# It had to happen! 50 lawsuits are pending...1.5mil awarded



## DaveHerron (Jan 21, 2008)

Apparently a jury awarded 1.5 mil to a man who was injured using a table saw without the flesh detecting technology that SawStop uses.

See the article


----------



## North40 (Oct 17, 2007)

Yeah, someone mentioned this before. What's next? Suing car manufacturers because they didn't include a governer that would prevent the car from going fast enough to get you hurt?


----------



## GFYS (Nov 23, 2008)

Hopefully this will result in only licensed proffessionals owning saws.


----------



## RedShirt013 (May 17, 2008)

I should've sued the company that made my bicycle. Last time I crashed no airbag deployed at all.


----------



## FirehouseWoodworking (Jun 9, 2009)

That's why 99% of lawyers give the others a bad reputation!


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

#@$%


----------



## SnowyRiver (Nov 14, 2008)

I hope Ryobi is appealing this. Maybe the saw manufacturers should get together and establish a defense fund for this crap. Leave it up to the lawyers. No wonder the country is falling apart.


----------



## reggiek (Jun 12, 2009)

What happened to taking responsibility for your own actions? Unless there is a severe quality issue with this particular saw?...it is well known that a saw is dangerous and capable of cutting through flesh…...If you buy and use a saw - you are taking your chances like anyone else.

I'm surprised that idiot did not sue god for making him so stupid that he would blame someone else for his own lack of intelligence….This kind of stuff is rediculous….and anyone that serves on a jury and awards these mental midgets money are just as bad as the plantiffs. Too many of them think that a company can afford to pay for the moron's stupidity so they make rediculous awards like this. That is why there are so few manufacturers making good tools for reasonable money…it is also why most of them locate overseas. All woodworkers end up paying for this with high prices and lack of choices…we really need tort reform.


----------



## NBeener (Sep 16, 2009)

It seems like the primary driving force behind this, and other similar, lawsuits … is the inventor of the SawStop technology.

It seems that he's been trying to "force" the other manufacturers to pay him for his technology, and implement it across the industry.

It might be appropriate that some of this resentment be pointed toward him.


----------



## Dez (Mar 28, 2007)

Whats next? A SawStop like device for handsaws?


----------



## SnowyRiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Yes, its a bad thing! Its the government telling us what to buy. If I am concerned about an accident, then I buy the most safe tool out there which most likely now would be SawStop. If I think I can handle safety myself, then I have a choice of what to buy. Maybe we should demand that all saws come with a suit of armor too so we can stop kickback, which I bet occurs more often that a cut.


----------



## JimmyNate (Mar 24, 2009)

Lawsuits like these are bogus. If the saw was not in compliance with the law or malfunctioned, fine, but the saw did what it was designed to do…cut. Don't be stupid and sue over saws that cut or coffee that's hot or some other product doing exactly what it is supposed to do.

But I'm glad I got a Sawstop. I doubt I'd have ever had an accident but ******************** happens and I like my fingers. Totally worth it. But, 'worth it' is a consumer decision, not a legal one.


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

*The fact that there are so many Lumberjocks who have table saw injury stories tells me all I need to know.*

I know that I sure as hell don't need a Sawstop.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

I agree that we should make tools as safe as possible. Does that involve forcing every manufacturer to install Saw Stop like technology NO! As much as I respect and like Saw Stop, this is a choice that we as consumers make. This isn't even an issue of ambulance chasing lawyers for me..even though it clearly is someone trying to cash in. It's about us as a society refusing to take the blame for our own actions. From the time we are kids we are programmed to blame other people for our mistakes and shortcomings…"Billy pushed me that's how the lamp got broken"..or "the teacher is a mean jerk that's why I got a D". Then when we become adults it still works for us.."McDonalds coffee was way too hot that's why I got burned" not that you were trying to drive and drink coffee at the same time. This type of thinking has risen to an absurd level, with people blaming their violent and psychopathic behavior on the fact that they were "abused" as a child…with the term 'abused" retaining all kinds of loose definitions. All the ridiculous lawsuits that get filed every day by unscrupulous lawyers and people seeing everything as a way to cash out….this country needs tort reform more than it needs health care reform.
This story reminds me of an interview I read a years ago in a woodworking magazine with the inventor of Saw Stop. He was saying he brought his idea to every major table saw manufacturer and they all told him the same thing..they didn't want to put it on their saws because it would be admitting that a table saw is dangerous. Who doesnt know that a table saw is dangerous? Just standing next to one when it gets flipped on your own human instincts tell you that there is a risk of injury. Common sense…..seems it's lacking and has been replaced by blame and litigation.


----------



## NBeener (Sep 16, 2009)

"Don't be stupid and sue over saws that cut or coffee that's hot or some other product doing exactly what it is supposed to do."

Please be careful when invoking the coffee/McDonald's case.

The facts are VERY different from what everybody seems to think, and go a LONG way to explaining both the underlying lawsuit AND the award.


----------



## Branum (Sep 23, 2009)

I am a huge fan of the SawStop technology. Can I afford a $3000 saw? No! Now has anyone sued because of an old saw that does not have a riving knife? I am fairly sure that the government has been involved in how manufacturers build the safety devices on these saws. So how can someone sue just because they are using a saw that does not have the technology that the government DOES NOT require the other manufacturers to use? This most likely will go to appeals and I would not be surprised to see it over turned, but, they have opened a big ol' can of worms. Watch the price of power tools start to skyrocket! The market for older refurbished tools is going to blow up.


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

It's time for me to put on my cape and my red, white and blue jumpsuit and fire up my Rigid table saw the one without the guard, splitter or riving knife. I'm not afraid to get bloody!


----------



## DaveHerron (Jan 21, 2008)

The problem is with the juries not with the lawyers. No lawyer would take this kind of suit to court if the jury award was only $100 but that never happens because a juror deciding on the case is hoping that they will be the next one to get the 1.5 mil. Greed, that is what it is all about.


----------



## DaveHerron (Jan 21, 2008)

>>>> I think there should be a comparison made as to the time it takes for an accident to happen and the time it takes for that Sawstop to work. I don't think there's anything that can shut down a spinning sawblade down in time to prevent an injury…. <<<<

I believe you are wrong here. I've seen YouTube video where someone pushed their hand into a spinning blade to see if the SawStop technology would work and the blade stopped and there was no more injury than a scratch. Of course if you fell on the blade you would probably be injured just like if you fell on a knife.

The big problem with the SawStop technology is that you liimit the types of material you can cut on the saw. Anything that changes electrical signature (not just fingers) of the spinning blade will cause the SawStop cartridge to fire and you will get to spend $100+ to replace the cartridge. Would you want that technology on you only table saw? I don't.


----------



## UncleHank (Jan 13, 2010)

On one hand the lawsuit is ignorant.

On the other hand I would like to see Saw Stop technology readily available in more saws. If I could have paid a bit more for my saw and got it with Saw Stop, I would have.


----------



## boboswin (May 23, 2007)

I'm whipping off one of mine while theres still time!
Got my house and car picked out already!


----------



## dbhost (Jul 20, 2009)

Fact #1. The SawStop technology is not fully mature.
Fact #2. All technologies have at least one point of failure.
Fact #3. Every single time somebody has made something "foolproof" there has been a new and improved fool.
Fact #4. I actually LIKE the SawStop technology.
Fact #5. SawStop prices their saws well out of my reach. A comparable Grizzly Contractor Saw, the GO661 10" 2 HP Contractor Style Table Saw with Riving Knife runs for $850.00 and features cast iron wings instead of stamped steel.
Fact #6. WITHOUT the abuse of the courts, I would be eagerly, and aggressively saving my nickels, dimes, quarters, and dollars for a SawStop.
Fact #7. The business tactic of suing to advance your products standing in the market is VERY unappealing. And I refuse to do business with companies that abuse the courts for their financial gain. If your product is better, let the market determine that, not a judge or worse, a jury.

Long story short, I would love to own a SawStop, but due to their use of litigation as a business strategy I cannot bring myself to give SawStop money, in turn then by their own argument, SawStop, and specifically Goss are putting me at grave bodily risk.

I need a lawyer!


----------



## rlwilson (Jan 21, 2010)

I agree that we should not be forced into buying a machine like this, however I do think every school shop should have one. And if I had a shop with marginally skilled employees I would have one.


----------



## PurpLev (May 30, 2008)

John - describe "a bit more"? I think somewhere between "a bit more" and the actual up in cost for a saw with this tech in it, is the problem.

tom1. DaveH - Gass himself was the one that put his finger to the test with the sawstop. however, during that demonstration his hand moved very very very slowly into the blade, which DOES INDEED stop in a split of a second, and his finger only gut a scuff… however, in a situation where a kickback occurs, and your hand is being pushed with force INTO the blade, I wonder if that split of a second really will be fast enough.

this is a good technology that most definitely will REDUCE injuries, but there are still a lot of nuances as to limitation of the technology, the specific of each case, each material (if you do turn off the tech to cut wet lumber - and you have an accident - can you sue sawstop? - wouldn't that be the same as this case right now)

so many speculations - and it alll all all boils down to politics. which - is a taboo subject here, and I agree.


----------



## UncleHank (Jan 13, 2010)

Purplev, I paid about $1000 for my saw (Grizzly 1023something). If there was one with SawStop for under $1500 I probably would have saved a bit more and gotten it instead.

I understand that's a 50% increase, but to get a SawStop branded comparable saw I would have shelled out $3000.

I wish we had some real numbers to throw around, but we don't… We can only speculate how much it would add to the cost of a saw to put SawStop on it.


----------



## TheDane (May 15, 2008)

If this case is not an argument for *tort reform*, I don't know what is!

Gee, who would have ever thought that a saw blade spinning at at 5000 rpm would be dangerous? Maybe I'll touch it and see how much I can collect!


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

I don't care what the corporations do or don't do. I don't need a Sawstop, air bags or seat belts. If my next saw has it and it's not to much of an inconvenience that's fine. I will do the same thing I do with most other safety devices and disable it if it's to annoying to bother with.


----------



## DaveP (May 6, 2008)

Unless the saw is proved to be defective, the case will be thrown out on appeal. Juries tend to side with the lesser parties, in this case, the person who accidentally put his hand in the way of a rapidly spinning peice of sharp metal, knowing full well it would cut him if he did.


----------



## dfletcher (Jan 14, 2010)

Hey, do they make "sawstop" technology for zippers? I bet a lot of guys would be willing to spend an extra $10 for their jeans to have this technology.


----------



## dbhost (Jul 20, 2009)

Dennis….

That's why I LOVE Levis 501s!


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

*Hey, do they make "sawstop" technology for zippers? I bet a lot of guys would be willing to spend an extra $10 for their jeans to have this technology.*

LOL!!!


----------



## Branum (Sep 23, 2009)

I see a lot of people comparing SawStop to seat belts and air bags. This is not a good or even a fair comparison. When driving a car, you are at the whim of everyone else that is driving a car. Just because you are the safest driver on the road does not mean that you will not get into a horrific accident. The opposite is true as well with bad drivers. They don't always get into accidents. How many of us here know people that you will not ride with if they are driving. With most of our home shops we are the only person in the room. We don't need to worry about the other idiot bumping into us. What we need to worry about is when the spouse is yelling at us because dinner is ready and the neighbors are over but we want to get the last 2 cuts done quickly. Oops there goes the thumb. I think Goss went about marketing his invention in the worse way. If you come up with a way to get 200 mpg on a F-350 duely you don't take the invention to the oil companies. Goss should have marketed his product to the users not the manufacturers. Then we could have demanded this technology on any new saw we buy. We are the market. We have the power to demand changes to our tools.


----------



## Branum (Sep 23, 2009)

Sorry one last post. Here is the video of the SawStop in action. They do a test which would simulate a real time accident when cutting a piece of wood. They use a hot dog instead of an interns thumb and the hot dog only got a scratch.


----------



## JohnnyW (Feb 7, 2010)

I can't understand what drives an engineer to develop such a fantastic bit of technology, and then not let people use it for what most people would say is a reasonable price. I think the patent system should be looked at to make sure he gets well rewarded, but can't hold the industry to ransom.


----------



## NathanAllen (Oct 16, 2009)

I buy a non Saw Stop table saw, remove the guard, splitter, pawls, refuse to use a push stick and just for the fun of it do free hand cuts on warped materials, I am injured and decide to sue because the safety features weren't permanent

I buy a Saw Stop table saw, disable to sensors since I'm cutting wet wood and am tired of paying for new breaks and blades, I am injured and decide to sue because the safety features weren't permanent

While a Saw Stop is still more safe than a table saw with only a guard the fact remains that table saws without their guards installed are responsible for most of the injuries.


----------



## richgreer (Dec 25, 2009)

Every car sold today has airbags in the front. Only a few have airbags on the side that activate in a side impact collision. So when I am hit in the side of my Sabaru (without side impact airbags) and I am injured can I sue Sabaru for not including a side impact air bag?


----------



## deeznutz (Feb 17, 2010)

Anybody with half a brain ought to be able to realize that there is some inherent risk involved with operating a table that has a high speed blade spinning at your poking up through a slot in the table. That's just common sense. I absolutely disagree with the way this case turned out.

The $100-$200 table saw you see at all the major big box stores that I'd guess 90% of construction sites use would be a thing of the past. The contractors have to start spending a lot more on equipment (it wouldn't stop at just saws…those nail guys should have have known that was my leg!), have much higher operating costs, and every American pays more to have their house built, bathroom redone, etc.


----------



## Tim29 (Oct 10, 2009)

I want to buy a Sawstop table saw, I really do. I think the technology is great. In the meantime, THEY ARE CALLED PUSHSTICKS. USE THEM.
When I watch most of the woodworking shows on television, there is usually a closeup of the carpenter with their fingers an inch from a cutting surface that is reshaping solid oak. What do they think is going to happen to their little meatloaf finger when it touches the blade. Even in the video on the link for this post, the Sawstop guy has his fingers way too close to the blade. And I know it is only to show off how quick the blade leaves but why does the blade have to be all the way up to cut 3/4" stock and a hot dog.
Seriously it can happen to you. sawstop came up with something great and I think that more tool companies should put this technology into all tablesaws, routers, jointers, and whatever else has a spinning blade. 
With that said, our sue-happy culture is a major part of what is wrong with our current state of affairs. This kind of lawsuit along with the person that sued because mcdonalds did not have HOT written on the side of a coffe cup and burned theirself, and all other frivolous suits are the reason our healthcare, cars, babysitters, insurance, and powertools cost so much. Companies have to pay these suits and the price gets passed to us. Where does plain common sense and accountability come into play. 
We all need to start playing a little more safely on our own or be content only being able to count to 9. 
I am now stepping down off of the soapbox.


----------



## bluchz (Mar 1, 2009)

Hey here's a thought we could all be millionaires (if i could spell) !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Give me a break u use something which comes with directions that i'm sure stated to not get hurt. Nothing is ever "my fault." what are we teaching ourselves!


----------



## NBeener (Sep 16, 2009)

"This kind of lawsuit along with the person that sued because mcdonalds did not have HOT written on the side of a coffe cup and burned theirself,"

I think people should be very careful, when invoking the McDonald's/coffee lawsuit in their arguments.

That case was more complex, and the facts far different, than what most people understand. Those who are familiar with the actual facts of that case … wouldn't hold it out as an example of runaway litigation….


----------



## NoSlivers (Dec 9, 2009)

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Airbags? I recall as a child riding around laying down in the back window of an old impala, not even seatbelts. Maybe my parents were sending a message, but I survived anyway. 
I must confess, I have also removed the riving knife from my tablesaw. That being said, I would consider purchasing sawstop technology, it seems like a sensible thing, but I resent being dictated what to buy. It contradicts our capitalist system, let the market decide.
This resembles cars that automatically parallel park for you. If an individual can't control their vehicle, I am not convinced that they should be driving. Is it a solution for laziness or lack of ability? Maybe just another example of Darwinism…. (sometimes a person exists merely to serve as a warning for others….)


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

OK Neil…that's the second time you posted that in response to somebody citing that ridiculous trend setting McDonalds lawsuit.So..I'll bite..please tell us about the mitigating circumstances that make us incorrect for using it as an example of why we need tort reform? Was the lid defective? Did the person not know that coffee is hot? Was the coffee pot turned up to a hotter temp than it should have been…C'mon we are all waiting….

Slivers …I'll tell you what happened to personal responsibility….LAWYERS…...GREED…..DEFLECTION OF RESPONSIBILITY… All these lawsuits flying around…it makes me afraid to drive my car. Accidents happen…and usually someone is at fault…peoples lives have been ruined by greedy people and ambulance chasing lawyers..


----------



## teenagewoodworker (Jan 31, 2008)

out of curiosity…

i used to use that same exact saw and looking at the construction. i don't see anywhere to safely anchor a device that would ram an aluminum block into a spinning blade without the whole machine blowing up. i think if all saws are required to have sawstop technology we'll see the end of under 1000 dollar saws. because you have to same some meat in the saw to be able to pull off a feat like stopping a blade with a block or aluminum.

also the reason why the owner charges for the patent is because everyone turned him down and laughed in his face. So he took the leap and designed this whole saw from the ground up and made a saw just as good if not better than most other saws on the market. imagine the leap it takes to do something like that. I'd be a bit bitter too. and even after that they still turned him down. why should he just open right back up to them. the reality is that sawstop is expensive. but its a good saw. its not like they're demanding ungodly prices for the technology. the saw is a beast as well.


----------



## lwllms (Jun 1, 2009)

I had a discussion with Steve Brown, head of North Bennet Street School's furniture program, about this. They haven't put a saw stop saw in the school because it would actually increase their liability unless they replaced all their saws. For some things, they need a table saw bigger than a 10" saw and 10" is as big as saw stop makes. They have a number of table saws there, several pretty new industrial saws, and it would be very expensive for a non-profit to replace them all. Replacing only some of them puts them in the position of having to defend the old saws while recognizing the new technology. They also either have to limit the capability of their shops and students by limiting them to a 10" saw or accept the increased liability of keeping their bigger table saws while appearing to endorse the new technology if they replaced their 10" saws.

If you look carefully at the edges of your plywood you'll find that some makers use very small diameter aluminum wire to secure veneers while assembling the laminations. These, especially when in contact with a hand on the outer edge will trigger a saw stop. It's pretty expensive to replace a cartridge on the saw stop and repair or replace the blade after the brake and retraction system have been triggered. If you own a saw stop be very careful what ply you run through it.

Who knows what will come of possible appeal of that law suit? I'm not sure it matters all that much but I think saw stop is making a huge mistake by being involved. They're also entrenching a lot of people out there against them.


----------



## russv (Sep 21, 2009)

let me start by saying there is enough blame to go all around. to start, i question the IQ of a certain group of twelve individuals that shall remain nameless.

then there are those with a vested interest. i have heard that there were those that took this concept to washington and tried to lobby congress to pass laws to force tablesaw companies to buy this technology. if true, thank goodness that failed. i find it hard to understand how one company (or person) should be allowed to sell any technology by force, and would be the only one who gets to.

now some are taking another route, the courts. this is just another attempt to force something on others for financial gain.

in my opinion, this is not about safety. it's about one simple invention being force on everyone else to profit a few for a single idea. if they cared about safety, they would be giving it away, at least to schools and such. instead, schools are paying extra. that being said, i believe putting these saws in schools is a very good idea.

the person who was injuried made a choice not to use a stopsaw.

more blame to come
russv


----------



## Padre (Nov 5, 2008)

Either side of this argument boils down to one thing: money.

Money for the technology folks or money for the lawyers/plaintiffs.

And Neil, I would like to see your proof of "It seems like the primary driving force behind this, and other similar, lawsuits … is the inventor of the SawStop technology.

It seems that he's been trying to "force" the other manufacturers to pay him for his technology, and implement it across the industry.

It might be appropriate that some of this resentment be pointed toward him."

That's a pretty bold and wide-ranging accusation.


----------



## surfin2 (Oct 24, 2009)

I blame all these idiotic law suits on the JUDGES…...


----------



## NBeener (Sep 16, 2009)

*Padre*:

Here's ONE article. It seems to be common knowledge within the industry … not that THAT, alone, makes something true

;-)

http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/editorials/bosch-tools-sawstop-lawsuit


----------



## yarydoc (Oct 16, 2009)

I think the Saw Stop technology is great and I believe it was invented by some very smart people. I have a couple of questions.
Why did the man put his hands in the cooler to get them wet? Was it to make sure his hand was wet and salty enough for the sensors to work? If our hands are covered with sawdust instead of water how much slower will the sensors work?
When the Saw Stop engaged all the guts in the machine flexed a lot. How many times could the shaft stand this before it warped or snapped off? If it did where would the blade go?


----------



## Betsy (Sep 25, 2007)

You have to remember - that the jury "awarded" so much. But what is not said is what the jury decided on comparative negligence. They could very well have said the man was 50% or more responsible. In most jurisdictions a finding of 51% negligence on the plaintiff (the one who is suing) bars recovery - negates any monies the jury awards. In other words - yep plaintiff wins-- but takes nothing home. The award is also decreased by whatever amount the jury decides the plaintiff is negligent. Say 10% - then 1.5mil minus 10%.

Same as with the famous McDonald coffee suit - it's not over by a long shot.

So what I'm saying is you all have valid points and opinions - but don't think that guy and his attorney is going to end up with $1.5 million. I seriously doubt it.

Just my two cents - spend it wisely.


----------



## hobie123 (Jan 28, 2010)

This is a joke, I have been around table saws most all my life and will be honest and say the first thing that gets chucked is the gaurd which gets in the way and always provided with the saw. It was my decision just like others to chuck the stinking thing and keep your fingers away. My father basically told me "dont touch that son" and the visual of lumber being cut like butter was enough to drive it home. This is a prime example of a individual making a mistake and relying on a manufacturer to correct it.

We walk among idiots everyday.


----------



## GFYS (Nov 23, 2008)

sawstop is BS…sure i saw the video of them testing it on a hotdog…slowly contacting the spinning blade which stops and barely scratched the dog. That isn't haw accidents on a saw happen. Take the same hotdog and drop it on the spinning blade from a foot above and see if the dog isnt cut in half. Thats the way accidents on a saw happen.


----------



## surfin2 (Oct 24, 2009)

We walk among educated idiots everyday.


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

..and they all think they know better then the guys using the tools.


----------



## Padre (Nov 5, 2008)

Neil, I knew if I asked you would come through! Thank you again!


----------



## LeeImbimbo (Dec 27, 2009)

While I can understand the sentiment (don't necessarily agree with the uninformed opinions, but I understand) that the lawsuit shouldn't award money to the person who injured himself, I think you guys are leaving out critical information in the judgement of how this case was awarded. What went against Ryobi is very similar to what happened to Ford with the Pinto. There was documentation that they were offered the Saw Stop breaking technology by it's inventors and they rejected it stating that they didn't think that it was a valid safety device. Basically, the juries response amounted to saying that the company made a decision to not incorporate safety features that would protect the consumer, and therefore should share in the responsibility of his injuries. It was no different with the Ford Pinto. Sure the car was manufactured in such a way that when rear ended it had a tendency to ignite the gas tank, but there are any number of ways in which a car can cause major injury in an accident. Most cars aren't even really crash tested much about 50mph even though the average highway speed in the nation is 70. What really stuck it to Ford is #1 that they knew that it was a safety issue, #2 choose to actively ignore it, #3 even had documentation that stated they thought the profits were worth the risk to the consumer. This case with the tablesaw is not really that different, we just think it is because as woodworker's we recognize that a tablesaw is a dangerous piece of equipment. Not to mention all of our are operating on limited information, and making a lot of assumptions on how this actually went down. Until you read the entire transcript of the case you don't really know all the facts that were disclosed, that ultimately influences the judge or jury into making their decision. Ask yourself, if it was revealed in the course of the case the Ryobi purposely designed a saw that was more unsafe than other saws on the market, and chose to leave the consumer's safety an issue in exchange for profits would you still side so vehemently with the, or would you start to think that they shared some responsibility. So first, get all the facts before jumping to conclusions.

Second, the irrational attack on lawyers doesn't really make any sense either. You arbitrarily attack the lawyer as being the person who is at fault for a judgement that you don't agree with, when in reality the lawyer was just doing his job. When you hire a lawyer it is their job to represent you to the fullest extent of their abilities. It could actually be grounds for disbarment if a client could show that his/her lawyer did not adequately represent them. Besides it isn't the responsibility of the lawyer to pass the judgement anyways. It becomes the responsibility of the judge and/or jury who is the one that actually pass the verdict. If you disagree with the judge than lucky for you in almost every state you could vote, in some form or fashion, in a way that would influence the kind of judge that is in place. However, every judge is subject to review and must uphold the letter of the law, whether they agree with it or not, and are only allowed a narrow window in which to interrupt what kind of sentence or damage will be awarded based on the verdict for the alleged wrong doing. So once again you are attacking people that work within a system to the best of their abilities to represent their various clients. In this case the plaintiff's lawyer who is upholding their legal obligation to represent their client to the best of his/her ability, the defendant's lawyer who is also legally bond to do the same, or the judge and/or jury who is/are legally obligated to uphold the laws within the bonds set by the people. The people by the way are you and everyone else that posts on this forum (well as long as your reside in the United States). Sadly, the majority of us don't vote, or even take much care to take part in the very politics that would influence how our system is run and interrupted by the very professions that some of your feel the need to attack on this forum.

I'm not stating this because I'm personally trying to attack you, but I feel like this country needs people to stop sitting on the side lines and complaining about a system that they often choose not to take part in. Most people don't really know how our system works, and don't care to really look into it, so they choose to find scape goats and blame people that they see as being the fault of the industry, when in fact those people are only living up to their obligations. Besides can any of you that complain so vigorously about lawyers truly say that they would want their lawyer to have the ability to make a personal decision in the middle of their case to not fully support their client. If your lawyer decided that he would take you on as a client, he has an obligation to fully represent you OR refuse to take the job. But for a lawyer to undermine a case, rather than recuse themselves from it, is not only wrong, but unethical.

As for this case, all of you could look at the extremely bright side. The inventors of SawStop, from what I understand, did not have the original intention of make their own tablesaw. Rather they originally tried to license the use of their invention to several manufacturer's who all turned them down. This then put them in the business of making their own tablesaw, and hopefully soon bandsaws. However, with a verdict like this you might see SawStop technology become much more widely use, and therefor cheaper to implement, and much much more available to everyone. I'm sure most of us that could afford to purchase something on the scale of a SawStop have thought well you know I like the braking technology, but maybe I like a feature on this other saw aswell. Well now it is likely that you won't have to choose between that feature you like on Saw 'A' because you are concerned about your own safety.

Please take my post as a cry for people to stand up and become active members of our democracy. I want for everyone with all points of view to become incredibly engaged, seeking out more and more information for how our system works and how to change it. Because as the founding father's of the United States knew, only with an educated and engaged electorate will a country really work for the betterment of all it's citizens. When people disengage in a democracy that system quickly devolves into one which is easily corruptible to the detriment of the people. The truth about democracy is that we won't all agree on how the system should be run, but we work together to make it one in which we can live in together.

Oh and please stop claiming the country is somehow going down the tubes in some nostalgic belief that life was somehow better in the past. We live in a golden age, in which medicine, science, philosophy, art, and well just about everything is better than it was even for our parents, and definitely for our grandparents. Societies are becoming more inclined to negotiate and integrate with each other to work out solutions amicably rather than through warfare. Just looking at the internet as a great example, twenty years ago most of us would not have access to such a valuable resource that would allow us greater access to each other, and increase the overall flow of data/information and connection of people that we see and have today. While there are plenty of problems that need to be addressed in our country, these are not somehow abnormal for any country in any given period of time. There will always be issues that the country needs to resolve, and issues in which the people need to become involved to work out society's problems. That is why healthy democracies are such a great form of government, because they allow for the dynamic flow and ever changing appearance that is humanity, were as most other systems are static and often not very responsive to the ever changing world around them.

<<<<< Steps off his soapbox.


----------



## NBeener (Sep 16, 2009)

*Lee*:

Excuse me, but … could you please repeat that?



Well said!


----------



## surfin2 (Oct 24, 2009)

Talk about educated idiots…

http://facesoflawsuitabuse.org/2007/12/drycleaners-discuss-54-million-pants-lawsuit/

http://facesoflawsuitabuse.org/poll/


----------



## dusty2 (Jan 4, 2009)

*LEE:*

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to tell me. Lawyers are not required to take on cases but if they do they are responsible for having made the decision to have done so. Therefore, lawyers are somewhat responsible.

I agree that the SawStop technology is brilliant. What I would like to have seen is for this technology to have simply been put into the market place and let the consumer be the judge. If it is to good, the market would have ruled and we would all be on a waiting list for a new table saw. On the other hand, Gass and his merry band of three lawyer friends would own a patent and greatly diminished bank accounts.

I fear for what is happening to this society of ours.

In the meantime, I shall continue to make sawdust without the benefit of high tech, expensive safety devices. My saw guards, push sticks and blocks, safety glasses, riving knives and some good common sense HOPEFULLY will safe me from self destruction. Thank God that my mother taught me that stoves are hot and knives are sharp and my father taught me that hitting my thumb with a hammer hurts and should not be done more than once.

But most of all I am thankful that when I fail to practice those common sense safety practices and I get maimed for doing so - it is NOT YOUR FAULT. I will not attempt to sue you.


----------



## zzzzdoc (Mar 6, 2010)

We have a devise supposedly designed to eliminate intraoperative awareness in anesthesia. Never been adequately proven to work with controlled studies. That being said, the manufacturer sponsors movies, TV shows, web sites, etc… all with the express purpose of bullying us into using the device by scaring the crap out of patients. Many, many hospitals have bought them. And it's a lot more expensive than a SawStop. So I truly understand how many of you feel regarding the concept of lawsuits bullying other manufacturers into using SawStop technology.

That being said, I have made a good living over the years reattaching fingers from table saw accidents. It's money I would have gladly passed up. I've also seen many fingers unable to be reattached, and many patients missing parts of digits. Now I know that many of you are saying, "I've been doing this for 30 years and have never had a problem." It's also what I always hear from the patients before surgery. The accident is always their first time.

I'm on my way today to buy a SawStop. Yes it's crazy expensive. But I view it as insurance. I'm the breadwinner for my family, and they need me to have all 10 fingers. I'll save somewhere else and gladly spend the money on safety. I buy safe cars too, it's me. Training from my profession where you can't be too safe.

Anyway, my $0.02 and perhaps a different perspective.


----------



## Tim29 (Oct 10, 2009)

I'll tell ya whose fault this really is. DaveH. Thanks alot for stirrin' up the hornets! LOL


----------



## LeeImbimbo (Dec 27, 2009)

You are implying that the lawyers should serve some roll that they are not ethically supposed to take on. It is not the roll of the lawyer in our society to take on the position of arbiter of our society's disputes. Their roll is only to act in the position of legal council, and advise their client to the best of their ability about how the law might be interrupted in their particular case.

We in our society set up the system of courts to act as the grounds for how we settle our disputes, no matter how irrational. We do this because it is far better, far less costly, and more amicable a device for resolving problems amongst the various members of our society, NO MATTER HOW IRRATIONAL. Lawyer's do not, and should not take on the roll of defining what cases are valid, because you are then leaving the decision of validity not up to the system of laws for which we as a people have agreed to, but rather up to the personal opinion of a single person.

This is why I'm saying that you are scape-goating lawyers, by claiming that they have some responsibility for deciding what cases go to trail. While yes a lawyer can say upfront that they do not wish to take on a client because they feel that their belief in the client's claim could adversely affect their ability to manage the case, it shouldn't be up to the lawyer to decide whether a case truly has any real validation. Also I'd once again like to point out that you DO NOT have all the facts in the case, and are making judgements based on personal opinion. This will inevitably leave you in a position of not understanding why the lawyer took on the case, why it is that a judge thought is was valid, and why it is that a jury felt that the plaintiff deserved the settlement that they got. Meaning you don't have all the facts so we should reserve judgement until you have them.

People often like to blame lawyers, in my opinion, because they do not really understand the way the system works. I hear it a lot particularly in a murder trail in which the majority of people feel that the defendant was guilty, but somehow got off. Oh that stupid lawyer, when in reality the lawyer was simply holding up their legal obligation to defend their client to the best of their ability. It ultimately is the decision of the judge and or jury, who as I have stated before are often only making a decision that is based on the confines of the law that is available to them, and therefor limited by the very law that is set up by our representatives, which are voted into office by us the people. So in effect if you disagree with how a law is interrupted in the court, you really could look right at yourself (using you in a plural sense, meaning all citizens), because it is we the people that supposedly take part in our system of government (in most cases at an appalling low turn out rate), that elect our representatives, that in turn write our laws, that are in turn interrupted by our courts.

On another note, while I'm not sure about this, I have only read two articles involving this particular case, and in neither one was Gass mentioned as having any involvement in the case what so ever. The only mention of him, was that he felt vindicated that his technology was mentioned in the case as being able to help stop these kinds of accidents. Admittedly I'm running on shallow information, but from what I've read it would appear that Gass was interviewed for the purposes of the article and was simply happy that his product was getting good publicity, not that he was somehow masterminding the cases against these various companies.

On the issue of it isn't my fault it is yours, in our society. Well you seem to be only pointing the finger at the individuals. Let's just take our simple tool manufacturer Ryobi here. What is and isn't their responsibility? In a larger context, manufacturing companies constantly skip out on their responsibilities to others, leaving everything from consumer safety, to environmental damage, to labor law abuses in the hands of we the tax payers to some how clean up. Just on the subject of environmental damage, the citizens of the United States of America spend literally hundreds of billions of dollars a year cleaning up the damages left behind by companies that strip mine the iron ore used in our tools, the minerals and various other materials used in the paints that coat the body of the saw, and the waste that the manufacturing plants produce. Many people in the United States and around the world suffer from toxins put into our drinking water, food, and air by such manufacturing processes. Before the United States started putting in some legislation to limit these actions it was many many times worse. Many manufacturers, once again I'm not sure about Ryobi (because I haven't done the research on them specifically, I'm simply speaking generically), arbitrarily push the health of the other citizens of their host country aside in exchange for profits totaling in the billions if not trillions per year. In a society were we the people continually feel that the government, is doing nothing to prevent these companies from doing this, and that the companies seem to have a callous disregard for the safety of others, can you truly say that it isn't the people feeling that they only have one last avenue for justice in our society, that being the courts.

Once again you are claiming some nostalgic statement like people are turning into a society of blaming others, but the fact is that it is getting better. Our society is simply waking up from the long nightmare of corporate oppression that has lead to many many horrendous abuses upon everyday individuals who are otherwise powerless to settle the score. So please don't think that it is these horrible horrible individuals beating up on these poor poor companies that are somehow defenseless against the onslaught. In many ways our society is feeling like the courts are their only chance for seeking real opportunity for real change and justice. I would also like to point out that for every one of these cases that lead you and I to discuss the issue of fairness or not in a verdict, there are hundreds if not thousands of others that never get past the starting gate, much less make it to trail, so it's not like there isn't balance in the system, people simply like to cherry pick out the ones that justify their case and use it to rationalize an often irrational argument.

As for your decision to operate with our without safety features that is a different matter. Courts, judges, and juries are often surprisingly fair about trying to decipher blame, because as with many civil cases there is rarely a clear cut line. It is often some fine line that the judge and or jury have to decide how it falls based on the evidence presented to them for review, and how the law will allow them to pass down a verdict. Do remember that in a jury based trail if the jury hands down a verdict that is not supported by the law than it is the judges responsibility to step in and overturn the verdict and dismiss the jury because it failed to live up to law in which they were confined to. So once again we get down to the law being the final arbiter, and the law is defined by we the people through our representatives. So often in cases such as this the jury has to weigh all the evidence before them against the law and then decide how it is that they chose pass down their verdict. This often leaves them in a instance of trying to assign blame. I'm sure that if they thought the vast majority of the blame was with Ryobi that the settlement would have been closer to ten million, but they probably (not sure, because I don't know all the facts of the case) did weigh in that the consumer had a responsibility too, so that is why the settlement was only 1.5 million.

I'm simply asking that people stop jumping to conclusions about the fate of our society, or how bad and horrible things are without knowing all the facts. Most of the early posts on this matter seem focused on simple statements that are founded in an emotional response to a single article read in a newspaper or on the web, and not in any real judgement of the facts presented in the case that would have cause the jury to deliver the verdict it did.

Once again I urge you and all other citizens of our great country to step up and educate themselves about and engage our government, so that we can work together to make a better country for all of us to live in. Our country only works if you take ownership of it as a citizen and as a citizen you have the burden of needing to spend a lot of time engaging your society.

<<<sorry for soapboxing again, this is a complicated subject matter and often simple statements cannot explain nor properly resolve it as an issue.


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

*and not in any real judgement of the facts presented in the case that would have cause the jury to deliver the verdict it did.*

I know the facts (as you have presented them) now and my opinion is that this is nothing other then a BS lawsuit and a good example of why we need tort reform. I look forward to this poor decision by the jury being overturned by a higher court.


----------



## Brian024 (Feb 2, 2009)

I think the saying that guns don't kill people, people kill people can very much relate to this. Did the saw just up and cut his hand? I think there are a lot of variables that could contribute to why this happened, was he using the guard/splitter, was he using a push stick. I would not be suprised if table saws would evetually need a certified/liscense person to buy, like a gun. If you buy one privately, then that's your risk.

My teacher at schools preaches that ever accident is preventable, which is very true.

Why are we blaming Ryobi for this guys stupidity? They may low end cheap affordable tools, you should know that when you are buying one, they won't have the latest and greatest in technology. Would you buy a Aveo or a Corvette?

As far as ALL saws needed the Sawstop technology, that is a bit far. Like Dennis said, if it was required that would probably be the end of the below $1000 saws, which I think would chase a lot of hobbyists away. I was looking at my like $170 saw yesterday and came to the conclusion that if I had that technology on there, then a lot more than the brake and the blade would be ruined. Most of the cheaper saws cannot handle a violent impact like that.


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

I wonder what the percentage of accidental cuts are compared to cuts made on table saws .0000000001 maybe?


----------



## DonOtt (Jul 10, 2009)

Yup, first thing I thought of when I cut my thumb in November is 'I'm gonna sue the pants of my tablesaw manufacturer. It's their fault I lost concentration and got cut! Why didn't take 'stupidity' into account when they built it? In fact, I'm going to sue HD as well for selling the damn thing to me!!"

*sigh*


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Lee I have to disagree - as has been mentioned - lawyers both Choose what cases to take, and in many cases advocate lawsuits, coloquially known as "Ambulance Chasing". So Attorneys are responsible for DRUMMING UP many of these cases.
that being said
What I see missing here is that the person who was injured, probably felt the same way most of us do about taking responsibility, or at least he did before he got bit.

But i picture something like the following: this guy likely doing flooring installation on the side, or whle between jobs for cash (hence the crappy tools for a professional vs. hobbyist). Is cranking along like has has thousands of times and gets cut.
However he likely had no insurance, and so he gets the bill for the microsurgery etc,and the fact that he has screwed himself up permanently - may have seen this as his only option.

I don't condone this, and speaks to the declining moral character of our society, but if you are out of official work, have mouths to feed and the Hospital has put a lien on your home….would you take the lawyer up on his offer to sue, and only be paid on contingency?

Would you take a NO money out of pocket lawsuit to keep your home and family? I am sure he recognizes that his injuries are his own doing…but what did he have to lose by filing suit?


----------



## LeeImbimbo (Dec 27, 2009)

Keep in mind that there is a drastically different level of government requirements, mandated by OSHA, for equipment used in the professional sphere of work, that is not at all mandated on the level of hobby level tools. It wouldn't be the end of cheap tools, at most it would simply require that on the professional level a job site manager or owner would have to provide his employees with a safe environment and safe equipment. This is little different that let's say the air born dust requirements mandated by OSHA on professional contractors.

As for us hobbiest well we will probably get little more than the cigarette label put on a big fat label on the box of the cheap tool we buy.

"Warning Tablesaw may cause serious harm to the user, do not use if you are drinking, pregnant or could become pregnant as a result of using said saw. Do not inhale tablesaw, as tablesaw can be a general body irritant. If your body comes into contact with any of the mechanical or moving parts of your tablesaw please consult a physician as this may lead to Hot Dog fingers. Please read all safety instructions before operating your new intrisically unsafe saw."

You know something comically funny like that.


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

I was once working on a hospital addition in Boulder Colorado. I was framing on the steel stud crew and had been using Hilti's and Ramsets for many years. Our foreman came by one day and pulled the entire crew off the job and marched us down to the parking lot where the Hilti van was parked. The Hilti guy (about a 20 year old college guy) opened the side door of the van and setup a folding card table. He put a Hilti and a couple of charts on it and began a 15 minute speech. We then all got to shoot a pin into a short piece of red iron I beam that was sat on the ground. After we fired the pin we all got a business card sized license signed by the kid in the van that now made us much safer and legal to do our job.

Although the guy had no experience and had never done our job that special card made us all safer and we could now legally operate the tools we already personally owned. He didn't own one himself, it was just a job he got out of the local newspaper.

*Al*, This sawstop crap is the same type of BS.


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

LOL *Al,* hell no I'm not suggesting anyone made anything up. I am stating that this Ryobi lawsuit is absurd. I don't need a sawstop and I doubt if you do either.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Question for Abbot

Which saw should the local high school buy? Saw Stop or Unisaw?

You know the 15 year old that just got a learners permit and certified himself as bulletproof. No one can guarantee the Sawstop 100% of the time, just as there are instances where someone drives into a tree and the airbag doesn't go off. But how do you justify NOT spending on the technology for a classroom?

Brings in a second potential concern…..If the new generation starts being taught (poorly) with a Saw Stop, because it 'saves us from ourselves'...........What does that person do on a jobsite w/o those protections in place


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

*Which saw should the local high school buy? Saw Stop or Unisaw?*

*Dave*, I don't care which one they buy. I don't think they should be able to file a lawsuit if they cut themselves.


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

*Abbott,

Nobody neads a SawStop … until the first time they do, at which point you need it rather badly.*

*Al,* I don't need a sawstop and if I do cut myself then it's my own fault, not Rigids.


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

You don't need one either.


----------



## JimmyNate (Mar 24, 2009)

This is hilarious, thanks Lee:

"Warning Tablesaw may cause serious harm to the user, do not use if you are drinking, pregnant or could become pregnant as a result of using said saw. Do not inhale tablesaw, as tablesaw can be a general body irritant. If your body comes into contact with any of the mechanical or moving parts of your tablesaw please consult a physician as this may lead to Hot Dog fingers. Please read all safety instructions before operating your new intrisically unsafe saw."--Lee


----------



## Thumper (Jul 10, 2009)

It would certainly be nifty if other adults would let other adults play and let us take responsibility for our adult actions. I certainly understand that if I take a known risk, I am the only person that can be blamed if bad things happen.


----------



## oldbill (Aug 18, 2009)

I think it's all been said. 
Just one question, if not too personal, Lee, what is your occupation?


----------



## dusty2 (Jan 4, 2009)

oldbill, are you thinking that he sounds like someone in the legal profession. That was my first though. Somehow I doubt that he is a serious woodworker. Maybe I am wrong on all accounts. Sure hope he sets me straight.

But, even then, if I was going to buy a $3000.00 table saw, it would probably be a Unisaw. I have wanted one of those as long as I have been making saw dust. I just don't have the space.


----------



## LeeImbimbo (Dec 27, 2009)

Trying to be an architect, hopefully I'll finish all my exams by this summer. I'm currently in partnership with my father running an architecture firm out of Texas.

I also fancy myself a political activist that works towards the amicable engagement of our citizenry to try and deal with the issues of our society rationally, rather than yelling and screaming at each other in a nonsensical fashion that will resolve nothing. I want real an honest debate in our country over the real issues that face us, not irrational arguments that only serve to cloud the minds of individuals and lead to uneducated decisions as to how our country should work. That only through an educated and engaged electorate will we have a real democracy that works to resolve the ever present and always changing dynamics in our culture.

But I'm sure you were expecting me to say that I was a lawyer =D.

Oh and once I get my tablesaw completely restored, aligned, and put back together I hope to beable to call myself a woodworker again. Right now my tablesaw is in pieces becoming unrusted, realigned and recalibrated, so I think I'm being more of a mechanic rather than a woodworker =D.


----------



## HokieMojo (Mar 11, 2008)

i was wondering why my "*Wonderful - Man sues Ryobi and HD because he cut himself on the saw*" thread was no longer getting updates on the "Pulse" page.


----------



## JasonIndy (Dec 29, 2008)

To find Ryobi at fault it's safe to assume they would have to have been found at the least negligent. If this technology had been offered for free and they had turned it down that's one thing. Look at the price point of Ryobi products, an extra $150 makes them incredibly uncompetitive. They must have made some incredible arguments to convince a jury that Ryobi not including a safety device that would have driven their table saw out of the market was negligent.

While some people may see this lawyer as having his/her hands tied, or worse yet, answering to some higher calling, methinks the law firm that ran with this one saw a class-action suit in the making. Lawyers make significantly more after being granted class-action status than, oftentimes more than what is awarded to the initial plaintiff. I spend a fair amount of time (too much, probably) around lawyers at work and they ALWAYS have the choice of whether or not to take a case or defend a client. Many defense attorneys will refuse to defend alleged murderers, child molesters, rapists, drug dealers, etc. Justice Antonin Scalia put it best when he referred to the 'overlawyerization' of our country. This is one that never should have seen a courtroom. At the same time, it's up to the judge to decide whether or not the case was even heard. I'm sure he/she got some campaign funding from the State Trial Lawyer's Association, which is the only plausible explanation that comes to mind. As for the jury? No excuses there, that could have just as easily been 12 of us. Yikes.

I think Sawstop is great, but to force this technology on everybody else is unAmerican (yes, I said it.) Table saws will still be capable of causing serious bodily injury or death, whether it's from kickback or a failure of component safety devices. Until they invent a robot that feeds the wood through the machine for you while you wait in the next room table saws will continue to be dangerous.


----------



## LeeImbimbo (Dec 27, 2009)

Well the idea of not being able to label someone unamerican is well UNAMERICAN. You by default must be a communist, facist, marxist, pig dog, nazi if you want to take away the right to call someone else unamerican. Oh and don't forget I represent the real america, everyone else isn't really american =D

....please that that as a joke =P.


----------



## JasonIndy (Dec 29, 2008)

Thanks for the clarification, our local judges here are elected. Though I would point out the person who appointed the judge is elected, so all you really have is a degree of separation.

I say unAmerican because reading through the protoolreviews article, it certainly seems that this technology is being forced upon the power tool industry. Sure it's a floating concept, but I don't define our way as being the government mandating this or that to the extent that it drives companies out of business. To add insult to injury, evidently the founder of the technology is a patent attorney (big surprise) who was asking for an 8% commission on EVERY table saw sold. Patent royalties are very rarely, as in never, higher than 3%. Here's an article that paints the guy in a favorable light, but you know what, if he was that benevolent he wouldn't have done it the way he did. 8% of EVERY table saw sold in the country, just imagine what that would add up to. I don't think it's a stretch to assume this would have to be added to miter saws, band saws, etc. A lot of good companies would probably not be able to remain competitive. I say live and let live.

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20050701/disruptor-gass.html#

So is my table saw going to be illegal then? You laugh, but I had a friend who's father owned a lumberyard here in Indy. They closed back in the 80's but the EPA retroactively sued him years later for violating environmental protocols that weren't even in existence when he owned the business.


----------



## JasonIndy (Dec 29, 2008)

Point taken, I figured that might ruffle a few feathers. I work for the government so I tend to get hypersensitive when I see them doing stupid things. I apologize to anybody who was made to feel unAmerican. You can call me unAmerican if you want. You're entitled, we're all just here stating opinions, right


----------



## LeeImbimbo (Dec 27, 2009)

See this is the kind of debate I like to foster. I want people to really talk about the subject matter in front of them, not just scream and complain about a disagreement that they may or may not have truly researched.

As you can see by discussing things rationally we can even begin to delve in to more issues of our society, as they tend to be intertwined. While I haven't read it yet, the article you present on Gass may very well present the kind of data necessary to show that he is indeed trying to manipulate the system, or it may not point in that direction at all. But for the sake of debate if Gass were trying to manipulate the system, that it is an appropriate conversation to have about how we in society feel about this kind of potential manipulation, by either him or others throughout our country. If we were going to really push the envelop we would discuss options for how we might modify the law of OUR SOCIETY to address the concern that we have, and then we could lobby either or state governments and federal governments in such a way that might very well modify it.

I personally would love to see that kind of discussion. One that would really show citizens of a country coming together and trying to take the reigns of a country that most have long sense put down.

Plus rational debate elevates the conversation to one in which we show our mutual respect for each other as citizens rather than devolving into what most forums do, which is irrational name calling, that often does not lead to any real resolution.

If you haven't guessed by now I'm a firm believer in an engaged citizenry, one that makes the government, not one that feels disenfranchised and therefor turns to arguments of less government for less government sake. The government is what we make of it. And a real democracy of the people will be one that works for it, not one that people are constantly feeling the need to reject =D.

Besides as hobbiest and professionals alike there are a lot of concerns that we need to take on. Without proper environmental regulations, and sustainable management of our forests we may very well get to the point were we have no wood for which to mold, form, and shape into the very art we all love. We all want good quality tools, that work accurately, and hopefully safely, so that is another issue that we should as a group be actively engaged in. So as you can see there are many issues that are of great importance to all of us. Some of them might be handled through legislation, other's could simply be managed by social awareness, but all of them require social engagement so that they can be brought up as issues and hopefully resolved.

Debate on….but above all debate intelligently and with respect for each other =D.


----------



## MadBeaver (Jan 21, 2010)

Ok, I get that we should wear seat belts  But why should we be told by the law? Now here we are again! Now was this person doing things he / she shouldn't be doing with the saw is another thing. When I talked to a Saw Stop rep I asked him why can't you adapt this to other saws. The response was NO we aren't doing that. I wonder if "they" are now making this adaptation.

I have done a lot of reading about saw safety as I am new to WW. So I wonder if you have a saw with a proper splitter, riding knife, and shield, and all things set up correctly, would it have stopped this accident from happening? Hmmm, hard to say.

Personally I have created an imaginary red box around my saw blade which is approximately six inches square. I do not enter that area except if I have a wooden stick, or the machine is turned off and the blade is stopped.

Good article…let's keep talking about this and maybe changes will come.


----------



## gerrym526 (Dec 22, 2007)

Reminds me of a news story that happened about 20 years ago in the "ambulance chaser capital of the world"-Chicago.
There was a bus accident in the downtown area, and the police arrive to find that people had opened the emergency escape windows of the bus-not to climb out, but to climb in! Everyone wanted to be a plaintiff collecting big awards from the Chicago Transit Authority for their whiplash injuries!
What a country!
Way too many lawyers!


----------



## JasonIndy (Dec 29, 2008)

I'm right there with you Lee. I think it's a great debate and it's been a boon for a lot of the woodworking publications. I have a hunch there's a lot of money going around, though, and that's why a lot of these publications might be taking an anti-Sawstop stance. Nevertheless, the facts look rather damning for Gass.

When you speak of an engaged Citizenry, I think this is looking to be the antithesis. If people were that scared of power tools they wouldn't use them. I don't think this should be mandatory technology. So what happens when there's a Sawstop failure? Heck, the third-party manufacturers could turn around and sue Sawstop because their customers were delivered a product with flawed technology. If I was Bosch or Delta or Powermatic, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with manufacturing the additional hardware so at least that leaves you an opening. Now, then again, considering that in the end we are all paying for those table saw accidents with the way healthcare is working, lol, who knows…


----------



## dennis (Aug 3, 2006)

I do have two cents…but in this economy I better keep them.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

But on the Ryobi deal it was a 3% royalty and that is on wholesale not retail price.
so that 500 dollar saw, which would be 300 wholesale means he would rake in 9 bucks…I guess I don't find that so outrageous!

General costs - the Saw Stop is 3000 bucks.
New Delta Unisaw on Amazon
Delta 36-L352 3 HP 10-Inch Unisaw with 52-Inch Biesemeyer Fence System by Delta
Buy new: $3,299.00

So the new Unisaw is 300 dollars more than Saw Stop…..If this addition is going to be so costly to add on, why isnt the Delta Cheaper? The Saw Stop is very well made, I think the Marc Adams School has 8 or 9 of them and going strong.

Hence my original question to Abbott….if you are a school and going to have 5 periods of highschoolers ~20 at a time, so 100 hormonal teens every day rolling through, how could you justify buying a more expensive saw that lacked the safety features? The liability of the tool companies has been discussed before, but when Little Billy cuts off a finger, what are your courtroom chances, when you paid an extra 300 bucks and avoided buying the saw that 'Represents the best chance of NOT injuring someone'

There is risking your own safety, but what would the defence be to NOT select this for a School?


----------



## DaveHerron (Jan 21, 2008)

SawStop is China built, Delta Unisaw is US built


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

I took my wife to lunch this afternoon and as we sat at our table at the Olive Garden my wife began fiddling with the salt shaker. I said to her "Careful honey, in New York they might arrest you for putting salt on your food". I know it's an exaggeration but I couldn't help musing how that type of thinking relates to this conversation and the guys that want to try and force sawstop onto everyone for their own good.


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

How does sawstop work with dado blades, does anyone have any experience beyond what their website might say?


----------



## LeeImbimbo (Dec 27, 2009)

Gerry -

I would like to see some actual evidence for the case you are siting. I'm wary of urban legend stories, as I feel that they only represent the game of telephone, that it goes from being a car accident to a bus accident, and quickly changes from one person doing something despicable to a hundred people. I'm not saying the story isn't true, I would just like to see some actual documentation of the facts for which you are claiming.

Stereotypes, and assumptions, combined with word of mouth stories almost always make for very very bad information.

Keep in mind that while this is often claimed to be the information age, it is really not information until it has been properly tested and filtered. Information implies some form of truth and interruption to the statement. What the internet really gives us is unprecedented access to data, completely unfiltered, unrestrained, and uninterrupted data. This often leaves a lot of us up in the air when it comes to trying to turn it into real information that is useful. I see this in product literature all the time, when it comes to writing specifications. Product managers will claim that their particular material will take you to the moon and back, but they often leave out what it is not capable of working with.

As for the country having too many lawyers, one could argue that we have a corporate culture that grabs most of them. Corporations employ the vast majority, something like 80% of all the lawyers in our society. MOst of the time it is so that they can utilize the skills of these attorney's to figure out legal loopholes and manipulate the system. You might respond with blaming the very corporations that abuse the system, rather than claim it to be the faults of lawyers, who for the most part are simply providing their clients with legal council.

Abbot-

While I have not seen the videos, Saw Stop makes a specific brake for the Dado Blade. It is a wider to accommodate the width of the blade. I would assume, however, would like to see some evidence of, that it works in a similar fashion to the regular braking system.

As for the salt shaker thing, I think you are unfairly hyping, however amusingly, an unrealistic situation. People in the United States are very keen to having too much government involvement, and don't respond lightly to things such as salt and food intake. While I know that you make your comment in jest, I feel that you take a very cynical approach that leads you to anger rather than real conclusions. I think you have some valid points about government mandated safety devices, and you as the consumer having the choice to implement them and what not. However, I think the real question is what is considered reasonable versus unreasonable.

I wouldn't bring it up as an issue, except for far to often I see cynicism turn into negativity and deconstructive attitudes. I myself am susceptible to this, and I have my wife constantly remind me that negativity hardly ever breeds positive results or responses.

Don't take any of my comments as an attack, but rather as just exciting comment and debate.

Debate on…


----------



## Padre (Nov 5, 2008)

Sawstops work fine with dado blades.


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

*I feel that you take a very cynical approach that leads you to anger rather than real conclusions.*

Well you feel wrong *Lee.*


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

Do you have to change anything other then the blades and the insert* Padre?*


----------



## LeeImbimbo (Dec 27, 2009)

Abbot -

You asked you you shall receive….well not always =D.

http://www.finewoodworking.com/ToolGuide/ToolGuideArticle.aspx?id=30456

That's a link of a video that shows the saw stop working on both a regular 10" blade and a 8" stacked dado blade.

Hope you find it useful.


----------



## skeeter (Apr 2, 2009)

I thought I was the inflammatory one on this lovely site.


----------



## rbterhune (Jul 31, 2009)

I noticed several of you upset with the inventer of the saw stop for trying to get some dough…what's wrong with a guy getting paid for his invention?


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

I am wondering what the setup for a dado is.


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

LOL


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

There is a different brake for the dado, because it needs to be close to the blade, so the brake that works with a 10 inch regular blade doesn't work with the 8 inch dado. So you swap out the brake when you use the dado. Still works the same way, and has been recorder for a number of saves by schools and cabinet shops. Have a look at the testimonials.

Also I still don't see anything outrageous that that 300 dollar Ryobi Saw would at 3% results in a whopping 9 bucks royalty.


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

Ahh, thanks *Dave*.

So you need to change to the dado stack, change the brake and the insert and your good to go.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

The legal argument by the toolmakers that if they adopted Mr. Gass' invention, it means an admission that the old design was unsafe. This was not the case for seatbelts nor airbags. The safety laws aren't retroactive to the old saw designs.

Of course here in America we see all the time that you can sue anyone for anything, no action/inaction is going to get you a free pass on liability litigation


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

I have to agree with you *glivinston* and right now the lawyer party is in charge.

On a lighter note;

The reason they bury Lawyers 12 feet deep instead of six feet deep is that deep down they are really good people


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

After reading everyone's opinion on the subject of the Sawstop I can honestly say if one of you has my safety in mind you may bring me a new Sawstop and two beautiful women.


----------



## KnotWright (Nov 6, 2008)

So using this jury's logic let's ponder the possibilities:

1. Every car manufactured after the invention of the airbag system that did not incorporate it would be subject to the same legal recourse.

2. Every plastic bucket sold now would be required not to hold water, since it is now a proven fact that a child can drown in said bucket.

3. The glass in every window in your home will have to be removed and the same shatter proof glass that is used in your windshield will now be required.

4. Every home builder should now be required to be installing sprinkler systems since its been a well known fact that sprinkler systems can control most all fires.

5. Shoes will be required to be laceless, due to the well known fact they are a tripping hazard.

6. Electrcity will be banned worldwide due to the shock hazard it presents.

All these things and many more will have to be regulated since we can not on our own, prevent these accidents.

No matter what the safety imrovement is, there will always be human error. The only way to make anything completely safe is to remove the "Human" from the equation, then there would be no more accidents, then and only then would it be due to "natural causes" wouldn't it?

Let's be safe out there, Lawyer UP


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Al I agree - and the point I make is that as we see in the case on this thread….Ryobi 'Not' picking up the technology saved them from nothing. It is out there with field results and many testimonials showing all the fingers saved, and there is the evidence that the lawyer no doubt had along with the news that Ryobi was talking to Mr. Gass then dumped the idea… It was then easy to say Ryobi was taking the cheap way out.

In the end a jury said you CHOSE not to install this after 5 years of discussion.

10 years after the invention, the argument that this is some Hocus pocus unproven theoretical device didn't hold water.


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

Geez *Al *why are your opinions always so wrong?


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

Well that's the smartest thing you've said all day *Al,* when would you like to deliver it? Hey, just get the two beautiful women to drop it by, I prefer brunettes. Thanks pal, be safe.


----------



## tooldad (Mar 24, 2008)

Guess kitchen cabinet makers will have to start putting child locks on all doors "just in case" there are children in the home.

I am a shop teacher and I have been preaching to my admin for 4 years to get us sawstops. We have 3 1970's unisaws that I send at least one a year up to delta service to have belts, or arbors, or bearing, or something tuned up or replaced. At $300-500 a year, in 10 years, the saw is paid for.

With the economy, they are seeing the fact that I want to spend nearly $10,000 to get 2 saws when I have 2 working saws already and its been fine foe the past 50 years.

I teach "worst case scenario" approach. Most of my students do not want to use the table saw as freshman. I make them unless they are so scared I feel they will get hurt. I promise them I will stand across the room behind a door while they do, and then they get a panic look. I then tell them I am kidding and will be right by their side ready to turn the saw off if necessary. After using the saw once or twice, their comfort level increases, but they still don't like the saw, however understand it is necessary for the project.

It's the student that is too comfortable with the saw that scares the hell out of me as a teacher. And that is why I want a sawstop. Would I want this technology on a unisaw that is US made, sure. But I will take what I can get.


----------



## surfin2 (Oct 24, 2009)

I understand you can't put a price tag on a hand, but why isn't there an average on the cost to repair a saw stop. I've seen the video and there's quit abit of damage… The Blade and every thing touching the blade…
Can they be repaired back to original shape… Let's put on are thinking cap…. If its going to cost $300-500 a year to service a saw in a shop class, what do you think the price would be if you had sawstops… You would not have a shop class for very long…

No matter what the safety improvement is, there will always be human error.


----------



## tooldad (Mar 24, 2008)

average is $150 to $200 each time. Cartridge is about $80 and then you have to replace the blade. It doesn't damage the saw in any way. They do saw stop demos every couple of hours at most woodworking shows.  It takes about 2-5 min to change cartridge and blade, not much more than changing a regular blade.


----------



## LeeImbimbo (Dec 27, 2009)

I would like to challenge the notion that Glivingston made about hard working people were the ones that made this country great while office jocks are ruining it.

Every one of the founding fathers was what you might call AN OFFICE JOCK. There were highly intelligent members of the Enlightenment and many of them were lawyers, philosophers, engineers, architects, and well just down right book worms. Hard working people are certainly members of this great country and have offered their contributions, mostly in blood and toil. But the very freedoms they enjoy, and the very rights they claim to honor and respect were made by the very "Office Jocks" that you seem to be railing against. Regular working people were not the ones that even fathomed the notions that existed in the Constitution, it was people that dedicated their lives to the realms of human thought and logic, that studied society, art, and law who crafted the very document that laid the framework for this nation and all its glory.

Moving on from there you go forward through a even deeper slew of people that were philosophers, artists, lawyers, and once again crazy office jock bookworms, that came up with ideas that are now ingrained within the very psyche of almost every american.

And let us not just look at the founding fathers, every major institution in the history of the United States was founded and developed by people willing to bring their intellect to the table in order to solve a problem. Were as most people apply the bigger hammer method, it is the true innovators that say why the hell am I using a hammer at all.

Your statement is beyond ridiculous, it is no better than someone standing up and yelling that america is only great because of football.

Secondly, yes all lawyers do care about winning. Why would that be I wonder, maybe because it is their job. I'm sure you would have a great career as a lawyer if you lost all your cases on your own personal moral grounds. I can just see the line at the door now, for a lawyer that will decide in the middle of a case that hey you know what I'm not going to try and win this thing. Oh wait, they wouldn't exist, and would probably be disbared. That is almost as absurd as saying all doctors only care about practicing medicine.

On the subject that suing for not having the safety feature incorporated before it was invented. To my knowledge very few cases have ever been won, and then stood it's ground in appeal when it comes to having not previously incorporated new technology. The Braking system is relatively new technology, only about a decade old or so. That shouldn't make all new saw companies liable for not having it before hand because well frankly it didn't exist. I'm sure a smart judge and jury could apply the simple logic, that well my car doesn't phase me out of this dimension before I get into a car accident. By the way I use that as an example, because it is technically possible to physically remove yourself from this space and time (did I mention I enjoy physics as a hobby aswell). While the technology doesn't exist at this point in time, it is perfectly plausible that at some point in the future it will. Does that mean I could go successfully sue a car manufacturer for not having figured it out, when no one else on the planet has, more than likely not (I say that because I don't believe in the never situation). However, if the technology did exist tomorrow, and every auto manufacturer ignored it, much like the saw companies ignored the SawStop technology, than you can bet that there would be a slew of lawsuits filed for not having incorporated it. The subject is not how absurd do you think the claim is personally, it is about whether or not he manufacture had a callous disregard for consumer safety.


----------



## surfin2 (Oct 24, 2009)

Watching that video it looked like that ardor got twisted…


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

LOL,* Lee*


----------



## 308Gap (Mar 6, 2010)

Water in a bottle are you crazy!! nobody will pay for something that comes out of a faucet at home. I wonder what the value of advertising saw stop is getting from this? I took the blade gaurd OFF my saw for one reason. The dust covered the plastic hood and I couldnt see the blade anymore, if I can see the blade I wont put my hand in it, I suppose being aware of your surroundings is a personnel choice, but someone else's legal responsibility.

ps. I still drink water from the garden hose.


----------



## studie (Oct 14, 2009)

She got pregnant! Thats going to cost a lot more than a Sawstop, I think I'll sue the condom company for not telling me to use their product! LOL


----------



## BOB67CAM (Dec 28, 2009)

im completely amazed at a few people in here, how do they not kill themselves having absolutely nothing for common sense?
u would figure theyd forget to breath or something
but regardless so i decided the new get rich quick schemes that i could try could be…
1 my house has no warning on the light switches that say "dont pull these out and use them" 
2 my dirtbike has no warning like "dont run into a wall" 
3 the cigarettes that i smoke forgot to mention "DO NOT EAT" on them
4 i could jump on top of the table saw because they forgot the "DO NOT DISCO DANCE ON SAW TABLE WHILE RUNNING" warning

speaking of which, that moron that microwaved his child awhile back could have sued for no "do not stick kids in here" warning ..
every day i hear this stories and i realize most are because idiots have kids and dont teach them, but really, there cant be THAT many stupid parents out there…. 
and not to pick fights with any names on here but for crying out loud how can they not see where the fault lies? i could have sworn they were joking BUT THEY WERENT…...
and yea fine mandate the crap ill just buy the old outdated crap everyones afraid of…lol and unfortunately if i do cut my finger ill remain a fool and blame myself rather then the manufacturer, the seller, the home owner if applicable, the delivery agent if i didnt pick it up myself, but also saw stop for not making the product affordable…i think that would be a great lawsuit for the "great entitlement intelectuals" in here
maybe next time a cut a chunk of wood wrong ill sue the guy that mills it….
u may laff but i swear its comin….


----------



## JasonIndy (Dec 29, 2008)

Algale,

First of all, Glass failed to get the government (Consumer Product Safety Commission) to require the use of his technology despite his best efforts. Petitioning the government is your constitutional right. Can't get much more American than that.
- I agree, but that's a separate issue from the government mandating this technology. You mentioned the splitter and riving knife, did the inventor of these respective tools get a kickback? I doubt it.

Second, what may be happening (assuming this product liability verdict starts a trend, which I hope it does) is that the American jury system may make manufacturers recalculate whether they want to continue to do business as usual and hazard your fingers and mine now that they run the risk of a big products liability judgment. The American jury system also a constitutional right, and American as apple pie.
- Again, I agree, but refer back to my above post. Call me old school, but I think table saws are dangerous, people should be taught that they are dangerous, and that when you use one you are taking your own liife and fingers in your own hands (okay, pardon all the puns there.) Sometimes, things just happen. The problem with this constant litigation is it always strives to find fault somewhere, usually where the deep pockets are. I think thoroughly reading a product manual and posting safety warnings is sufficient. Coincidentally, we do differ to a degree here, as the jury system has begun to run amok. This is only an example of the otherwise frivolous lawsuits that are clogging up our civil court system today. The irony is that Ryobi will pass this cost along, if at all possible, so we will all be ultimately paying for this judgment.

Third, who says 8% royalties are unheard of?
- it's mentioned in one of the articles I read

Fourth, why should somebody have to give away their intellectual property and especially their patent rights, which, incidentally, are expressly protected by the constitution and hence very American rights. Making people give up the fruits of their labor without compensation does not strike me as American.
- they shouldn't. However, you can't play both sides. You can be the benevolent guy out to save a few injuries out of the kindness of your heart, or you can be the shrewd businessman. Neither are wrong, but they are mutually exclusive to a large degree. I'm not mad at the guy either way, but he's doing one thing and his PR people are saying something else.

I think the technology's great, and it would be great if other manufacturer's adopted it. All I'm saying is that I think this is a step too far to force them to adopt a patented technology with a built-in fee. Besides, can't the safety feature be turned off on a Sawstop? That's got lawsuit written all over it…


----------



## dusty2 (Jan 4, 2009)

>>>>>However, if the technology did exist tomorrow, and every auto manufacturer ignored it, much like the saw companies ignored the SawStop technology, *than you can bet that there would be a slew of lawsuits filed for not having incorporated it.* The subject is not how absurd do you think the claim is personally, it is about whether or not he manufacture had a callous disregard for consumer safety.<<<<<<

This is part of the problem - a slew of lawsuites.


----------



## coloradoclimber (Apr 7, 2007)

A related conversation, minus the lawsuit, from over 2 years ago

SawStop does it make us safer or more careless?

Another thread with links to additional articles.

Why Isn't Sawstop a Bigger Hit? .... (specific post with links to external articles)

Even earlier discussion with sawstop in the mix.

the cabinet saw face off


----------



## dbhost (Jul 20, 2009)

I never thought I would say this to anyone else, but Lee…. You make my posts seem short and to the point.


----------



## LeeImbimbo (Dec 27, 2009)

If you want to say that lawsuits are the problem, than you need to suggest another method for how human beings resolve differences between themselves. Remember our court systems were created to provide an avenue for which people can resolve their differences without a need to resort to past tactics in human history were we would do such wonderful things like have deadly duels over something as trivial as one's perceived loss of honor over a cup of tea.

Human beings are irrational, scared, animalistic creatures. It is obvious that we will therefor have disputes that are just as irrational, silly and animalistic. The problem you have is that in order to maintain a civilize society you need to provide an avenue for people to resolve these differences. In societies without these kinds of avenues you quickly see the development of such bloody and brutal acts of violence as gun fights in the street.

While yes I would agree the court system has become very costly, and in some cases over burdened, it still represents the best avenue we have for resolving disputes amongst a nations citizenry. It's not that I'm not open to another solution, but rather that such a solution has yet to be presented. Until then lawsuits are not a bad thing they are simply just an example of how often disputes between human beings arise and need to be resolved. In fact, you can not ignore that you are only perceiving society as having more disputes because of the kind of information/data made available to you. Just 60 years ago you would probably have never heard about a lawsuit that happened on the other side of the country from you, today you'll hear about it in thirty seconds or less. The rate of flow on information is astounding, and many people have managed to take a perceived increase in events as some sign of coming collapse when in reality it isn't that there is a major increase, but rather that they are made more aware.

I hear about it all the time with this latest round of earthquakes that we have had around the world. People trying to claim that the Bible says in the end times there will be earthquakes. Well when you actually look at the geological history of the earth you'll find that the kind of earthquakes we are currently experiencing are nothing new, and there have been worse ones before it, and even periods of more sustained and more frequent ones. But see it is only now in this era that human beings are actually being made more aware of how the earth works and how often these events happen. But people are translating this awareness into meaning that because they personally are seeing more than it must mean that more is happening. It's like closing one eye and claiming that your reduced sense of vision is in fact reality, when the reality is that your vision has been cut in half.


----------



## LeeImbimbo (Dec 27, 2009)

It's just because topics of sociology, psychology, and politics really are of major interest to me =D. I find it really mentally engaging to bring up topics of discussion.

My wife will tell you I also have a tendency to soap box =D.

I hope that you find the information I discuss in my posts to be of interest =P.


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

I appreciate it *Lee*, your posts put me to sleep last night


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

All I know is, after watching that Saw Stop demonstration video a bunch of times…I am really craving a hot dog….hold the Saw Stop!


----------



## davidmicraig (Nov 21, 2009)

Funny thing is that this is not a case where a Ridgid, Dewalt, Bosch, or other heavy duty construction style saw was used. This was a Ryobi 10 incher that was not designed to be an effective, high powered, portable contractor saw. The man did not even make an attempt to purchase a remotely effective saw.

Now for those for the idea of saw stop technology being encouraged due to the lawsuit, lets look at the reality of economics here.

Sawstop invested in high quality materials, advanced technology for safety, and prices them all for 3000 dollars. Respectable price for those that are into purchasing the best which is a niche market.

Now we tell Ryobi - Use sawstop technology. Of course we have to design this with their niche, which is DIYers and the more frugal market. No high quality parts for this baby, probably will even be less quality than before. They have to compete with price. They have to pay for the use of the technology, and pay to make the technology work. Well they won't invest in the best circuitry obviously and probably 1/10th of them will be defective. Only, they will write in their manual (which alot of people don't read) that the circuitry is guaranteed for 30-90 days while the rest of the saw is warranted for two years. They will also include disclaimers in the manual and on the saw that the technology may work to prevent accidents but doesn't replace shop safety. Those that do not read the manual work under the illusion of safety, which is much more dangerous than the absence of it.

On the surface, sounds good to make the world safer. Truth is, that it doesn't work that way. Justice is a swinging pendulum. Push it to right a social injustice and I guarantee you that you will inadvertently end up creating another social injustice.

David


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Interesting take David - however Sawstop of course makes their own 'Contractor' Saw which runs 1500 dollars. They are doing this in a small scale through a Taiwan manufacturer. 
Like every other product (includeing woodworking), if you make one it is really expensive, make 10 a month it is attainable but perhaps for more high end users. Make 1000 a month and it becomes affordable. I read in the article embedded in this thread that they are making 600 units/year so 50/month.

YET for the true cabinet saw it is 300 dollars cheaper than the new Unisaw!

The expectations when the technology was launched was that it would add ~100 dollars to the cost of manuracture of a saw. So then carry that to the 150 dollar Ryobi. What if 250 dollars became the new 'lowest entry point' for the table saws. Is that actually unaffordable. It is more expensive, but I know people who spend 200+/month on cigarettes between 1&2 packs a day.

Consumers expect technology to improve and except for the 2005 ruling adding riving knives, nothing really changed in Table saws for the last 30 years, except the Biesmeyer fence.

Now that the technology has been around for 10 years, people are going to be on juries and hold manufacturers accountable. The Home Depot inclusion I don't agree with at all, but Ryobi is in a uniquely bad situation, because they went back and forth in contract negotions for more than a year. NOBODY myself included believes the "unproven/ only theoretical" argument. They decided it would be too expensive, just like automakers argued Seatbelts were too expensive, and Airbags were too expensive, and Antilock brakes, and and and ….

The market always moves this way… But if you were CEO and sat before a court, or even say before Congress like the CEO of Toyota, What is the reason you give to Not adopt this ?


----------



## davidmicraig (Nov 21, 2009)

Since the last two posts were directly addressed to me, I will give my rebuttal 

I have nothing against the Saw Stop technology and would love to see it on all devices. Here is where the misconception lies. You are assuming that the 100 dollars a saw will be, in fact be used for parts and technology. A saw manufacturer that makes a 100 dollar saw is not going to spend 100 dollars on the saw brake technology. They are going to spend 50 dollars on it and make a cheaper version of it. The purchase is for using the technology, not the equipment itself. Therefore, you are going to get a saw that is similar but not the same. The company will make doubly sure that disclaimers will be on the saw and the warranty. Maybe I am wrong, but the trend in production tells me otherwise.

As far as the social injustice comment goes. I, in no ways, desire to start a major political war here (as adverse to debate which I have no issue with), but I have to respond to the comment. Especially since leaving it without a response almost implies that I am either a bigot or have an issue with women.

Women have gained the right to vote as well as African-Americans. However, over the course of time, legislation that is in place has not successfully made us truly equal in the workplace nor has it reduced our consciousness of race and sex. Ideally, we would live in a world where we would look at each other and neither race nor sex would cross our minds. Yet, affirmative action, workplace politics, and actions of those that cannot tell the difference between a criticism of an individual's actions (regardless of color and race) and true bigotry have accomplished quite the opposite of the true end goal.

Take sitcoms for example. 50 years ago, women were portrayed as bubbly head individuals who always needed their husband to keep them in line. 50 years later, and the majority of sitcoms portray men as imbecilies, thoughtless, crude, embarrassing, out of shape, and lacking the technical skills of an amoeba. I find this quite insulting. Yet, when I voice these irritations, the usual response I get is "Now you know how we feel." Which would seem appropriate except that I never found the insults to women humorous and I wasn't the one who wrote the scripts. Yet, the assumption is that the modern male should pay for the crimes of an older male generation for acts we never participated in. One social injustice replacing another social injustice.

Bottom line is that one cannot enforce morality through legislative means. It has never happened, will never happen. All you can do is create the illusions which usually creates roadblocks to solving the real problem.

'Nuff said.

David


----------



## hazbro (Mar 19, 2010)

this is why it says do not insert in ear on a box of q-tips and my bag of cashews saws "produced in a facility that processes nuts".

We had a saw stop saw at work for a while. total puke of a saw.


----------



## dusty2 (Jan 4, 2009)

I just wish I had room enough in my shop to install a SawStop with a large outfeed table and wide wings.

If I did, I would go out right now and buy me a new Unisaw to sit right along side my Shopsmith Mark V (which I will never part with). It has served me well for twenty + years and I still have all of my fingers.

As soon as it is daylight, I'm going to go make sawdust. My eyes hurt from reading all of this thread.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Good Point Scarp…
The cabinet shop I worked in had a Powermatic 66 fitted with a Powermatic power feed roller setup. We used this saw exclusively for ripping, and dados. The powerfeed was awesome..once you got it adjusted correctly it would feed the boards flawlessly through the saw and keep the wood perfect against the fence…and your hands weren't anywhere near the blade. We also had another great tool for safety..a European panel saw! It was kinda like the panel saw at Home Depot..only if Mercedes Benz made it! Once you loaded a sheet you could slice it and dice it in any direction with 1/64" accuracy, perfect clean cuts and never move the wood or have your hands near the blade. Oh, and lets not forget the CNC machine….while it was cutting plywood you had to stand like 4 feet away from the cutter!


----------



## JimKing201 (Aug 18, 2008)

Well you all can argue about something that is said and done…....

I'm in a heap of trouble. I spun a baseball bat out of hickory for the neighbors kid. I'm thinking I should call my lawyer now. Ya know, foam bats have been on the market for quite some time now.

Compared to my Grizzly 1023 table saw, a bat is capable of being a deadly weapon!

What do I do? Please help!!!


----------



## JJohnston (May 22, 2009)

I'm surprised no one has pointed out that the plaintiff's logic could be used against him (ideally by someone more eloquent and louder than me):

You KNEW that blade-brake technology exists, yet you went out and knowingly bought a saw without it? Couldn't afford it, you say? How much is your hand worth to you? Based on your lawsuit, you claim your hand is worth $1.5 million, yet you refused to pay $1500 for the blade-brake techology you wanted? You refused to spend ONE ONE-THOUSANDTH of what your hand is worth to keep this from happening? That doesn't sound to me like someone who thinks his hand is worth $1.5 million.


----------



## Karson (May 9, 2006)

I was talking the other night to a member of our Mason Dixon Woodworking club. He is a retired shop teacher and was instrumental in getting the Saw Stop saw in his classroom.

He stated that he has heard commercial businesses that are able to reduce their insurance by more than the price of the SawStop in one year, when it was installed in their business.

Us hobby guys don't have that insurance cost in our home shops. The guys that have to pay for fixing up people hurt on the job, appreciate the safer technology.

But it all comes down to me. I push the button to turn it on, and I slide my hand to within an unsafe distance of a blade with carbide tips screaming as they cut pieces of wood out of that piece I'm holding. If I don't realize that I'm doing something that could be hurting me bad, Then I need to go find a different hobby like stamp collecting. (I hear it's safe)


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)




----------



## mreza (Sep 27, 2008)

1) Most people here love to talk about something without having all the facts about the case.
don't know what has gone in the process and blame the jury, blame the judge, blame Sawstop for being part of this,

2) I don't know much about this case or similar cases, but I hope the outcome of this is that eventually all the saws have this technology at an affordable price for the end user.

3) Expecting the inventor of this device (sawstop) to just give it away at a low price to other manufactures is just plain greed!! Do you ask drug manufacturers why they sell the drug costs 1C for $10?


----------



## davidmicraig (Nov 21, 2009)

Actually, the case is pretty well documented online and the complaint can be found here. While I agree that it is irritating to hear assumptions of a case without those individuals having any knowledge of it, it is equally annoying for me to hear another assume that my opinion is not educated.

David


----------



## mreza (Sep 27, 2008)

The link only shows the complaint (as you said) but what went on in the process? defendant arguments? what facts were discussed in the court? how and why jury came to this conclusion what was the conclusion exactly? Do you all the laws and facts in this case? (I don't).
And were did I said *your* opinion was not educated?


----------



## davidmicraig (Nov 21, 2009)

I do apologize mreza. I reread your post, which I should have done before commentng, and do see that your general statement was not all inclusive. Sometimes I have a habit of speaking before eating my foot for breakfast. It came out as a personal attack and I crossed a line there. Please do accept my apology.

The complaint is quite telling in itself. The complaint is not that the saw was defective, the blade guards working improperly, etc. The complaint is that Ryobi did not have a technology on the saw that was patented by someone else and is not freely available. In other words, someone invented something, Ryobi didn't buy it, someone bought a saw knowing that invention was not a feature on that saw, and Ryobi is being sued because they didn't have it? That is what is documented in the complaint, plain as day. Now, to me, that is a very slippery slope for our legal system. Think of how dangerous that can be? New inventions can be strong armed on manurfacturers to be purchased through the legal system. I create a safety device and I attempt to sell it. No one buys it at the price I set. So anybody that gets hurt from that day forward can sue the manufacturer because they didn't buy it from me? That is where the real problem lies.

Now if the complaint were that the saw was defective, the arbor was loose, the blade guard was ineffective when used, the power button didn't work, etc. I would be completely on the side of the plantiff. But this was not documented as issues with the features of the saw. The lawsuit was that the saw did not have a feature that it was not advertised to have had, nor required by law to have. Lets look at riving knives. They are now required to be installed but older models are grandfathered in until the mandated date by the government. Should saws that are purchased now be subject to lawsuits if someone gets hurt taking their splitter off the machine for dado cuts? The technology was available, but is not a current feature of the machine.

Very slippery slope my friend.

David


----------



## mreza (Sep 27, 2008)

apology accepted, David.

I see that the document claims that the user has used the saw with due diligence and care. If in fact the blade guard was in place and this happened, then it shows to a great extend how ineffective the safety features are. 
What law requires is the "minimum", so if you (the company) walk on that line by providing the minimum requirement there is a good chance you slip to the other side of the line and be liable for the damage caused by your product.
I don't think if this feature (blade brake) becomes mandatory it's going to affect older saws; if (and when) there is a law that requires such a thing, I think it will be only for the new saws. And once it is mass produced (either the patent has expired or other manufacturers come up with a different design that bypasses these patents) I bet the price will be so low that won't change the price of the saw (maybe $50-$100).
Compare the price of a modern car with all the features and improvement agains 10 or 20 years ago.


----------



## JJohnston (May 22, 2009)

Unfortunately, there is precedent for a manufacturer giving its patents away. Mercedes-Benz lets (or at least used to let) other manufacturers use its patented safety features at no charge. It was even a big part of their advertising for a while: even if you don't buy one of our cars, you may still have some of our technology on your car. They must have thought it was good for their image.

Does this obligate Sawstop to give their patent away? No, but if a lawyer brings it up, they'll need an answer.


----------



## russv (Sep 21, 2009)

lee,
spoken like a true lawyer (or politician) :>)

the real problem with the stopsaw is not whether it should be on every saw or not, but whether we as individuals should choose to have it on our saw. i choose to be safe in my own way. i don't want some money hungry person, or some political puppet, or judge (lawyer) telling me what is best for me . all i want is choice. if anyone wants a safer saw go ahead, but claiming that all saws must be stopsaws is pushing your will on me.

i do believe, as i stated earlier in this thread, there is a place for stopsaws. High schools are one example.

one more thing:
that person hurt by a tablesaw made choices, including to use a (non-stopsaw) tablesaw to begin with. he would have been safe if only he had used a handsaw. he still could have done his job. he should not have won his suit. he owes his lawyer a big hug.

russv


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

I agree with you* russv* and hopefully the verdict will be overturned rather then awarding people for being careless.

If they would just include sliding tables and power feeds on tablesaws then we would all have it made and be much safer. Then many of us (if not most of us) would not be able to afford the tool that is the mainstay of the shop.

This was a bad verdict. These days I guess it pays to be careless or stupid.


----------



## russv (Sep 21, 2009)

algate,
the difference between riving knife regulations and the stopsaw brake system is night and day. the gov't knows that a saw has a certain risk when used. the cost burden of a riving knife is minimum and what it does to make the saw safer is good. stopsaw technology is a massive burden that is not necessary. seat belts were a gov't reg that saves life but impacted the industry as a whole only mininumly. the stopsaw would impact the whole tool industry too greatly and it's total benefit is still in question.

if you use a TS properly it is as safe as flying or operating a vehicle.

thank you abbott,
i am lumberjock, hear me roar
russv


----------



## mreza (Sep 27, 2008)

Russv,

If the added cost to a table saw to have the brake was $50-$100, would not pay it? I hazard guess that most people would.
Why do you think the cost of an added brake is massive? Don't look at the premium that sawstop charges.
It's not long time ago when I saw 40" LCD TVs for $30,000!! yes, $30,000. How much are they now? and why? aren't they much better than what they were 10 years ago?
I'm willing to bet that the material cost of a brake isn't really that expensive; once the patent expires, or other similar technologies are developed, and once they are mass produced the cost will be very low and affordable to all, and I cannot understand why that would be a bad thing.


----------



## russv (Sep 21, 2009)

it's call choice. i have a right to choose to not be bullied into paying for something. make it available is fine, but don't FORCE it on everyone. why can't you see the difference?

russv


----------



## surfin2 (Oct 24, 2009)

I agree 100% with the right to choose…


----------



## LeeImbimbo (Dec 27, 2009)

I think your missing a major point russv. You think that this verdict somehow amounts to a government mandated change upon the tool industry, when in reality it doesn't do any such thing. What it does is basically say that the citizenry in one district of one state thinks that it is a valid concern that workers should have a such safety equipment available to them.

Having friends that work in the insurance industry I can tell you that every district of every state is treated differently when it comes to litigation for national or international films. This lawsuit may never actually be taken to the appeals court, and this kind of case may never amount to anything in terms of product modifications, because the industry will make a simple cost benefit analysis. If they find that the inclusion and potential price increase it could bring would be of a general benefit to them than they will make it. If they find that eh.. the lawsuits aren't really that bad than they won't make the change at all, and rather just pay out the lawsuits as they come, because let's face it the reality is that to a large corporation like this, a million bucks really isn't that much money.

Secondly, I still go back to make main comment, I don't understand why there need be hostility towards the legal profession, or to those filling the lawsuits. In the end this is really just our legal system at work, providing an avenue for conflict resolution in our society, so that people do not feel that the only justice is street justice. If you want to argue the merits of tort reform upon the system, to limit the modifications necessary to accomplish this than be my guest. However, I will warn you the real reason no one tackles tort reform is because it is next to impossible to handle all the random variables. Should a case be considered to have merit because a guy lost just a finger or because he lost an entire arm for example, or neither. That is just one variable amongst a vast vast universe of possibilities. Maybe the manufacturer isn't at fault, but should the employer be responsible for providing a safe working environment? Maybe the employer should have a case against the employee for damaging the saw, or shouldn't he? Care to make a legislative decision on every possible variable for every possible case from here until the end of time, that is what real tort reform would take. Or you could just rely on the current court system through it's various avenues of precedent and appeals to provide these kinds of answer for you as they come, which is really what the entire industry does.

As algale pointed out, employers often find ways of working together towards the common disinterest of their workers, all in the name of the almighty dollar and quarterly profit bonus. So don't forget that sometime lawsuits provide an avenue for the seemingly powerless to be heard.

But in the end all lawsuits will be found to be frivolous by some and completely justified by others. I doubt that you would have the same feeling about your lawyer/lawsuit when it comes to your random lawsuit, that when it does happen it will be very important to you, but will none the less have it's detractors that claim yours just filling a frivolous lawsuit; and I'm sure you will want your lawyer to try his best to find a favorable outcome for you. I'm sure this will be followed by someone making an inane comment like, but I'll never file a lawsuit, much less a frivolous one, which I guess could be said to be true, because to you it won't be frivolous.

I still go back to my other statement about how the most I truly expect is that the low end tool manufacturers will put some rather comical warning sticker on the top of the saw.

Other than that those that like to point out silly instances of government mandated safety seminars on job site safety are really only looking at the micro picture, as they see it. On the more macro level proper job site training, and safety seminars save the industry literally billions per year in job site accidents. In states that have unions with an apprenticeship process this is usually handled through the union's training programs, which often yield much much higher quality and better trained labor. However, in states that like to make it near impossible for unions to form, such as my own, well we get the bottom of the barrel workers that have hardly any education/training on the use of the very tools and tactics they are about to use. I have actually gone onto jobsites and had to educate people that I saw using simple tools incorrectly. Contractors gravitate towards the cheapest labor in non-union states, and very often this creates a system in which the workers or the least qualified to do the job, because it directly translates into savings for the client and bigger profits for the General Contractor. Whether the building is built right, well that's another issue, which is also why a good chunk of my architecture firm's business is in building forensics and let me tell you we like to claim we have seen it all, but every new job shows us that there is yet another way in how to screw it up.

So in the end I still say debate on, debate on rationally, and feel free to take part in our political system to fight for whatever change most tickles your fancy. We are a democracy after all, and democracies are about all of us human beings coming together to work out whatever irrational, frivolous, and often just plain silly issues we find important. I just hope that we learn as a society how to work them our in a manner that leads to the betterment of society rather than the detraction. Then again what is betterment? Is my betterment the same thing as your betterment, or anyone else's for that matter? Ah to be or not to be, that is the question =P.

P.S. Yeah I know that last quote from shakespeare makes me seem like a snob, and I'm sure the fundamentalist literary snobs amongst us will say, but Lee that statement is about the value of living or not living. To that I say, bah I'm using it anyway.


----------



## davidmicraig (Nov 21, 2009)

Lee, I think if there is a problem with the employer making a poor choice of equipment for his employees, the logical choice would be to file a lawsuit against the employer. Not the manufacturer of a product that has no control over a company's poor decision because they didn't outfit the device with a patented feature that is neither advertised on the product nor mandated by the industry. The issue is not future cost or safety. The issue is that a manufacturer is getting sued because a poor choice was made in how their product is used. This opens the door wide for every manufacturer to be sued, not for features that were installed that failed, but features that were not installed in the first place.

Let's suppose that I bought a saw without an iron table. The weight of the saw is light and so I put a large sheet of plywood on it and tip it over. I could potentially sue the manufacturer for not equipping the saw with an iron table which would give it the weight that would support that piece I am working on. Despite the fact that I chose to buy a saw without one. Iron is available, it is well known what iron is heavy and gives stability to the saw. The manufacturer decided not to install it and they should have known that I was going to be fool enough to put too much weight on it. The list goes on and on.

David


----------



## LeeImbimbo (Dec 27, 2009)

While I definitely agree that the first avenue for legal action should be from employee to employer in the provided argument that isn't always the case. Let's say you take your lightweight tablesaw example. In your example I would say it is in fact the manufacturer's problem, because they did not provide a properly stable stand to support their saw in a fashion that would allow for a use that it was intended to handle. I'm sure that an educated consumer of the saw would say hey you know they saw doesn't really provide the kind of protections I want and or need and move on from there. But if a newbie just starting out says hey my employees need a table saw for a small job and this will be the last time I need it, than they go by the cheap saw, they buy it fully expecting it to operate like a tablesaw. And well we all expect that something advertised as a tablesaw will in fact be able to cut a sheet of plywood, without an issue.

On the other hand many of the new cheapo contractor saws do not come with bases and are in fact intended to be set on the bed of a pickup truck. This then puts the responsibility on the consumer of that saw to provide a stable base for the saw to rest upon, because they are now taking on the liability of securing the saw. Just like I'm sure most of us do when we turn a router upside down and put it in a router table.

In my first example it's a lawsuit directly to the manufacturer because they supplied a substandard base to properly support the saw. In my second example it could be an employee to employer legal issue depending on a number of factors. Did the employer set up the tablesaw making it their responsibility to provide a secure base? Did the employee have proper training or are they just some high school drop out looking for a job totally uneducated about how to work in the field? Is the employees lack of education he fault of the employer or the employee? I mention the last statement because I'm sure that all of us, that have ever hired employees, have had the employee promise you the moon in terms of their capabilities and then it turns out that they are completely unqualified.

That is why tort reform is a nice word but in reality should stay in the hands of the court systems. Each situation is slightly different. Heck we have made many many assumptions about the case at hand in this particular forum discussion, most of us (I'd be willing to say all, but I'm sure one of us has) haven't even read the case log to know what information was presented how it was presented, etc.

But that doesn't mean that this kind of issue shouldn't be discussed in a democratic forum to look for potential resolutions as a society to future legal situations that are similar.


----------



## mreza (Sep 27, 2008)

Each of us have his/her own opinion and we can agree to disagree. 
I believe once one lives in a society a lot of choices that one would think are natural to have don't exist.
You can say, when I am driving a car I want to have a choice to wear a seat belt or not; and clearly not wearing it puts only YOU in danger not other drivers on the road (so it's not for the benefit of others, as some argue about ABS brake or other things), yet if you don't wear a seat belt you get a ticket. So why this "natural" choice doesn't exist by law?
Many of these "forced" laws are put into place for the good of the society as a whole. 
Even for table saws, some of these "forced" laws are already in place (guards, riving knife, etc…).
Do I think mandating having this safety feature on all saws is a good thing? I think so and I have my own reasons for it. To me, saving thousands of fingers per year weighs a lot more than the "freedom" of some who want to operate a saw without it. And even if this is not mandated, I hope these law suits will be a wake-up call to the industry and forces them to improve their safety standards.


----------



## davidmicraig (Nov 21, 2009)

I am almost done kicking the dead horse  I enjoyed the debate, but all I can say is "Wow." The thought that a piece of equipment was purchased that was not designed for the work that it was used for makes it the manufacturer's fault just astounds me. And the thought that society could possibly be safe when personal responsibility becomes less and less a factor.

As stated, everyone has their own opinion. Thanks for the interesting debate.

David


----------



## LeeImbimbo (Dec 27, 2009)

I'm not saying that a person should be able to argue that they used a tool for an improper application, I'm saying that manufacturer's thrive off the notion of perceived applications. You don't see on the front of the box, on their website, or in any documented information that is readily available before buying, that the cheapo contractor saw is not meant for use on, let's just say for the sake of example, plywood. In fact all it says is hey I'm a cheapo table saw. Now a more refined professional might beable to look at the thing and bring up issues of support, and Horsepower in the motor, etc. But your average consumer would look at the saw and say hey this one is $150 bucks and that one is $500, and they are both 10" tablesaws. So low and behold the manufacturer thrived off of a perceived application. Now we can argue all day about what is a reasonable perception or not, but I would argue that something advertised as a tablesaw, rather that let's say a cross cut saw, or short cut saw, etc, should have the capabilities to do what I would think most of us would expect from a tablesaw.

Now on the other hand if you, in this case I'm using you in the sense of the plaintiff (not you specifically), wanted to argue that hey I slapped a metal cutting blade on this thing and it wouldn't cut through red iron steel, and in fact I got injured in the process. Well then the manufacturer should have a reasonable argument that tablesaws are often only associated with wood and woody (for lack of a better term) sheet material, not with metal work, particularly that of cutting red iron steel.

You have to take into account some level of perception as a manufacturer otherwise the market place becomes open to way too much manufacturer abuses. Let's just use something besides a power tool for woodworking. You go to make yourself a margarita after a long day of working in the shop and you toss the stuff in the blender, low and behold in the process of chopping the ice parts of the blades break off and you end up swallow them and getting seriously injured. You go to seek damages from the manufacturer, because you perceived that that cheapo blender you bought from the big box would be good at turning ice into a margarita. The manufacturer turns around and says oh that blender was only meant for chopping soft things, not hard things like ice. Yet nowhere on the literature does this blender convey to you that it was not capable of chopping ice. You perceived that like all other blenders this blender would in fact be capable of making a margarita. Do you think you now have a case against the manufacturer, or should the manufacturer be able to say well that wasn't its intended use? What kind of freedom do you then allow the manufacturer to make that ascertain? I could just see it now, oh you put fruit with tiny seeds into the blender (raspberries or strawberries) that blender wasn't intended for blending those.

I agree that both sides can become a rabbit hole, but the goal of the court systems and reasonable justice should be to strike a balance so that we don't go tumbling down into wonderland on either side of the coin.

I'm just saying that power tools are no exception, even if you want to argue that there is a sense of implied risk that you take when using said tool


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

Yeah *Dave* it's tough. I need to get some things done here pretty quick and *Lee* will put a guy back to sleep


----------



## davidmicraig (Nov 21, 2009)

I understand your point on the Margarita blender Lee, except in correlation with the lawsuit I would have stuck my hand in the blender, fired it up, and then sued because it couldn't tell the difference between my hand and ice. Of course there would have been a deluxe model sold by Kitchen Aide that prevents people from turning on the blender unless the lid is on. This feature was not installed on the walmart version I picked up for ten bucks and even though the instructions clearly state that I should not stick my hand in the blender, I did it anyway 

That is where I have a problem with lawsuits like this.


----------



## TheDane (May 15, 2008)

Just curious … was this a job-related injury or was the guy doing a DIY project? Does anyone know if he purchased the saw or if someone else purchased it for his use?


----------



## davidmicraig (Nov 21, 2009)

According to the case, an employer purchased the saw from home depot for their flooring business. This was not used for DIY purposes. Both Home Depot and Ryobi were listed as at fault for the injury. Home Depot for selling the saw and Ryobi for manufacturing it without skin detection blade breaking technology. Details of the case can be found here. Note that the lawsuit does not claim any defective blade guard, splitter, saw blade, motor, stand, etc. The complaint is that the manufacturer did not purchase and install skin detection technology. A feature that would not be standard for a tablesaw of any kind, with the exception of SawStop.


----------



## LeeImbimbo (Dec 27, 2009)

See I would then think that it would be a worker compensation case. That the employer provided unsafe working equipment. In my experience many contractors in Texas constantly hire under-qualified labor so that they can keep their labor costs down, which often means that this labor is often exposed to safety problems, of not being familiar enough to operate the equipment safely. This is not only a liability to the employer but also to the effectiveness of the job. When an employee is injured on site, it can potentially lead to a shot down of the job until some investigations can be done to resolve the cause of that injury (that is particularly true in the case of a death on the job site).

As for suing the seller and the manufacturer, well I think good arguments have been made on both sides to show that it could swing either way depending on circumstances of that particular case.


----------



## surfin2 (Oct 24, 2009)

One very big problem is we have toooo many CHEAP/Low life Contractors out there that only think about padding there bank account. If there's any way they can cut corners that'll save them a buck they will. No porta potties, no dumpsters, basic tools, putting a house on such a small piece of land (you have to have a certain size piece of property to legally build a house on) anything that we needed (a must have to do the job) and didn't have it would get rented- tax write off, no scaffolding (the sup. jimmy rigged one while walking with a bundle of shingles it broke so did his neck and he didn't live to talk about it) so yes I know about the do with what your employer allows to work with or find yourself another job. I also remember when you could tell him where the sun don't shine and were he could stick his job and I could go down the road and have a new job starting tomorrow. With the economy the way it is it puts another ace in the employers hand, and that's not counting hiring cheap labor {as in illegal Mexicans}

Nothing was said about the plaintiff, is he legal to work in the country? I understand if your not legal it wouldn't be to smart to file a suite but now your talking ( nothing about this case makes sense) common sense. Was he told to use the saw or did he see Johnny cut a board and say gee I can do that. Did he get fired for using something that he was told not to use. how many times on the job did you do something you weren't suppose to do or use, you just wanted to get the job done/right. We'll never know those answers.

It doesn't matter either, they don't have anything to do with the case. 
He's suing HD & Ryobi for a safety feature not being on a bench top saw??? 
Common sense, it wasn't used right from the beginning to the end of this case…


----------



## LeeImbimbo (Dec 27, 2009)

If the kind of information that algale just presented is true than that is a definitely slap in the face of the manufacturers. That would be what the legal world would consider a major mistake. Juries tend to have a very adverse reaction to the idea that a manufacturer could easily and cheaply implement technology that would make their products safer. Usually manufacturers are saved in these kinds of cases if they are capable of proving that hey this technology could actually bankrupt us. But if the 10 to 12 dollars per saw is correct, I'm sure that the jury's response was on the lines of, you have no excuse for not having this tech in your saw.

I'm not saying that this invalidates concerns over human error, but it is just a trend that I've noticed in cases like this. The cheaper it is for the manufacturer to implement the safety measure the bigger the payout will be when they don't.


----------



## Eli (Mar 3, 2010)

Awesome. Thank you Lee and algale, for forcing facts and reason into the debate. You can see the tone change as time went on. Mreza kept popping in with level-headed posts and even David Craig was a good sport, although your slippery slope argument turned me against you. You know that's a logical fallacy, right? This has been a lot of fun.

Eli


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

Yeah, it still makes about as much sense as it did when the thread started. The lawsuit is stupid and the verdict is stupider still. Hopefully good sense will prevail and a higher court will toss the suit into the crapper where it belonged form the start.

*Eli* if you are unaware I will enlighten you a bit.* Lee* is not speaking from experience with table saws he is practicing his politics. Correct or incorrect doesn't matter he is just presenting views he believes will enhance his chosen side of the debate. He's good as we all can see but IMHO he is way to long winded. He could also tear his arguments here apart if he chose to debate from the other side. I bet he would feel differently if he had grown up using carpentry tools.

I do agree with you that it is a fun thread. I just wish *Al* would get busy with my delivery!


----------



## LeeImbimbo (Dec 27, 2009)

Just so you know Abbot I've been using tools and have been involved in construction almost my entire life. Almost my entire family is somehow involved in construction (architects, contractors, engineers, industrial designers, real-estate and property development, all of them). From pine wood derby cars to construction I have been working with tools on some level all my life. Granted fine carpentry is a new thing for me, because I'm just now pursuing it. But I'm not new to construction or power tools.

You are right I could probably argue it from the opposite perspective, and if you read some of posts I offered plenty of avenues for others to take that would open up doors into those arguments. Yet no one saw how to make those arguments a possibility. In fact, most tried to apply the KISS principle to a subject matter that has a wide range of possibilities.

But if you read my posts more closely you would see that all along I was only pushing for more engagement form both sides, so that we as a group could discuss a real solution to the problem. With out the standard rhetoric statements like oh we need tort reform (which by the way really just translates into nothing, because of reasons that I mentioned earlier).

I also don't shy away from being long winded. The issue we are discussing is deeply rooted within our society, and requires a deep look at some extensive issues that sadly cannot be explained simply. If you want simple answers than you're taking part in the wrong debate, because there are not any.

As usual feel free to debate on, just debate on politely and with respect for others.


----------



## davidmicraig (Nov 21, 2009)

I did get a kick out of the comment that even I was a good sport  When I cross lines I do apologize for my actions, but that doesn't happen too often.


----------



## mreza (Sep 27, 2008)

Thanks Eli,
and to algale for the link. It is very interesting (to me at least) that my estimate of $50-$100 for the increase in the price of a saw to incorporate this safety feature was very close. If those numbers in that document are indeed close to reality, it is really a matter of time before these are all added to the saws. That is comparable to the cost of adding a riving knife!

Many of these safety laws are in effect in our day to day life and we mostly don't even notice it.
Most house-hold appliances have such safety features. Take a food processor, you cannot turn it on unless you close the top, even the cheap ones you buy at Walmart. Why is it there? probably because many people tried to clear the blade of material and accidentally turned it on and chopping their fingers.
As to why blenders don't have it, my guess is not many people have put their hands into a liquid/juice to clear it!


----------



## stuk4x4 (Jan 1, 2010)

After reading this debate I have determined that there must have been a miss-print in the guys owners manual!! I have a lot of dangerous power tools and I even have some non power tools that WILL KILL YOU if not properly used, the fact is, that will never stop me from using those tools. I work the Flight Deck of an Aircraft Carrier and ride a motorcycle to work, and LOVE every min of it, risk is every where and we are told everyday in one way or another about it. In the NAVY they call this ORM (operational Risk Management) I think my Dad and Grandpa called it Common Sense. If you are going to do something dangerous then be ready to accept the end result. In our society we have tried to make everything safer and so user friendly that we are removing the need for the use of common sense. Almost everything you purchase in the store comes with a risk warning. I know that every power tool I have bought at Sears or HD had a owners manual that stated the tool could cause injury or death. I like the idea of the Saw Stop and would consider buying one if I were in the position to purchase one, however I would be more interested in the table top quality and the quality of the motor and how well it is built, what fence do you get with it etc… Dont buy a tool because of the safety features. Buy a tool for its uses and then use it safely. I may be a little out in right field but it is high time we stopped rewarding idiots of the world. 
Just a little rant from me.


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

*But if you read my posts more closely you would see that all along I was only pushing for more engagement form both sides*

*Lee, *

After the first one or two your posts became to monotonous to read closely. A skim and a chuckle is all I could bear. I would suggest that you cut them by half if you want them read. The point remains that Sawstop technology is 99% a waste of time and 1% helpful. The percentage of accidents compared to the amount of cuts made on table saws all over the world is minuscule. If your scared of your tablesaw you shouldn't use it to begin with. Personally I am much more wary of my router table and shapers will flat out eat you.

I don't think sawstop is bad technology. I think the lawsuit is frivolous and the verdict/award is stupidity and hopefully some good sense will prevail in a higher court.

I keep my cell phone with me when I'm in the shop and after this thread I think I will put my Attorney's number on speed dial.

*Al*,

Tell those two girls that they don't have to need me they just have to show up wearing tight Sawstop blouses and short skirts. They can help unload my new sawstop saw and open beers.


----------



## LeeImbimbo (Dec 27, 2009)

Abbott -

There is no need to dumb anything down, we do that enough in America. While I'm sure I could cull the statement down, this is a forum, and I don't exactly review my posts as if there are essays with limitations on the word content.

Besides if you had read them you would see that I don't necessarily disagree with you on this particular case. For the most part I simply started posting to try and turn this forum conversation into a more intelligent dialogue on the issue of how our legal system works. Given that so many people were making irrational posts of their hatred for lawyers, judges, juries, and well everyone is just an idiot comments, I found a need to point out that this was irrational hatred and that one need not express hatred just because they disagree with something.

Hatred is a powerful emotion, one that leads to many divisions in our culture. Instead I was trying to make people feel empowered to make more rational and educated responses, and to drop the hate.

People need to realize that a civilized society is not like kindergarten. You don't get to just call everyone stupid and take your toys home. Instead you need to apply conflict resolution techniques, and learn to discuss your points of view from that of a rational perspective that will treat others with respect.

Your opinion that this case was decided wrongly is perfectly valid, as long as you would read the entire court case, with all the arguments made, and information provided, and you would come to the same conclusion. it is also a valid opinion that other members of your society would find this case is perfectly reasonable, as long as they too read the data presented and rationally came to that conclusion. It is, however, not valid to just make unfounded statements of hate and basically demean ones self to a state of name calling, rather than real conflict resolution.

As for writing long posts, well eh… You should try reading papers on particle physics sometimes, these are not only dense, but very long, and mostly math =D. But very informative once you learn to translate them.


----------



## davidmicraig (Nov 21, 2009)

I agree that direct personal attacks are uncalled for in any debate. However, this has stopped becoming a debate more than a few posts ago. The conversation seems to have switched to apples and oranges and I must say that a good deal of the rhetoric has turned more into patronization and what was studied in philosophy class than actually discussing the real life ramifications of this case. The issue was never about cost of new saws or manufacturers being required to be responsible when their product fails. The issue is that failure of the product is not associated with what the product had and failed but what the product didn't have and was not required to have. The feature of the product is patented and the manufacturer didn't buy it. No manufacturer bought it. Yet, the inventor is participating in a strong armed attempt to force these manufacturers to purchase it through legal means. This is not an act of "concern" on his part, it all boils down to money. The inventor is circumventing the free market system by attempting to have his invention pushed on these manufacturers through the government. No matter how you slice it, wood or hand, that is just wrong.

Attempts to create a safer society by reducing personal responsibility will end up creating quite the opposite. The slippery slope may be a "logical" fallacy, but we do not live in a "logical" world. Those that fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.

DAvid


----------



## LeeImbimbo (Dec 27, 2009)

I would agree david. But I don't think anyone has shown that the Sawstop guys even had any direct involvement in this case (I could be wrong), but I think that it was only his technology was used to win this case by an independent party, not him directly that was founding or directing this lawsuit.

As for court or government mandated safety features. I think it was algale that earlier mentioned the examples of seat belts and ABS breaks. These items in cars were installed to improve public safety, and work to counteract people that don't operate the machine/car correctly. What is the difference?

I could also point out that there is another angle that we have yet to discuss here. Which is the costs on society for the actions of another. We as a society will pay for a person that is injured in such a way that they are incapable of performing within that society. I use this argument when it comes to the prison system aswell. Everyone costs society something, I mean everyone, whether it be in use of public resources, roads, food, power, water, etc, or in their potential interactions with one another.

So people have to work to make sure that their place in the economic society is balanced. When people are rendered incapable of working they then turn from a point of making resources and money for society, to one in which they will burden the system and cost it money.

Prison is a great example of this (and it does have merit, so I don't want you to think I'm off track here), it costs on average $60K a year to imprison someone. Yet most of our prisons are geared towards incarceration rather than rehabilitation. This creates a system in which when a criminal's sentence is up they are often not capable of reentering society and therefor are likely to commit another crime and once again become a burden on the state. While it isn't as high for let's say people that have become disabled, the point is similar. A person rendered incapable of performing within the economic society we have will cost the system money, and will not be able to balance their burden with what they put in.

So requiring that a manufacturer put in some safety equipment that would limit the number of disabled people within a society could be seen as a overall benefit to the larger society as the person is less likely to become disabled and more capable of working to pay off the debt that they accrue everyday simply by existing.

This is just yet another example I've given of looking at macro versus micro perspectives in this debate.

By the way macro versus micro economics is a very very interesting subject matter and I highly recommend people look into it. It always interests me, and it is very useful when let's say translating how some new public building, like a sports stadium, will help or hurt a city versus the state versus the country as a whole.


----------



## stuk4x4 (Jan 1, 2010)

AL-
Let me be the first to admit that Bad things happen to good people. However, when I said that Idiots are rewarded, I was not meaning that all people hurt in table saw mishaps were Idiots. You are correct that all saw mishaps are not preventable. The point I am making is that you must be responsible for your actions when using tools, read your owners manual and heed its warnings. If anyone has ever read a owners manual front to back they all state the same thing. So my take on this is that Be Responsible for your own actions. If God forbid I cut my hand off on my saw tonight, I would not sue anyone I would go to the hospital and get it treated. I would not go after Ridgid, its not their fault, THEY WARNED ME. The fact that a company should install a device to make a saw safer should not be determined by the courts. That is getting Government involved where they need not be…. I will stay out of the political part of that.


----------



## alexbarlage (Jan 26, 2010)

If the Lord wants you to cut off your finger, its going to get cut off.

No changing his mind, if you buy a Sawstop Saw to prevent him, he'll take it off with an ax.


----------



## LeeImbimbo (Dec 27, 2009)

Stuk -

If you want to argue personal responsibility I would agree that you take on the risk of using the saw upon using it to use it correctly.

From the broader perspective, what about the overall costs to our society of you now not being able to function as fully because of the loss of your hand. While I'm not saying that you should sue the company, what I am saying is that your now reduced capacity would burden the overall system to an amount economically that is vastly more expensive than the cost of make the tool a safer tool to use.

In our kind of economic, and democratic society you cannot escape the fact that we are all linked, and therefor actions that affect one will affect all financially. Although in the broader perspective we are talking fractions of a penny per person, but as a whole the number adds up to a decent chunk of change.


----------



## stuk4x4 (Jan 1, 2010)

alexbarlage- As a buddy of mine says "you cant dodge the go round"...

Lee- I understand what you are saying, however I do not want elaberate on the econimic/society factors as I may have some views that are best not expressed on a woodworking site. They may not be bad, but best left out of the LJ's site. I do enjoy all the diffrent points of view.


----------



## cheford (Aug 3, 2009)

I think that subjects like this really bring out strong feelings. Personally, I don't like my government intervening any more than is necessary. In this case, IMO it is absolutely not necessary.

As far as the argument that injured people cost us all money, I do agree. Unfortunately so do smokers, drinkers, overweight people, etc…. I see it in my health insurance premiums! I would not support a law banning fattening food or tobacco.

It seems to me that this case is the tip of the iceberg if not overturned. What about tilesaws, demosaws, chainsaws? Or maybe some tools are just too dangerous and should be banned completely. It just rubs me the wrong way.


----------



## Eli (Mar 3, 2010)

David - Not living in a "logical" world does not affect the validity of an argument. It being a logical fallacy means that it does not stand up to scrutiny and, therefore, cannot be used to make a compelling case. It's akin to saying "this argument is wrong because you're an idiot" (ad hominem).

The free market is very tricky. It involves perceived values to both consumers and producers. One could argue that this case is an example of the free market at work. No one has forced Ryobi to add a brake to their saw. However, the value of a brake has suddenly gone up for Ryobi and other manufacturers. Simultaneously, people have lost plenty of fingers in the past 10 years, but this is the first successful case of it's kind, as far as I know. This case simply displayed consumers' changing perception of the value of a saw. A saw without a brake has lost value in the region where the jurors came from (don't forget, the jurors decide the case). This payout puts the financial incentive of getting a brake on the producers, not the consumers.

I'm curious about the point at which people's attitude towards responsibility extends to sellers. For those arguing for personal responsibility, does a seller ever have the responsibility to make a product safe? I think the answer is going to be no, but as previously mentioned, no one seems to be making a fuss about the mandatory riving knives.

Now that I think of it, this has nothing to do with the government. It happened in the court system, which is a jury of your peers.

Eli


----------



## russv (Sep 21, 2009)

If in 1999, everyone was required to never drive more than 30 mph no matter where you are going, we would have saved many lives in this country. We should make everyone do it. "NOT HARDLY". Those that drive 30 mph are freely choosing to do just that. We still should all have choices, even with Stopsaw technology.

The other argument that you pay for me when i cut my fingers is pure crap. if we go 60 mph and have an accident, you cost me money. Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to go 60 mph because you cost me money.

There are hundred of thousands (maybe more) of table saws in use today. I would venture a guess that there are over a billion cuts a year made on these saws. Anyone that stands at a saw knows there have been fingers cut off before. How you perform the cuts safely is your choice. Looking at this statistic this way, saws are reasonably safe when operated properly, but there is always a degree of danger. Unlike some, I believe TS manufacturers made a conscious effort to make their saws as safe as possible within reasonable limits. They want to sell saws and they want us to come back for more. The concept of the Stopsaw is what they (and I) consider an unreasonable burden to put on their equipment and the industry and I for one agree with them. So when you are ready to drive only 30 mph, I'll consider buying the Stopsaw technology.

I am lumberjock, here me roar
russv


----------



## russv (Sep 21, 2009)

"That's why 99% of lawyers give the others a bad reputation!" by
Dave; Lansing, Kansas"
Dave, so true!!

To those that say some of us hate lawyers: I think it would be safe to say that I hate SOME lawyers. When there is a general statement that lawyers gum of the court system, it's true. To say that all lawyers do that would be false. A highly visible sect of lawyers have one thing in common. They follow the money. I suspect the lawyers involved in the suit against Rybio and Home depot followed the golden rule. What can I say, that's what they do (some of them).

Question:
Oh yeah, what do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 75 and took 10 times to pass the bar.
Answer: "your honor"


----------



## Eli (Mar 3, 2010)

You are arguing against yourself as well as for. By using the word "reasonable" you invite the question of "what is reasonable?" In Massachusetts, to that jury, it's reasonable to want a brake on your saw and to penalize a manufacturer for not having it.

How is the other argument crap?

Eli


----------



## oldskoolmodder (Apr 28, 2008)

I'm still trying to get over the early comment that only licensed contractor type of people should be able to owning saws… Scary if that's meant as a serious statement.

That said, I think it's way beyond stupid that this Gass (not Glass as many keep mistakenly repeating) guy think that everyone should have to use his technology to make saws safer for the end users. It's clearly a money grab, not a safety issue.

I've been using table saws since I was VERY young, with the help of older very experienced users helping me, and through the years. Was even taught (foolishly or not) to take off all those silly things called "safety" additions, and just pay attention to what I was doing. Never once had an accident with any power saw, until a few years ago (talked about on this site). It wasn't because the saw caused the accident, it was because I was stupid for a split second.

I also agree with the idea that many of these demonstrations that I've seen, are of a hot dog being pushed VERY slowly into the blade, and that's just not how accidents on table saws happen. My Thumb didn't do into the table saw blade at a slow speed. It took less than a 2 seconds for my thumb to be split in half, down to the first knuckle. Also agree that most woodworkers aren't going to have wet hands when using a saw, they will have some amount of sawdust on them.

Gass is a lawyer first, and business man second. Safety advocate? I somehow doubt that is in his top 10.


----------



## russv (Sep 21, 2009)

Eli, I'm not arguing against myself.
Try to read each sentence completely. The "crap argument" was in relation to if I hurt myself everyone else pays for it. It's a crap argument because we all do thousands of things everyday that cost each other money indirectly. We shouldn't expect the gov't or the courts to protect us from choices of others on every personal choice based solely on "it cost me money". 
Now try to keep up Eli. I said "reasonable" in relationship to 2 statements. "A billion TS cuts a year" which refers to approximately how many Tablesaw cuts a year are made in relation to how many cuts result in accidents. If anything is done a billion times a year and it goes wrong 28,000 times, there is a "reasonable" expectation that the product is not poorly designed.. I say this not to detract from the gravity of the 28,000 failures but am referring to these numbers purely in a statistical way to show what I consider to be a reasonable per cent of success versus failure. The TS can be safe to use and if it were poorly designed, out a billion (with a b) times the failures would be higher.

The other place I used the word reasonable was in reference to the manufacturers making an effort to make them safe. I said they make a reasonable effort (in my opinion) to make them safe. Can they do better? Possibly. To infer they are greedy evil money mongers and won't do things to make them safer is simply not true. I believe they do try to make them safer, and they try to balance that with cost issues. Even if I don't agree with every decision, to say (as others do) they don't even try is "unreasonable".
Lastly, I did mention earlier in this thread that I thought there were 12 people that were partly to blame for this idiotic situation and I stand by that opinion. I do not think that the jury came to a "reasonable" decision and that is my opinion. If you think they came to a reasonable decision that is your opinion, no matter how stupid it is (lol, just kidding).
Did I type too fast for you this time Eli? :>)

russv


----------



## LeeImbimbo (Dec 27, 2009)

While you do have decent point russv and Eli. I only brought up the notion of how injuries can cost the system more money than it is worth. All I was simply stating in my post was that a disabled American is not a fully functioning american and therefore cannot balance out their cost to the overall system. Meaning that the system spends money on them. Now let's use the example of cars, which have by no means been taken off the road. More people are killed each year in car accidents than by almost any other form of accident. Yet the cost benefit analysis to the system says well cars benefit the system to a value that higher than the deaths of those people. So the system keeps on going, however, car manufacturer's and government have worked together (sometimes contentiously) to develop safer automobiles that have greatly reduced these kinds of accidents, tipping the scale further in the direction of keeping cars on the road.

But please do try to not let passions take over guys and gals, I think we are all having a very reasonable discussion, but there is no reason to insult each other.

In the end we all love wood, and this is just a conversation about something that may be of concern to us. Obviously otherwise it wouldn't have gone on for over 200 posts.

It is obvious that people care strongly about it on both sides of the isle.

Which means that one possible solution could be that these companies simply do a small test market to test implementation of the breaking technology, and see how their sales are hurt or helped by implementation of the device. Manufacturer's do this all the time. If the market forces seem to support implementation of the system that they'll implement it.

What if they just make it possible to upgrade any of their saws to implement the system, meaning that you could always remove the breaking device, or never purchase it to begin with. By making it an add on that people can order and implement (just like let's say a Incra Fence System) it provides a solution to people on both sides of the isle, and allows for implementation of the technology.


----------



## cheford (Aug 3, 2009)

Lee

Out of curiosity, can other saw manufacturers implement this technology? I thought that it was patented. I would imagine the inventor would have to get a fat check before he is going to let this technology be implemented widely, especially since his saws are allegedly the best selling saw.


----------



## LeeImbimbo (Dec 27, 2009)

They could either take up Gass's offer to implement his version specifically, or develop there own. I mean we aren't talking about something that is really that complicated of a system. Gass was just the first to develop it. I'm sure someone could let's say try a break at the point of the arbor, where the moment arm would have less force than at the blades tip. Gass's version of the break simply uses the blades teeth to his advantage to jamb the system. One could also look at sensors that are designed to release the blade from the arbor, while disengaging the motor upon detection (although I don't think that would be as successful). I'm sure there are other ways to solve this particular riddle, and that some manufacturer's will spend time and resources into developing those. Which could be great, is that as more potential solutions were developed you could see a further advancement of the technology rather than implementation of the system as it currently is which would only work to the ultimate advantage of the consumer that wants this kind of technology.

Also, I think it was mentioned earlier that per saw Gass only originally wanted something like 8% of the sale's price. Which for a $150 dollar saw amounts to $12. So that's not exactly some major chunk of change on a per saw basis.

I'm just saying that there are avenues that would give both sides of the table here the answer they want here.


----------



## Thomas1970 (Dec 1, 2008)

I've been in the wood working environment for over 50 some years, starting at the ripe age of 13 years old in CA. And, I STILL have ALL of my digits too! It's the proper use of a tool that matters, not whether one saw is safer than another.

I retired from the USAF after twenty-years in the carpentry field having over seventy people working for me at any one time, some being very young kids just out of tech school with an average age being about 19 yrs old. NO ONE ever was injured working on industrial sized 14" table saw. It's due to the fact SAFETY was practiced at all times. Anyone that does not have the proper training will injure themselves … not if it will happen; it is WHEN it will happen. So, it's NOT the machines' fault, it's the operator!

Another issue I have always wondered about the SAWSTOP is if the blade is "electrically" charged via a sensor how would this saw work in a high humid environment? Or with "wet green" lumber? Or "wet" pressure treated lumber? I would imagine it would instinctively trip or STOP would it not? If so, then the technology would not be perfect in ALL environments' would it?


----------



## LeeImbimbo (Dec 27, 2009)

They basically say that when cutting green lumber you have to disable the breaking device. Which says to me that there is opportunity for another manufacturer to come along and develop a better system that would still allow the cutting of green lumber.


----------



## oldskoolmodder (Apr 28, 2008)

I'm willing to bet that as in any other industry, the other mfgs are looking at, or have looked closely at the technology, and/or reverse engineered the product to the point that they know how it works. It's a question now for them of how they will go about implementing it, IF AT ALL.


----------



## Eli (Mar 3, 2010)

In the complaint, it lists as a fact that: "Defendant failed to pursue licensing and use of this available safer technology, or to implement any alternative technology or to mitigate or eliminate the effects of accidental blade contact with human flesh." This is after it points out that Ryobi was shown and offered the sawstop technology in 2000. One of the accusations against both Home Depot and Ryobi is that the saw was not "merchantable, safe, and fit for ordinary purposes" due to "the product, component parts of the product and the product warning and instructions [being] defective."

So part of the complaint is that not only did they not license sawstop, but they did not adopt any such technology. To me, this negates much of the anger directed at sawstop.

The merchantable, etc. part of the complaint refers to a section of Massachusetts General Law with similar language. The point of the section is to describe in what case and to what extent there is an implied warranty by a manufacturer or seller as to the safety of a product.

It still just seems to boil down to the jurors have decided it's no longer ok not to have this technology. The decision has not forced any company to adopt it. It has not forced anyone to buy a technology they don't want.

Here's a pretty good rundown. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&tkr=AAPL:US&sid=a3bFLJ6fDr5w Home Depot was not found to be liable. It does say the product was "defectively designed" and the guy "lacked full knowledge of the product's defect and danger."

Eli


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

This lawsuit (and sometimes this thread) makes me wonder how long this country can keep rewarding people for stupidity.


----------



## cheford (Aug 3, 2009)

"The decision has not forced any company to adopt it. It has not forced anyone to buy a technology they don't want."

How is that so. If the decision is not overturned, the saw companies cannot afford to hand over 1.5million to every injured user. The case will set precedent.

Maybe I am missing something.


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

"The Power Tool Institute (made up of many of the major tool manufacturers) takes strong offense to the concept of making safety devices like this mandatory on products like table saws. They cite both technical and practical/financial problems with mandating SawStop technology - and there are a lot:


The additional cost to manufacturers to implement this technology is estimated to be between $150-$200 per product, an amount that will be passed on to the consumer.
Gass (SawStop) is asking for 8 percent licensing/royalties on the wholesale price of each saw sold, a figure that many manufacturers view as near-extortion and monopoly position. This fee would also be passed on to consumers.
"False positives" or "nuisance trips" produce downtime and expenses. False positives can trip on common materials such as moist wood (think freshly delivered pressure treated lumber).
A false trip mandates replacement of the brake mechanism which is an expensive piece (~$59)
A false trip mandates replacement of the saw blade, since it is unknown whether the carbide teeth may be jarred or broken loose - creating a hazard. As most pros know, blades can be upwards of $100 each
During a braking event, carbide teeth could be thrown through the blade opening
Existing Underwriters Laboratories document ANSI/UL 987 includes provisions for maintaining safe distance from saw blades and instructions for proper use.
The "court is out" on how a high-impact braking mechanism will affect smaller jobsite table saws.
Consumer choice can dictate whether this technology, and its associated potential issues and added cost, will gain widespread acceptance by consumers
A low percentage of the 30,000 annual (U.S.) table saw injuries are due to contact with the blade - most are from kickback.

Between the 8% fee and the additional hardware costs, your typical $400 jobsite saw would potentially rise in cost to around $625. Your entry level table saws would all but disappear. I'm not sure how well that will be received by consumers who can keep themselves safe and don't need the Consumer Protection Safety Commission to do them any "favors"."


----------



## JJohnston (May 22, 2009)

I agree that if this award stands, it will set a dangerous precedent. If that happens, what we'll need then is for someone to hurt himself on a miter saw, then sue Sawstop for having all those patents, but not developing a blade-brake miter saw - give them a taste of their own medicine.

And if only we could get the gun industry to band together like the power tool manufacturers.


----------



## oldskoolmodder (Apr 28, 2008)

NO amount of money fixes stupid. You just can't fix STUPID. Isn't that one of the big points here?

As has been pointed out already, there seems to be this false sense of security, that you're totally safe if you are using a SawStop product. I don't let ANYONE use my tablesaws unless I'm around and they fully understand how dangerous they can be. Sawstop seems to give people the idea that they don't have to pay as close attention when using their saws, as they would any other saw. And that's WAY more dangerous than knowing what you are doing/paying attention.


----------



## Dark_Lightning (Nov 20, 2009)

Man this is nuts. Next, it's going to be a lawsuit for banging a thumb with a hammer. There should definitely be an electromagnetic detection and deflection system that will cause the hammer to swerve away from your thumb, if it's too close, and going fast enough to cause damage. I can easily develop such a device, and I'm willing to say that with enough sold, I can lower the price to about $1 million each. Where are my royalties, dammit?!?

The fact is, we all live with risk. Here are some pointers (oh, btw, I values my partz, and always consider the safety aspects before I cut):

1. Place your machine on a stable surface. VERIFY it doesn't rock.
2. Use the guards and fences, and pushsticks, etc.
3. PAY ATTENTION. Even then during the work, s&*t happens. It is YOUR obligation to pay attention to the task. If some skirt walks by, and you're admiring the view instead of the blade, you may pay the price, but it is YOUR fault, not Ryobi's.
4. Take personal responsibility for your actions and their consequenses. I firmly believe that the world is a random place, and even if, while driving, you are paying attention, not driving drunk, obeying the rules of the road, etc., you can still get wiped out. That's the nature of the world. Not nice, just the way it is.


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

A guy is trying to sue Bosch because of a miter saw accident;

" * The plaintiff claims that "flesh detection and braking technology" and "user friendly blade guard(s)" have been available for years. The flesh detection technology stops a blade instantly when it is touched by human flesh.

By his own admission he knew the technology was available (for table saws) but what he doesn't admit is that even the originator of the technology (SawStop) failed to ever place it into a miter saw - which was the tool used during the unfortunate accident. If the patent-owner hadn't come up with a reason, method, or incentive to develop a SawStop-enabled Miter saw, then it is unreasonable to assert that Bosch should have done so.


He says the technology could have prevented his 2007 injury from a Bosch miter saw."


----------



## roman (Sep 28, 2007)

On American Currency it reads something like

"in God we Trust"

who quit first ?

"Long live the Queen" in two official languages both of which I suck at.

Bon Sois ?


----------



## roman (Sep 28, 2007)

maybe the person who invented and patented "saw stop" shall soon have their "due"..............47,000 fingers later


----------



## Karson (May 9, 2006)

Do You Serve Lawyers?

A man walked into a bar, leading an alligator by a leash. He asked the bartender, "Do you serve lawyers here?"

"Sure do," said the bartender.

"Good," replied the man. "Give me a beer, and I'll have a lawyer for my 'gator."


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

*47,000 fingers later*

If you cooked those up like Hot Wings they wouldn't feed all of the Lumberjocks on the forum.


----------



## lilredweldingrod (Nov 23, 2009)

AAAHHHHHHH!!!! STOP! My mind is made up. I won't be confused with facts!


----------



## Padre (Nov 5, 2008)

I officially nominate this thread for the dead horse award.


----------



## Abbott (May 10, 2009)

*Padre* +1 Thread -0


----------



## DaveHerron (Jan 21, 2008)

Have you read this? The guy who brought the suit should receive one of those Darwin Awards.

Popular Woodworking article


----------



## Brian024 (Feb 2, 2009)

That's what I thought most likely happened David. He definitely deserves a Darwin Award for that.


----------



## canadianchips (Mar 12, 2010)

HUH !
Someone stated. The guy that cut his fingers off MIGHT loose his job if he didn't use the saw that the contractor bought ? The guy now has no fingers, he will be looking for another job anyway. I said in my last comment. COMMON SENSE is safer than any device that any inventor can come up with. 
Just wondering: 
Is the guy that got injured the FOOL ? Remember he was doing his job,
Is the lawyer that took on the case and won (Earns income from Commision remember) the fool ?Doing his job
Is the jury the Fools ? They were doing there job.
Is the judge the fool for awarding the amount ? He or she was doing their job.
Ryobi and Home Depot (For the moment are the loosers) because of the ABOVE system that is being used in a democratic society.
Thanks for the long winded comments. I like a good laugh ! Now I am going to do my job.


----------



## Jedediah (Mar 26, 2010)

I think lawyers do a poor job of educating the public on the law, I'll attempt to rectify this now. Many attorneys will criticize my summary, but please remember I'm attempting to make generalizations, I'm not writing an article for lawyers. I've pursued numerous products liability suits in the State of Texas, and I would like to address some of the points that have been made by individuals. Let me begin by stating that because of the general nature of this thread that this post should in no way be construed as legal advice related to any individual or state, and that individuals with legal questions, or that think that they need an attorney, should immediately seek out an attorney of their own choosing.
There exists a hierarchy of law. From the top down there is constitutional law, legislative statutes, and common law (judge made law). If the constitution conflicts with a statute, the constitution should control, and if a statute conflicts with common law, the statute should control. What this means is that individuals always have the power to seek change through the democratic process by pressuring their legislatures to change the law. 
Where does common law come from? Besides precedent there exists an organization called the American legal institute. Made up of law professors, judges, and other eggheads the ALI puts out theoretical model laws on what the law should be in most situations. Currently there is a Second and a Third Restatement of Torts. In Texas, and in many other states, the second restatement is the governing law that the Courts chose to adopt and is what I'll discuss.
It sounds like in this situation the jury returned a verdict finding that the product was defectively designed under strict products liability law. This is different then negligence ,which requires a Plaintiff to establish that there is a duty to use reasonable care, a breach of that duty of care, and a requirement that it was foreseeable that the breach of care would result in injury. A design defect is also different then a manufacturing defect, because a manufacturing defect generally requires that you show that the manufacture of the product deviated from the intended design of the product. Generally (under the Second Restatement of Torts), if you are pursuing a design defect it is necessary, among other things, to show that that the product was unreasonably dangerous (meaning more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect the product to be) and there existed a reasonable alternative design for the product that would have prevented the injury and that was technologically and economically feasible.
Let's consider the latter elements "technologically and economically feasible." Saying that an alternative design is technologically feasible simply means that the alternative design was feasible. We don't want to punish designers for not having a design that is impossible. Therefore, before the technology existed for the Sawstop, it would be difficult to claim that the tablesaw contained a design defect because the technology didn't exist yet. Secondly, the design must be economically feasible which simply means that the price of the alternative design must not outweigh the added safety or utility of the product. So if a change in design for a tablesaw, would increase the costs of manufacturing a product a 1000% then it is more difficult to claim that it was economically feasible for the manufacturer to produce to the alternative design.
Affirmative defenses exists which if shown by the defendant, absolve the defendant of liability even if the plaintiff proves there exists a design defect. I'll discuss them shortly.
Let's now address general concerns and comments seemed to be shared by some Lumberjocks.
1. Now the government will require licensing to use the product.-- Really, a suit by an individual against a corporation for an individual's grievance has no connection with government licensing.
2. Now my bicycle will need airbags, my handsaw will need a sawstop.-- Is it economically and technologically feasible to make those changes?
3. Maybe the saw manufacturers should get together and establish a defense fund for this.-- Many large manufacturers carry insurance that covers this.
4. Suits like this are the reason companys move overseas.--I've sued foreign corporations without any problem, most keep agents for services in this country and those that don't are generally covered by an international treaty that allows for service of foreign corporations. 
5. The saw did what it was supposed to do, cut.--Was the product more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect it to be…strong argument, doubtlessly made by the defendant's attorneys…wasn't successful in this case, but it will be in others.
6. Adding the saw would mean that the manufacturer was admitting the product was dangerous.--Many States' rules of evidence do not allow the use of subsequent design changes to be used to show that a product was defectively designed, because the States want the designers to make the product safe.
7. There should be a comparison made as to the time it takes for an accident to happen and the time it takes for that Sawstop to work. I don't think there's anything that can shut down a spinning sawblade down in time to prevent an injury.-- The alternative design needs to prevent the injury, that's an element of proving a design defect.
8. Sawstop is advancing their own interests-- Only the individual that was hurt has standing to bring suit.
9. What other wacky features will they put on our tools because of these stupid lawsuits--Is there a miter saw without a deadmans switch? A lot of early litigation took place because of the lack of deadmans switches on machines, manufacturers change their products because of lawsuits, not always a bad thing.
10. The individual modified the product--Modification is an affirmative defense.
11. The individual abused or misused the product--both affirmative defenses.
12. The individual was stupid.--Contributory negligence is a defense in Texas to products liabilities suits, I don't know about the other States.
13. They haven't put a saw stop saw in the school because it would actually increase their liability unless they replaced all their saws. Replacing only some of them puts them in the position of having to defend the old saws while recognizing the new technology. -- Actually a different issue then proving a design defect against a manufacturer, this question addresses the liability of a school for its choice of tools--start a new thread, and I'll give my full opinion.
14. It's the lawyers and judges fault--Lawyers advocate a position, judges interpret the law…You determine the law through your participation in the democratic process.
15. The judge should have thrown the lawsuit out. Judges determine law, Juries determine fact. Do you want a series of autocratic tyrants subject to cronyism, lobbying, and influence to decide factual issues or twelve random American citizens. I'll take the everyday American everytime.
I welcome comment and debate. Please don't tell me I'm stupid, instead tell me I'm stupid because…


----------



## ardbeg (Feb 10, 2010)

Regardless of your position on the lawsuit, after reading the details of what Mr Osario did, you must conclude it would be equally safe to place your hand in a running blender to help make your morning smothee. This case should have been thrown out soley one the merit of the accident and obvious misuse of the equipment.


----------



## boboswin (May 23, 2007)

I had often wondered what kind of logic "programmers" might use in a new situation.
Now, if I could just figure out judges and jurors.

Bob


----------



## tommyt654 (Dec 16, 2008)

It will only be a matter of time till a Sawslop fails, When it does will the courts and jury be as intelligent(just jokin) in their verdict as they were with this lawsuit. Gass and his co. will be gone in a few more yrs because of his sour grapes involvment with this case and we will have better safer saws but not because of him. It will be because safety will become a larger factor in the future.Its a shame that Osario cut his hand but he was negligent as well as his employer. Everyone agrees on that point,So do what I have done,Call your congressman and complain, I talked to mine several times and he has looked at hundreds of individuals statements on this matter. He,s an avid woodworker and doctor as well and has come to the conclusion its a sadly needed technology from his doctorial standpoint, yet his commonsense attitude tells him its not necessary to implement it on all saws as a safe use of the tool leaves little risk of injury. This will pass and the verdict will be overturned.The real loser will be Gass as more than likely the resentment he will generate by his involvment in the case will diminish sales of his tools and he,ll probably go bankrupt,Too bad they are nice saws but for $3000 I can buy a saw,jointer, planer ,and bandsaw nowadays rather than just a saw and I,ll still have the ten god gave me because I practice safe techniques when I woodwork using power tools.Just a sidenote before I go, I have had an injury while woodworking and required medical help, a splinter 5 inches long only because I wasn,t wearing gloves while handling some wood from the woodpile


----------



## spalted (Mar 20, 2010)

Maybe its been said already - but the SawStop technology was invented by this guy a long time ago and he spent many years trying to pitch his idea to the major TS manufacturers who never quite met his asking price. He held out until he could get up the capital to offer his own line of saws. If he was so concerned about public safety perhaps he could've made the technology available at a reasonable price YEARS earlier?

Sorry, but I agree with all those who are saying this is an example of someone using the courts for less than honest intentions. Its called GREED and I have a problem when people try to hide behind something that sounds great on the surface like public safety.

Sorry - I don't have a source readily available but I remember reading about this a long before the sawstop saw ever came out.

All of the above is my opinion, and may or may not be fact.


----------



## Tomas (Jun 25, 2007)

I happen to agree that the failure to use flesh detection technology should construe nwly manufactured table saws as being defective.

I agree with the court's decision and I, as a woodworker, who owns a standard tablesaw, would have joined with the jurors in holding the company liable.

My next tablesaw will have this technology. We are born with hands, fingers, arms, and it is a shame that despite this technology existing to prevent accidents that every year people lose body parts. No money in the world is worth the loss of a body part. Yet, I take those risks. Thankfully laws are changing to reduce the loss of body parts. My crusade is against hearing loss, but that is another topic.

If the technology exists to promote the safe use of a product, is reasonably priced and reasonably promotes safety, the lack of that technology renders a product defective, in my opinion. It is very simple and I am all for letting idiots run free but we live in a world where we also have to pay for that idiot's health care so if I can save that idiot from himself and from spreading costs to me, I will force that idiot to use safe stuff. Not a guarantee the idiot will not get hurt, just a guarantee that over time we will shoulder less of an economic burden from idiocy.

People are all in a huff from this case but the idea is stop body part loss and I do not think anyone can justify the lack of this technology on new saws that are sold from this date forward. It is that simple to me.


----------



## spalted (Mar 20, 2010)

Come on man… this is woodworkinng where sharp metal things turn really fast to cut wood guided by your bare hands only inches away…. It's not safe, never will be. This is not scrapbooking (oh wait scrapbooking involves using scissors - they better be safety scissors!). Our society is so soft compared to that of my father's or grandfather's. A society that expects the government to regulate the people into using common sense breeds these idiots you talk about! BAH!


----------



## surfin2 (Oct 24, 2009)

Look how slooooow they move the hot dog towards the blade, that's not reality…

What's gonna happen when one of these idiots gets cut with the saw spot installed…

What will they use as an excuse than…


----------



## docholladay (Jan 9, 2010)

I just read several articles related to this case, including statements from the plaintiff's attorneys. Has anyone bothered to notice that the guy was trying to rip a piece of 3/4 inch flooring with 1) no rip fence on the saw, 2) all kinds of other junk apparently on the saw top because he stopped to clear the other stuff off - one item of which was the rip fence, 3) there was no blade guard, splitter or anything like that installed on the saw, 4) he attempted the cut once and stopped because it was jamming up the saw, 5) he had the blade set to at least 3 inches high, way higher than needed for this type of cut, 6) on his second attempt, when the saw started to do "shake violently" his solution to the problem was to push harder, which resulted in his hand slipping in to the blade. The guy did everything he possibly could have done wrong. He violated ever rule in the book. I imagine that the guy was probably never trained properly to use a table saw. In fact, I would be willing to bet that his employer is probably as responsible as anyone that the blade guards and splitter were not installed on the saw. Why is his employer not negligent (because they don't have any money - that's why)? Then, why isn't someone asking the question about how he was trained in the use of the saw. If by chance, which I doubt, he was trained correctly, why was he an idiot and took off all of the safety gear. Why on earth would anyone attempt a cut like that without the fence? Maybe something does need to be done to make table saws safer. That is probably true, but somewhere, somehow, this guy or at least his employer shares a large part of the blame in this case. I would still argue that the employer is probably not being sued because 1) he is a very small business (if he is still in business at all) and 2) the attorneys know that he doesn't have the deep pockets or more importantly the insurance that One World Technologies (owner of Ryobi) has behind them.


----------



## docholladay (Jan 9, 2010)

The plaintiff's attorney's argue that he would not have been injured nearly as badly if the saw had "flesh sensing" technology. They claim that One World Technologies was negligent because they did not license the technology from Bill Gass (Saw Stop CEO) when they had the chance (they actually opted to entered into a joint venture to develop their own technology). However, it could also be argued - I think, very effectively - that he would not have been injured at all, or definitely not as severely, had he been using the saw the way the manufacturer designed it. Somewhere, somehow, we have got to get away from this mentality in this nation that everytime something bad happens or someone gets injured, it has to be someone else's fault and that the solution is to try to sue the pants off of someone. Sometimes people do stupid stuff and bad things happen. You suck it up, you get over it as best you can and you move on. My father smoked for 40 years and died of a heart attack. Maybe I could sue the cigarette manufacturers because they didn't make the cigarettes safe enough. Forget that my father was an idiot for continuing to smoke for 20 more years even after he knew it was bad for him. That is my gripe in this whole thing is that no one seems to see that this guy should share at least some - if not all - of the responsibility for his own injuries.


----------



## docholladay (Jan 9, 2010)

Here is a link with further links to all kinds of information both for and against the verdict in this case. I applaud Popular Woodworking for trying to present the facts and not so much opinion. More than I can say for myself, I suppose.

http://links.mkt230.com/servlet/MailView?ms=NDM5NDQxMgS2&r=MTQzNjY4NTg2MgS2&j=MTU1MDE5ODU3S0&mt=1&rt=0


----------



## Jedediah (Mar 26, 2010)

Because of the differences that occur based on differences between States, and factual circumstances, nothing in this post should be construed as legal advice but should be considered as a general discussion regarding products liability law in our country. If you have a legal question, or think you do, contact an attorney of your own choosing immediately.
Some have argued that this case should have been thrown out solely on the merit of the accident and obvious misuse of the equipment. Most rules of procedure in the States are based on the federal rules of procedure, although not exactly alike, so I'll attempt to make some generalizations about civil procedure, based on Texas Civil Procedure, which if not exactly like the Federal Rules of Procedure or other states will offer some insight into how cases are thrown out. A judge can make a verdict without submitting the issue to a jury if a party files a motion for summary judgment. In essence the motion for summary judgment argues that there is no genuine dispute as to material fact and the case should be settled as a matter of law. Remember, as a matter of policy, we want juries to decide fact and judges to decide law. It's not the job of the judge to weigh the evidence it's only the judge's job to decide whether there is any evidence to support a position. So if defendant files a motion for summary judgment saying "x" and the plaintiff files a motion for summary judgment saying "y" there is a dispute of facts, and the case should go to a jury. With regard to the affirmative defense of misuse, in many states, misuse is only an affirmative defense if the misuse was unforeseeable. Or to put it another way if the specific misuse of the product was foreseeable then misuse will not act as an affirmative defense. So I think a reasonable jury could conclude that the misuse was foreseeable. Still, with all the information that Doc Holladay posted about the fence, etc., if contributory negligence was available as an affirmative defense, it seems it would be a very strong argument.
It's been argued that this case is an example of someone using the courts for less than honest intentions and that its all about GREED and people hiding behind something that sounds great on the surface like public safety. This response confuses me. The Plaintiff's attorney did what Plaintiff's attorney did, he (or she) sued someone. Also as discussed below there doesn't appear to be sufficient information to even form an opinion on what amount of damages should have been awarded to the Plaintiff.
As Popular Woodworking described the Plaintiff's injuries his left hand was injured - his small and ring finger were completely severed, and his middle and index fingers were severely lacerated, including damage to nerves, blood vessels and tendons. His fingers were surgically repaired and reattached, but he continues to suffer from lack of motion, numbness and pain in his left hand. I'm guessing the cost of reattaching fingers and all of his medical bills are a substantial amount. So part of his damages were probably really expensive medical bills. Additionally Popular Woodworking described the Plaintiff as computer programmer who was installing flooring while he learned English. So one of the issues probably submitted to the jury was lost future earnings, etc., because how much value can a one handed computer programmer have? Also it appears that this injury occurred in Boston, and we have to take into consideration the salaries of computer programmers in Boston, where the salaries are probably higher than the national average. All I'm suggesting about the award is that we don't know how it was calculated so just the fact that it was big, doesn't mean that it was automatically unreasonable.


----------



## Jedediah (Mar 26, 2010)

Because of the differences that occur based on differences between States, and factual circumstances, nothing in this post should be construed as legal advice but should be considered as a general discussion regarding products liability law in our country. If you have a legal question, or think you do, contact an attorney of your own choosing immediately.
Negligent Design: Anyone who actually wades through all the links and my previous longwinded posts will probably wonder why I discuss a strict products liability design defect when the linked article says the jury found the Defendant negligent. First, I don't actually know what the jury found, journalists don't report legal events in forms that I can use. Second, plaintiffs will most likely sue claiming both that the product was negligently designed and that the product contained a strict product liability design defect. A negligence action typically requires that a plaintiff show that a defendant had a duty to use reasonable care, a breach of that duty, the breach of duty was the cause of damages, and that it was foreseeable that the breach of duty could result in damages. So what evidence will the plaintiff use to show that the defendant breached its duty to exercise reasonable care in designing a product? The plaintiff is probably going to use the same testimony he would use to support a strict products liability design defect, that the defendant breached its duty to use reasonable care in failing to use a safer alternative design that was both technologically and economically feasible and would have prevented the injury.


----------



## bunkie (Oct 13, 2009)

To those who say that all lawyers are greedy, evil people, I have to say that such sweeping statements cast doubt upon any of your other points because it's simply not true. I happen to be married to a lawyer and I'd be the first one to say that she's one of the finest people I know, deeply ethical and committed to doing her job well and as fairly as she can.

The fact is that anyone can sue anyone else for any reason. It has to be that way. How else are the facts to be exposed and a determination of the validity of any given case to be determined? It's messy and at times deeply unfair. But it would be worse if, as suggested by some, that we lose the right to bring suit against those who we believed to have wronged us. The sad truth is that there are defective products on the market. Even worse, there are some manufacturers who knowingly sell such products. Who is to protect us against their actions? As much as even the most vehement lawyer-hating individual would hate to admit it, it's the lawyer and the right to bring suit in court.

One thing is absolutely true: I can't say how I would have voted had I been a member of the jury in question. The reason why is that I did not sit in the box and hear all of the testimony and the jury instructions. We can pontificate all we want, but without that first-hand experience it's essentially meaningless.


----------



## surfin2 (Oct 24, 2009)

1 . Americans spend $36,000,000 at Wal-Mart Every hour of every day.
2.. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!
3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.
4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target + Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.
5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people and is the largest private Employer, and most speak englisn.
6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the World.
7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger & Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only 15 years.
8. During this same period, 31 supermarket chains sought bankruptcy.
9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.
10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had 5 Years ago.
11. This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur At a Wal-Mart store. (Earth's population is approximately 6.5 Billion.)
12. 90% of all Americans live within 15 miles of a Wal-Mart.
You may think that I am complaining, but I am really laying the ground work for suggesting that MAYBE we should hire the guys who run Wal-Mart to Fix the economy.

This should be read and understood by all Americans
Democrats, Republicans, EVERYONE!!
To all our Presidents and all 535 voting members of the Legislature, It is now official you are ALL corrupt morons:

Subject: Our Failing Government

The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke. 
Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke. 
Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke. 
War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more. 
Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke. 
Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke. 
The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.


----------



## alexsutula (Jan 14, 2010)

Surfin2- wrong venue


----------



## surfin2 (Oct 24, 2009)

I guess this is where the term educated idiots comes from..
There worried about the GOVERNMENT mandating sawstop into the table saw…

As you read this, GOVERNMENT is mentioned many times many ways…

I thought I would give ethem something to laugh about, REMEMBER LAUGHTER…

With all the remarks about the GOVERNMENT, I figured I'd give them something to laugh about (the GOVERNMENT)  ) ) )

Your gonna tell me wrong venue


----------



## surfin2 (Oct 24, 2009)

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ They don't want interference from the GOVERNMENT ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Look at the GOVERNMENTS Track Record…

Can you see why they have there concerns…

As far as what I think of Walmart thats another venue…....................................................


----------

