Legal Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LEGAL CONTINGENCIES	LEGAL CONTINGENCIES In December 2010, a Brazilian court held that a judgment obtained by a Brazilian company, Raysul, against another Brazilian company, Saturnia, which was sold by Eaton in 2006, could be enforced against Eaton Ltda. This judgment is based on an alleged violation of an agency agreement between Raysul and Saturnia. At June 30, 2011, the Company has a total accrual of 65 Brazilian Reais related to this matter, comprised of 60 Brazilian Reais recognized in the fourth quarter of 2010 ($39 based on current exchange rates) with an additional 5 Brazilian Reais recognized in 2011 ($3 based on current exchange rates) due to subsequent accruals for interest and inflation. The Company expects that any sum it may be required to pay in connection with this matter will not exceed the amount of the recorded liability. In 2010, Eaton filed motions for clarification with the Brazilian court of appeals which were denied on April 6, 2011. On July 1, 2011, Eaton Ltda. filed an appeal of this decision to the Superior Court of Justice in Brasilia. On October 5, 2006, ZF Meritor LLC and Meritor Transmission Corporation (collectively, Meritor) filed an action against Eaton in the United States District Court for Delaware. The action sought damages, which would be trebled under United States antitrust laws, as well as injunctive relief and costs. The suit alleged that Eaton engaged in anti-competitive conduct against Meritor in the sale of heavy-duty truck transmissions in North America. Following a four week trial on liability only, on October 8, 2009, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Meritor. Eaton firmly believes that it competes fairly and honestly for business in the marketplace, and that at no time did it act in an anti-competitive manner. During an earlier stage in the case, the judge concluded that damage estimates contained in a report filed by Meritor were not based on reliable data and the report was specifically excluded from the case. On November 3, 2009, Eaton filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law and to set aside the verdict. That motion was denied on March 10, 2011. On March 14, 2011, Eaton filed a motion for entry of final judgment of liability, zero damages and no injunctive relief. On June 9, 2011, that motion was denied. On July 8, 2011, Eaton filed a motion for interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, an estimate of any potential loss related to this action cannot be made at this time. Eaton is subject to a broad range of claims, administrative and legal proceedings such as lawsuits that relate to contractual allegations, tax audits, patent infringement, personal injuries (including asbestos claims), antitrust matters and employment-related matters. Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome or cost of these matters, the Company believes they will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial statements.

LEGAL CONTINGENCIES

In December 2010, a Brazilian court held that a judgment obtained by a Brazilian company, Raysul, against another Brazilian company, Saturnia, which was sold by Eaton in 2006, could be enforced against Eaton Ltda. This judgment is based on an alleged violation of an agency agreement between Raysul and Saturnia. At June 30, 2011, the Company has a total accrual of 65 Brazilian Reais related to this matter, comprised of 60 Brazilian Reais recognized in the fourth quarter of 2010 ($39 based on current exchange rates) with an additional 5 Brazilian Reais recognized in 2011 ($3 based on current exchange rates) due to subsequent accruals for interest and inflation. The Company expects that any sum it may be required to pay in connection with this matter will not exceed the amount of the recorded liability. In 2010, Eaton filed motions for clarification with the Brazilian court of appeals which were denied on April 6, 2011. On July 1, 2011, Eaton Ltda. filed an appeal of this decision to the Superior Court of Justice in Brasilia.

On October 5, 2006, ZF Meritor LLC and Meritor Transmission Corporation (collectively, Meritor) filed an action against Eaton in the United States District Court for Delaware. The action sought damages, which would be trebled under United States antitrust laws, as well as injunctive relief and costs. The suit alleged that Eaton engaged in anti-competitive conduct against Meritor in the sale of heavy-duty truck transmissions in North America. Following a four week trial on liability only, on October 8, 2009, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Meritor. Eaton firmly believes that it competes fairly and honestly for business in the marketplace, and that at no time did it act in an anti-competitive manner. During an earlier stage in the case, the judge concluded that damage estimates contained in a report filed by Meritor were not based on reliable data and the report was specifically excluded from the case. On November 3, 2009, Eaton filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law and to set aside the verdict. That motion was denied on March 10, 2011. On March 14, 2011, Eaton filed a motion for entry of final judgment of liability, zero damages and no injunctive relief. On June 9, 2011, that motion was denied. On July 8, 2011, Eaton filed a motion for interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, an estimate of any potential loss related to this action cannot be made at this time.

Eaton is subject to a broad range of claims, administrative and legal proceedings such as lawsuits that relate to contractual allegations, tax audits, patent infringement, personal injuries (including asbestos claims), antitrust matters and employment-related matters. Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome or cost of these matters, the Company believes they will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial statements.