Commitments And Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Dec. 29, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Briggs & Stratton 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. On March 19, 2010, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada (Robert Foster et al. v. Sears Canada, Inc. et al., Court File No. 766-2010) 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. 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., Court File No. 500-06-000507-109). Both proceedings are based on various theories of Canadian law and seek unspecified damages. On June 27, 2013, the Company entered into a Canadian Lawnmower Class Action National Settlement Agreement (“Settlement”) that, if given final court approval, would resolve all horsepower claims brought by all persons in Canada who purchased lawn mowers in Canada during the class period (defined as January 1, 1994 through December 31, 2012), except certain specified persons. Other parties to the Settlement are Electrolux Canada Corp., Electrolux Home Products Inc., John Deere Limited, Deere & Company, Husqvarna Canada Corp., Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products N.A., Inc., Kohler Canada Co. Kohler Co., The Toro Company (Canada), Inc. and The Toro Company (collectively with the Company referred to below as the “Settling Defendants”). As part of the Settlement, the Company denies any and all liability and seeks resolution to avoid further protracted and expensive litigation, and the Settling Defendants as a group agree to pay an aggregate amount of CDN $4.2 million. The monetary contribution of each of the Settling Defendants is confidential. As a result of the Settlement, the Company recorded a total charge of US $1.9 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2013. The amount has been included as a Litigation Settlement expense on the Statement of Operations for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013. On September 23, 2013, the Ontario Court issued an order approving the Settlement. Subsequently, on September 25, 2013, the Quebec Court issued its own order approving the Settlement. The 30-day period for appealing each case expired without any appeals being filed. Accordingly, the Settlement is now final, all payments required by the Settlement were made subsequent to the end of the Company’s first fiscal quarter, and the involvement of the Settling Defendants in the proceedings has been terminated. 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, and on August 24, 2011 the court granted the motion and vacated the dismissal of the case. The Company then filed a motion with the court to appeal its decision directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, but the court denied this motion on February 29, 2012. On October 9, 2012 the court granted the parties’ unopposed motion for class certification. Discovery is underway in the case. 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

Briggs & Stratton 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.

On March 19, 2010, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada (Robert Foster et al. v. Sears Canada, Inc. et al., Court File No. 766-2010) 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. 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., Court File No. 500-06-000507-109). Both proceedings are based on various theories of Canadian law and seek unspecified damages.

On June 27, 2013, the Company entered into a Canadian Lawnmower Class Action National Settlement Agreement (“Settlement”) that, if given final court approval, would resolve all horsepower claims brought by all persons in Canada who purchased lawn mowers in Canada during the class period (defined as January 1, 1994 through December 31, 2012), except certain specified persons. Other parties to the Settlement are Electrolux Canada Corp., Electrolux Home Products Inc., John Deere Limited, Deere & Company, Husqvarna Canada Corp., Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products N.A., Inc., Kohler Canada Co. Kohler Co., The Toro Company (Canada), Inc. and The Toro Company (collectively with the Company referred to below as the “Settling Defendants”).

As part of the Settlement, the Company denies any and all liability and seeks resolution to avoid further protracted and expensive litigation, and the Settling Defendants as a group agree to pay an aggregate amount of CDN

$4.2 million. The monetary contribution of each of the Settling Defendants is confidential. As a result of the Settlement, the Company recorded a total charge of US $1.9 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2013. The amount has been included as a Litigation Settlement expense on the Statement of Operations for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.

On September 23, 2013, the Ontario Court issued an order approving the Settlement. Subsequently, on September 25, 2013, the Quebec Court issued its own order approving the Settlement. The 30-day period for appealing each case expired without any appeals being filed. Accordingly, the Settlement is now final, all payments required by the Settlement were made subsequent to the end of the Company’s first fiscal quarter, and the involvement of the Settling Defendants in the proceedings has been terminated.

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, and on August 24, 2011 the court granted the motion and vacated the dismissal of the case. The Company then filed a motion with the court to appeal its decision directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, but the court denied this motion on February 29, 2012. On October 9, 2012 the court granted the parties’ unopposed motion for class certification. Discovery is underway in the case.

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.