Commitments And Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Oct. 02, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies The Company is subject to various unresolved legal actions that arise in the normal course of its business. These actions typically relate to product liability (including asbestos-related liability), patent and trademark matters, and disputes with customers, suppliers, distributors and dealers, competitors and employees. Starting with the first complaint in June 2004, various plaintiff groups filed complaints in state and federal courts across the country against the Company and other engine and lawnmower manufacturers alleging that the horsepower labels on the products they purchased were inaccurate and that the Company conspired with other engine and lawnmower manufacturers to conceal the true horsepower of these engines ("Horsepower Class Actions"). On December 5, 2008, the Multidistrict Litigation Panel coordinated and transferred the cases to Judge Adelman of the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (In Re: Lawnmower Engine Horsepower Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 2:08-md-01999). On February 24, 2010, the Company entered into a Stipulation of Settlement ("Settlement") that resolves all of the Horsepower Class Actions. The Settlement resolves all horsepower-labeling claims brought by all persons or entities in the United States who, beginning January 1, 1994 through the date notice of the Settlement is first given, purchased, for use and not for resale, a lawn mower containing a gas combustible engine up to 30 horsepower provided that either the lawn mower or the engine of the lawn mower was manufactured or sold by a defendant. On August 16, 2010, Judge Adelman issued a final order approving the Settlement as well as the settlements of all other defendants. In August and September 2010, several class members filed a Notice of Appeal of Judge Adelman's final approval order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. All of those appeals were settled as of February 16, 2011 with no additional contribution from Briggs & Stratton. As part of the Settlement, the Company denies any and all liability and seeks resolution to avoid further protracted and expensive litigation. The settling defendants as a group agreed to pay an aggregate amount of $51.0 million. However, the monetary contribution of the amount of each of the settling defendants is confidential. In addition, the Company, along with the other settling defendants, agreed to injunctive relief regarding their future horsepower labeling, as well as procedures that will allow purchasers of lawnmower engines to seek a one-year extended warranty free of charge. Under the terms of the Settlement, the balance of settlement funds were paid, and the one-year warranty extension program began to run, on March 1, 2011. As a result of the Settlement, the Company recorded a total charge of $30.6 million in the third quarter of fiscal year 2010 representing the total of the Company's monetary portion of the Settlement and the estimated costs of extending the warranty period for one year. On March 19, 2010, new plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada (Robert Foster et al. v. Sears Canada, Inc. et al., Docket No. 766-2010). On May 3, 2010, other plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Montreal Superior Court in Canada (Eric Liverman, et al. v. Deere & Company, et al., Docket No. 500-06-000507-109). Both Canadian complaints contain allegations and seek relief under Canadian law that are similar to the Horsepower Class Actions. The Company is evaluating the complaints and has not yet filed an answer or other responsive pleading to either one. On May 14, 2010, the Company notified retirees and certain retirement eligible employees of various changes to the Company-sponsored retiree medical plans. The purpose of the amendments was to better align the plans offered to both hourly and salaried retirees. On August 16, 2010, a putative class of retirees who retired prior to August 1, 2006 and the United Steel Workers filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Merrill, Weber, Carpenter, et al; United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC v. Briggs & Stratton Corporation; Group Insurance Plan of Briggs & Stratton Corporation; and Does 1 through 20, Docket No. 10-C-0700), contesting the Company's right to make these changes. In addition to a request for class certification, the complaint seeks an injunction preventing the alleged unilateral termination or reduction in insurance coverage to the class of retirees, a permanent injunction preventing defendants from ever making changes to the retirees' insurance coverage, restitution with interest (if applicable) and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company moved to dismiss the complaint and believes the changes are within its rights. On April 21, 2011, the district court issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs filed a motion with the court to reconsider its order on May 17, 2011. On August 24, 2011, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion and vacated the dismissal of the case. The Company is seeking leave to appeal the court's decision directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of these unresolved legal actions or the range of possible loss, the Company believes the unresolved legal actions will not have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is subject to various unresolved legal actions that arise in the normal course of its business. These actions typically relate to product liability (including asbestos-related liability), patent and trademark matters, and disputes with customers, suppliers, distributors and dealers, competitors and employees.

Starting with the first complaint in June 2004, various plaintiff groups filed complaints in state and federal courts across the country against the Company and other engine and lawnmower manufacturers alleging that the horsepower labels on the products they purchased were inaccurate and that the Company conspired with other engine and lawnmower manufacturers to conceal the true horsepower of these engines ("Horsepower Class Actions"). On December 5, 2008, the Multidistrict Litigation Panel coordinated and transferred the cases to Judge Adelman of the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (In Re: Lawnmower Engine Horsepower Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 2:08-md-01999).

On February 24, 2010, the Company entered into a Stipulation of Settlement ("Settlement") that resolves all of the Horsepower Class Actions. The Settlement resolves all horsepower-labeling claims brought by all persons or entities in the United States who, beginning January 1, 1994 through the date notice of the Settlement is first given, purchased, for use and not for resale, a lawn mower containing a gas combustible engine up to 30 horsepower provided that either the lawn mower or the engine of the lawn mower was manufactured or sold by a defendant. On August 16, 2010, Judge Adelman issued a final order approving the Settlement as well as the settlements of all other defendants. In August and September 2010, several class members filed a Notice of Appeal of Judge Adelman's final approval order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. All of those appeals were settled as of February 16, 2011 with no additional contribution from Briggs & Stratton.

As part of the Settlement, the Company denies any and all liability and seeks resolution to avoid further protracted and expensive litigation. The settling defendants as a group agreed to pay an aggregate amount of $51.0 million. However, the monetary contribution of the amount of each of the settling defendants is confidential. In addition, the Company, along with the other settling defendants, agreed to injunctive relief regarding their future horsepower labeling, as well as procedures that will allow purchasers of lawnmower engines to seek a one-year extended warranty free of charge. Under the terms of the Settlement, the balance of settlement funds were paid, and the one-year warranty extension program began to run, on March 1, 2011. As a result of the Settlement, the Company recorded a total charge of $30.6 million in the third quarter of fiscal year 2010 representing the total of the Company's monetary portion of the Settlement and the estimated costs of extending the warranty period for one year.

On March 19, 2010, new plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada (Robert Foster et al. v. Sears Canada, Inc. et al., Docket No. 766-2010). On May 3, 2010, other plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Montreal Superior Court in Canada (Eric Liverman, et al. v. Deere & Company, et al., Docket No. 500-06-000507-109). Both Canadian complaints contain allegations and seek relief under Canadian law that are similar to the Horsepower Class Actions. The Company is evaluating the complaints and has not yet filed an answer or other responsive pleading to either one.

On May 14, 2010, the Company notified retirees and certain retirement eligible employees of various changes to the Company-sponsored retiree medical plans. The purpose of the amendments was to better align the plans offered to both hourly and salaried retirees. On August 16, 2010, a putative class of retirees who retired prior to August 1, 2006 and the United Steel Workers filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Merrill, Weber, Carpenter, et al; United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC v. Briggs & Stratton Corporation; Group Insurance Plan of Briggs & Stratton Corporation; and Does 1 through 20, Docket No. 10-C-0700), contesting the Company's right to make these changes. In addition to a request for class certification, the complaint seeks an injunction preventing the alleged unilateral termination or reduction in insurance coverage to the class of retirees, a permanent injunction preventing defendants from ever making changes to the retirees' insurance coverage, restitution with interest (if applicable) and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company moved to dismiss the complaint and believes the changes are within its rights. On April 21, 2011, the district court issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs filed a motion with the court to reconsider its order on May 17, 2011. On August 24, 2011, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion and vacated the dismissal of the case. The Company is seeking leave to appeal the court's decision directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of these unresolved legal actions or the range of possible loss, the Company believes the unresolved legal actions will not have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial position or cash flows.