LEGAL CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2019
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. Insurance may cover some of the costs associated with these claims and proceedings. 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 2011, Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Company, Inc. (“Pepsi”) filed an action against (a) Cooper Industries, LLC, Cooper Industries, Ltd., Cooper Holdings, Ltd., Cooper US, Inc., and Cooper Industries plc (collectively, “Cooper”), (b) M&F Worldwide Corp., Mafco Worldwide Corp., Mafco Consolidated Group LLC, and PCT International Holdings, Inc. (collectively, “Mafco”), and (c) the Pneumo Abex Asbestos Claims Settlement Trust (the “Trust”) in Texas state court. Pepsi alleged that it was harmed by a 2011 settlement agreement (“2011 Settlement”) among Cooper, Mafco, and Pneumo Abex, LLC (“Pneumo,” which prior to the 2011 Settlement was a Mafco subsidiary), which settlement resolved litigation that Pneumo had previously brought against Cooper involving, among other things, a guaranty related to Pneumo’s friction products business. In November 2015, after a Texas court ruled that Pepsi's claims should be heard in arbitration, Pepsi filed a demand for arbitration against Cooper, Mafco, the Trust, and Pneumo. Pepsi subsequently dropped claims against all parties except Cooper. An arbitration under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association commenced in October 2017. Pepsi’s experts opined, among other things, that the value contributed to the Trust for a release of the guaranty was below reasonably equivalent value, and that an inability of Pneumo to satisfy future liabilities could result in plaintiffs suing Pepsi under various theories. Cooper submitted various expert reports and, among other things, Cooper’s experts opined that Pepsi had no basis to seek any damages and that Cooper paid reasonably equivalent value for the release of its indemnity obligations under the guaranty. The arbitration proceedings closed in December 2017. On July 11, 2018, the arbitration panel made certain findings and concluded that the value contributed to the Trust did not constitute reasonably equivalent value, but ordered the parties to recalculate the amount that should have been contributed to the Trust as of the date of the 2011 transaction. Based on the findings made by the panel and the recalculation ordered by the panel, Cooper believed that no additional amount should be contributed. Pepsi argued that an additional $347 should be contributed. Cooper and its expert disagreed with Pepsi’s argument and believed that Pepsi’s recalculation was flawed and failed to comply with the instructions of the panel. On August 23, 2018, the panel issued its final award and ordered Cooper to pay $293 to Pneumo Abex. On August 30, 2018, Pepsi sought to confirm the award in Texas state court, which Cooper opposed on October 9, 2018. Cooper further requested that the court vacate the award on various grounds, including that Cooper was prejudiced by the conduct of the proceedings, the panel exceeded its powers, and because the panel denied Cooper a full and fair opportunity to present certain evidence. The court confirmed the award at the confirmation hearing, which was held on October 12, 2018. On November 2, 2018, the Company appealed. On November 28, 2018, the Company paid $297, the full judgment plus accrued post-judgment interest, to Pneumo Abex and preserved its rights, including to appeal. On April 25, 2019, the appeal that Cooper filed was dismissed.

In December 2011, Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Company, Inc. (“Pepsi”) filed an action against (a) Cooper Industries, LLC, Cooper Industries, Ltd., Cooper Holdings, Ltd., Cooper US, Inc., and Cooper Industries plc (collectively, “Cooper”), (b) M&F Worldwide Corp., Mafco Worldwide Corp., Mafco Consolidated Group LLC, and PCT International Holdings, Inc. (collectively, “Mafco”), and (c) the Pneumo Abex Asbestos Claims Settlement Trust (the “Trust”) in Texas state court. Pepsi alleged that it was harmed by a 2011 settlement agreement (“2011 Settlement”) among Cooper, Mafco, and Pneumo Abex, LLC (“Pneumo,” which prior to the 2011 Settlement was a Mafco subsidiary), which settlement resolved litigation that Pneumo had previously brought against Cooper involving, among other things, a guaranty related to Pneumo’s friction products business. In November 2015, after a Texas court ruled that Pepsi's claims should be heard in arbitration, Pepsi filed a demand for arbitration against Cooper, Mafco, the Trust, and Pneumo. Pepsi subsequently dropped claims against all parties except Cooper. An arbitration under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association commenced in October 2017. Pepsi’s experts opined, among other things, that the value contributed to the Trust for a release of the guaranty was below reasonably equivalent value, and that an inability of Pneumo to satisfy future liabilities could result in plaintiffs suing Pepsi under various theories. Cooper submitted various expert reports and, among other things, Cooper’s experts opined that Pepsi had no basis to seek any damages and that Cooper paid reasonably equivalent value for the release of its indemnity obligations under the guaranty. The arbitration proceedings closed in December 2017. On July 11, 2018, the arbitration panel made certain findings and concluded that the value contributed to the Trust did not constitute reasonably equivalent value, but ordered the parties to recalculate the amount that should have been contributed to the Trust as of the date of the 2011 transaction. Based on the findings made by the panel and the recalculation ordered by the panel, Cooper believed that no additional amount should be contributed. Pepsi argued that an additional $347 should be contributed. Cooper and its expert disagreed with Pepsi’s argument and believed that Pepsi’s recalculation was flawed and failed to comply with the instructions of the panel. On August 23, 2018, the panel issued its final award and ordered Cooper to pay $293 to Pneumo Abex. On August 30, 2018, Pepsi sought to confirm the award in Texas state court, which Cooper opposed on October 9, 2018. Cooper further requested that the court vacate the award on various grounds, including that Cooper was prejudiced by the conduct of the proceedings, the panel exceeded its powers, and because the panel denied Cooper a full and fair opportunity to present certain evidence. The court confirmed the award at the confirmation hearing, which was held on October 12, 2018. On November 2, 2018, the Company appealed. On November 28, 2018, the Company paid $297, the full judgment plus accrued post-judgment interest, to Pneumo Abex and preserved its rights, including to appeal. On April 25, 2019, the appeal that Cooper filed was dismissed.