Hamilton Beach 67601A Big Mouth Juice Extractor

SaferProducts.gov consumer incident report 20120316-1DD43-1238237. Matched catalog product: Hamilton Beach 67601A Big Mouth Juice Extractor. Source model text: 67601. Incident: The consumer wanted to express her concerns about her juicer as the a piece of the product very nearly struck her in the eye and the product began to smoke. The consumer was in the process of juicing carrots and apples in the upper portion of the juicer. While the consumer was holding down the juicer, one of the two plastic flaps on the top panel of the juice broke and the debris went up in the direction of the consumer. The plastic flap struck the consumer in the face, startling but not injuring her.

SaferProducts.gov consumer incident report 20170420-C699D-1655426. Severity: Incident, No Injury. Product: Hamilton Beach 67601A Big Mouth Juice Extractor (Big Mouth Juice Extractor). Incident: The submitter used the juice extractor on April 9 at approximately 7pm. On April 10, the submitter said he used the microwave to heat up milk for his daughter. The submitter and his family got ready and left the apartment as part of their Monday morning routine. He said the juice extractor was still plugged into the wall along with the microwave. The submitter said the microwave was not damaged from the fire and the outlet was not burned. A few hours later the submitter was notified that his apartment caught fire and he rushed to the scene. The submitter said once he arrived the fire department had put out the fire. He said the fire investigator provided him with the fire report (incident # 2017-004438) which states that the fire was caused from the juice extractor and the cause of ignition is unintentional. The submitter said his dog was in the apartment when the fire took place and his dog has smoke inhalation. The submitter made an itemized list of items lost during the fire and he states that it is approximately $50,000. On April 11, the submitter contacted the firm and informed them of the incident. The firm requested a copy of the fire departments report and he sent the firm a copy. The firm also told the submitter to leave the fire scene untouched. On April 17, the firm sent out [REDACTED], with SEA Limited to examine the fire scene. The submitter said [REDACTED]reconstructed the fire and sent his findings to the firm. The submitter said [REDACTED] was unwilling to provide his findings to the submitter per the firm's instructions. The submitter asked the firm for a c