Legal Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LEGAL CONTINGENCIES	LEGAL CONTINGENCIES 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. 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 March 31, 2014, the Company has a total accrual of 79 Brazilian Reais related to this matter ($35 based on current exchange rates), comprised of 60 Brazilian Reais recognized in the fourth quarter of 2010 ($27 based on current exchange rates) with an additional 19 Brazilian Reais recognized through March 31, 2014 ($8 based on current exchange rates). In 2010, Eaton filed motions for clarification with the Brazilian court of appeals which were denied on April 6, 2011. Eaton Holding and Eaton Ltda. filed appeals on various issues to the Superior Court of Justice in Brasilia. In April 2013, the Superior Court of Justice ruled in favor of Raysul. Additional motions for clarification have been filed with the Superior Court of Justice in Brasilia and an additional appeal is being considered. 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. 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. That motion was denied on June 9, 2011. On August 19, 2011, the Court entered final judgment of liability but awarded zero damages to plaintiffs. The Court also entered an injunction prohibiting Eaton from offering rebates or other incentives based on purchasing targets but stayed the injunction pending appeal. Eaton appealed the liability finding and the injunction to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Meritor cross-appealed the finding of zero damages. On September 28, 2012, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's denial of Eaton's motion for judgment as a matter of law, and let stand the jury verdict in favor of Meritor. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled that the plaintiffs' damages report was properly excluded, but reversed the judgment of zero damages and ordered that the District Court must allow plaintiffs a limited opportunity to amend the damages report, which may be re-considered for reliability and admissibility. Injunctive relief also was vacated. On remand to the District Court, plaintiffs submitted an amended damages report in which their expert opined that damages range between $475 and $800. On December 20, 2013, the District court ruled that the plaintiffs' damages expert could testify at trial and be subjected to cross-examination. The District Court has scheduled a jury trial for the second quarter of 2014. Eaton's damages expert opined that damages are zero. An estimate of any potential loss related to this action cannot be made at this time. Frisby Corporation, now known as Triumph Actuation Systems, LLC, and other claimants (collectively, the Frisby Parties) asserted claims alleging, among other things, unfair competition, defamation, malicious prosecution, deprivation of civil rights, and antitrust in the Hinds County Circuit Court of Mississippi in 2004 and in the Federal District Court of North Carolina in 2011. Eaton had asserted claims against the Frisby Parties regarding improper use of trade secrets and these claims were dismissed by the Hinds County Circuit Court. On September 25, 2013, the Mississippi Supreme Court issued an order that stayed all proceedings in the Hinds County Circuit Court pending further order of the Mississippi Supreme Court. On November 21, 2013, the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of Eaton's claims but did not lift the stay on all proceedings in the Hinds County Circuit Court. Prior to the stay, the Frisby Parties submitted various expert damage designations related to their claims to the Hinds County Circuit Court, claiming damages of at least $376. Eaton disputes liability to the Frisby Parties and Eaton's experts dispute the amount of damages claimed by the experts for the Frisby Parties. An estimate of any potential loss related to this action cannot be made at this time.

LEGAL CONTINGENCIES

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.

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 March 31, 2014, the Company has a total accrual of 79 Brazilian Reais related to this matter ($35 based on current exchange rates), comprised of 60 Brazilian Reais recognized in the fourth quarter of 2010 ($27 based on current exchange rates) with an additional 19 Brazilian Reais recognized through March 31, 2014 ($8 based on current exchange rates). In 2010, Eaton filed motions for clarification with the Brazilian court of appeals which were denied on April 6, 2011. Eaton Holding and Eaton Ltda. filed appeals on various issues to the Superior Court of Justice in Brasilia. In April 2013, the Superior Court of Justice ruled in favor of Raysul. Additional motions for clarification have been filed with the Superior Court of Justice in Brasilia and an additional appeal is being considered. 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.

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. That motion was denied on June 9, 2011. On August 19, 2011, the Court entered final judgment of liability but awarded zero damages to plaintiffs. The Court also entered an injunction prohibiting Eaton from offering rebates or other incentives based on purchasing targets but stayed the injunction pending appeal. Eaton appealed the liability finding and the injunction to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Meritor cross-appealed the finding of zero damages. On September 28, 2012, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's denial of Eaton's motion for judgment as a matter of law, and let stand the jury verdict in favor of Meritor. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled that the plaintiffs' damages report was properly excluded, but reversed the judgment of zero damages and ordered that the District Court must allow plaintiffs a limited opportunity to amend the damages report, which may be re-considered for reliability and admissibility. Injunctive relief also was vacated. On remand to the District Court, plaintiffs submitted an amended damages report in which their expert opined that damages range between $475 and $800. On December 20, 2013, the District court ruled that the plaintiffs' damages expert could testify at trial and be subjected to cross-examination. The District Court has scheduled a jury trial for the second quarter of 2014. Eaton's damages expert opined that damages are zero. An estimate of any potential loss related to this action cannot be made at this time.

Frisby Corporation, now known as Triumph Actuation Systems, LLC, and other claimants (collectively, the Frisby Parties) asserted claims alleging, among other things, unfair competition, defamation, malicious prosecution, deprivation of civil rights, and antitrust in the Hinds County Circuit Court of Mississippi in 2004 and in the Federal District Court of North Carolina in 2011. Eaton had asserted claims against the Frisby Parties regarding improper use of trade secrets and these claims were dismissed by the Hinds County Circuit Court. On September 25, 2013, the Mississippi Supreme Court issued an order that stayed all proceedings in the Hinds County Circuit Court pending further order of the Mississippi Supreme Court. On November 21, 2013, the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of Eaton's claims but did not lift the stay on all proceedings in the Hinds County Circuit Court. Prior to the stay, the Frisby Parties submitted various expert damage designations related to their claims to the Hinds County Circuit Court, claiming damages of at least $376. Eaton disputes liability to the Frisby Parties and Eaton's experts dispute the amount of damages claimed by the experts for the Frisby Parties. An estimate of any potential loss related to this action cannot be made at this time.