Legal Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 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, antitrust matters and employment-related matters. Eaton is also subject to asbestos claims from historic products which may have contained asbestos. Historically, significant insurance coverage has been available to cover costs associated with these claims. 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 September 30, 2014, the Company has a total accrual of 80 Brazilian Reais related to this matter ($33 based on current exchange rates), comprised of 60 Brazilian Reais recognized in the fourth quarter of 2010 ($25 based on current exchange rates) with an additional 20 Brazilian Reais recognized through September 30, 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. On June 23, 2014, Eaton announced it signed a settlement agreement with Meritor in the amount of $500 that resolved the lawsuit and removed the uncertainty of a trial and appeal process. On July 16, 2014, Eaton paid Meritor the $500. Frisby Corporation, now known as Triumph Actuation Systems, LLC, and other claimants (collectively, Triumph) 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 Triumph regarding improper use of trade secrets and these claims were dismissed by the Hinds County Circuit Court. On June 18, 2014, Eaton announced it signed a settlement agreement with Triumph in the amount of $147.5 that resolved all claims and lawsuits and removed the uncertainty of a trial and appeal process. On July 8, 2014, Eaton paid Triumph the $147.5.

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, antitrust matters and employment-related matters. Eaton is also subject to asbestos claims from historic products which may have contained asbestos. Historically, significant insurance coverage has been available to cover costs associated with these claims. 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 September 30, 2014, the Company has a total accrual of 80 Brazilian Reais related to this matter ($33 based on current exchange rates), comprised of 60 Brazilian Reais recognized in the fourth quarter of 2010 ($25 based on current exchange rates) with an additional 20 Brazilian Reais recognized through September 30, 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. On June 23, 2014, Eaton announced it signed a settlement agreement with Meritor in the amount of $500 that resolved the lawsuit and removed the uncertainty of a trial and appeal process. On July 16, 2014, Eaton paid Meritor the $500.

Frisby Corporation, now known as Triumph Actuation Systems, LLC, and other claimants (collectively, Triumph) 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 Triumph regarding improper use of trade secrets and these claims were dismissed by the Hinds County Circuit Court. On June 18, 2014, Eaton announced it signed a settlement agreement with Triumph in the amount of $147.5 that resolved all claims and lawsuits and removed the uncertainty of a trial and appeal process. On July 8, 2014, Eaton paid Triumph the $147.5.