug or zwave engine issue and loss of connectivity that you are not notified about either, is there contributory negligence on the part of Fibaro.

At the end of the day, we are putting these mechanisms in place to not only make life easier, but also for safety, if that fails, who is responsible?

[Dalle1985 16]

You are. Unless you are paying a company for a service say "flood prevention" and they guarantee you won't have floods, they can not be held liable. This is the general law inside the EU at least.

Fibaro doesn't sell you flood prevention, they sell you a detector which registers water at it's contacts. What you use that signal for is your problem. Now had the device shorted and caused a fire, they'd be liable for damages caused by their product. But not because it failed to react to an unrelated event.

Also, even if they could be held liable, you would need to prove that the device didn't send the signal. You would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the device was the reason why the flood wasn't detected - and that it is a material fault - not because you maintained it wrong, didn't install it properly, hadn't changed batteries in time etc.

The only thing i can think of down this path, is if they have marked a device, i.e. a smoke detector according to a specific norm and the device then failed to meet these criteria - but again, the burden of proof will be on you.

[fergalmccarthy 5]

As I was thinking about this topic another thing occurred to me which I think needs to be a priority for the HC. For safety devices, such as smoke sensor and flood sensor, if it becomes a dead node or loss of communication, a notification needs to be sent.

I setup a two smoke sensors for my sister running 3.593 on HCL, however one keeps beeping indicating that its not communicating, however its not a dead none in HCL. So if your not there to hear the beep, how are you to know about loss of communication.

Surely for safety devices, or even any in the fibaro Alarm, they should send push notification / email if they are not communicating with HC

[hvb83 1]

Oh come on guys, these so called liability cases are getting ridiculous. If you feel Fibaro is failing to deliver what they made you believe prior to the sale, then you could have a case I'm sure. In that case I urge you all to contact your lawyer and have him arrange a full refund for all your costs and annoyance.

But please stop painting all kinds of what-if scenarios. These devices aren't sold as professional equipment that is designed to live up to the standards that KNX-systems are subject to. Furthermore you will never be able to prove that you haven't made a mistake somewhere in the installation that has caused this failure. It just makes you look kinda silly.

[JanJoh 1]

Let me paint a picture. I have a Fibaro HC2, a number of flood sensors and motorised values to shutoff water in the event flood being detected.

So basically, are Fibaro responsible if the flood sensor fails to send notification to the HC2 in the event of flood ( as is currently the case with beta ), and subsequently fails to shutoff the motorised valves.

Lets break this down, and lets assume there are no external factors such as radio interference etc).

Folks, we need to separate "responsibility" from "liability". They are two VERY different animals.

Please login or register to see this image.

/emoticons/default_smile.png" alt=":)" srcset="https://forum.fibaro.com/uploads/emoticons/[email protected] 2x" width="20" height="20" />

Is Fibaro responsible for the notification not reaching the HC2 if their code is buggy? Yes

Is Fibaro responsible for your notice not to appear on your device if their code is buggy? Yes

Are they responsible for the flood if their code is buggy? No.

Do they have any liability whatsover to you as a user for flood damage in this circumstance: No. No way.

Now, if you could prove that fibaro had the _intent_ preventing the notification.. well, then maybe.. just MAYBE you would have a valid gripe. But it would be a loooong and uphil battle to get any kind of compensation for compounded damages due to this action.

As for me, I installed a Water lock in my house. It will detect even dripping leaks and both alert me and shut of the water mains. Best of all: It is a solution APPROVED by my insurance company, it gives me a 75% discount on my deductable for any water related damages and "only" cost me something like €400. Then i added something like €150 for two remote detectors (dishwasher/washing machine) to allow them to run un-hindered even when the system is in the "guard" state.

Yes, I understand that the topic was hypothetical. But what i want to say by mentioning hte water lock is this: Use the PROPER tools for the task at hand. A HC2 is NOT the proper tool for anything involving actual security or similar.

[fergalmccarthy 5]

So what purpose do the Smoke Sensor and Flood Sensor have so, from what you are saying its none.

They are marketed as saving you from further damage once the initial issue is detected and the smoke sensor even has the fan turning on and window opening , do this not contribute to what you expect from the product?

[JanJoh 1]

So what purpose do the Smoke Sensor and Flood Sensor have so, from what you are saying its none.

They are marketed as saving you from further damage once the initial issue is detected and the smoke sensor even has the fan turning on and window opening , do this not contribute to what you expect from the product?

From an insurance point of view, they have no value (for me) as they are not approved.

I have smoke sensors wired into my actual alarm system. They are approved, rather stylish and even have temperature sensors.

And I will tell you one thing,mine last thing I want from a smoke detector is to START ventilation and OPEN windows. I would prefer the exact opposite.

Again, select the proper tool for the job.

[j.nowacki 5]

fergalmccarthy, our devices are part of Home Intelligence, not a certified alarm system. Hence FIBARO does not hold responsibility for any damage, like flood or fire. This topic is irrelevant to the development of community and therefore I am closing it.