# Tablesaw lawsuit



## bgibb42 (Mar 9, 2010)

Anybody seen this yet?  

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/mald...6/man_wins_15m_in_first_of_its_kind_saw_case/

Yeah.  Blame the saw, not the operator.  Incredible.


----------



## HSTurning (Mar 9, 2010)

Thats nuts.
Maybe the guy should have spent 2-3k on a good tablesaw and not $99 that he paid for the cheapest saw on the market.  Add the flesh detector to all saws.  Then everyone is going to complain that power tools are to expensive an no one but the contractors and business men can afford them.
Need smarter people on the jury.


----------



## jttheclockman (Mar 9, 2010)

This is being debated on a few sites including the sawmill creek site. May just have opened Pandora's Box with this suit. Never the operator's fault. Who can I sue for the blank I just blew up???


----------



## wolftat (Mar 9, 2010)

Why not? Just look at the kind of money you can get for being dim enough to put coffee that is too hot to drink between your legs and then driving like that.


----------



## GaryMGg (Mar 9, 2010)

That's the problem with our society -- no one takes personal responsibility for their own actions.


----------



## rjwolfe3 (Mar 9, 2010)

jttheclockman said:


> Who can I sue for the blank I just blew up???



Blame Ed!:biggrin:


----------



## babyblues (Mar 9, 2010)

The thing that disappoints me the most is that if the guy wanted a saw with a flesh detection system in it, he could have had one.  He just can't have one for $100.  It's not like it doesn't exist, he just didn't bother to spend the money on a Saw Stop saw.  If it's so vitally important to have that technology in a tablesaw, why not buy one that has it?  Duh!  Seems to me it shouldn't take losing the use of a few fingers to come to that conclusion.  He had the choice to buy a Saw Stop or a Royobi and he went with the Royobi.  But now that he almost cut off his fingers, he's going to sue Royobi because they don't incorporate a design feature that comes with the brand he didn't want to spend the money on.  Well, you get what you pay for.  I don't have a tablesaw for that very reason.


----------



## mranum (Mar 9, 2010)

My view of a large part of American life today:

Its all about me.


Its someone else's fault.


----------



## shootintom (Mar 9, 2010)

The first thing that I noticed in the article was the fact that it happened several years ago. I'm wondering if Saw Stop was available then and is the Saw Stop technology proprietary? But you really have to admit that it's really the fault of the people that were sitting on the jury. Ron White is so right, "You can't fix stupid"!!!!

Tom


----------



## Russianwolf (Mar 9, 2010)

While I'm sure that this will be reduced on appeal, if not overturned completely.

If the results are that manufacturers are forced to incorporate the tech into the saws here's what you will see.

1) All new saw will cost $2000+
2) Many manufactures like Ryobi and Delta will likely stop making them all together as their niche will be gone.
3) Many people who want to get into this hobby, won't.
4) Contractors prices will go up.

Now, from my understanding, the saw-stops have a way of deactivating the brake for a cut at a time. How much you want to bet that the first perso injured while using that feature sues the maker.

Here's hoping my Ryobi lasts me long enough to replace it with one of the European models.


----------



## wolftat (Mar 9, 2010)

So, if I were to get into an accident in my '88 Jeep, could I sue because there were no airbags equipted back then and they shoould have recalled all older vehicles and retro fitted airbags and antilock brakes. I also want to sue the water company because I put my hot water on high and then scalded myself by standing under it. Next I am sueing the electric company for putting electricity into my house and allowing me to damage my eyesight by watching too much TV. Finally, I am going to sue my parents for not putting me to sleep when I was little and allowing me to turn into a lawsuit happy idiot..........Now I feel better. But be aware, if anyone even thinks about something that has anything to do with anything at all, I will sue you all for copyright infringement and habius corpus dilecti!!!!!!  Now my head hurts, I am going to sue the asprin company for not having any close by that I can take.


----------



## PenMan1 (Mar 9, 2010)

If you don't already have the table saw that you want and need, I'd advise you to buy it now! The Trial Lawyers Association has just added about  a 30 percent increase to the cost of shop equipment!

Geez, lawyers! With all the starving lawyers in this country, it is a miracle that the economy isn't in worse shape!


----------



## OKLAHOMAN (Mar 9, 2010)

To the guy that sued and the jury...read the last line of my signature in red:bad:. Enough said!


----------



## Jim15 (Mar 9, 2010)

GaryMGg said:


> That's the problem with our society -- no one takes personal responsibility for their own actions.


 
AMEN. , to this statement.


----------



## wolftat (Mar 9, 2010)

OKLAHOMAN said:


> To the guy that sued and the jury...read the last line of my signature in red:bad:. Enough said!


 Roy, they did find a way to fix stupid, there was an article in the paper not long ago about it, the title was "Man Shoots Self While Cleaning Gun".


----------



## Russianwolf (Mar 9, 2010)

wolftat said:


> Roy, they did find a way to fix stupid, there was an article in the paper not long ago about it, the title was "Man Shoots Self While Cleaning Gun".



Unfortunately, we are still left to clean up the mess they make.


----------



## Texatdurango (Mar 9, 2010)

I whacked my knuckles this morning on my Jet lathe by a protruding piece of a cole chuck I was turning with and it hurts like hell. I am seriously considering suing Jet for an undisclosed amount for pain and suffering and trauma for not providing a flesh detector on the lathe which would instantly stop the rotation upon contact with skin! If the technology is there for saws, then by God it'll work for lathes too!

While I'm at it, I might as well add Woodcraft to the suit since they sell the Saw Stop so are fully aware of the technology.

To me, the real scarry part is this...... "_Osorio’s case is one of more than 50 lawsuits pending throughout the United States against the major table saw manufacturers for failure to adopt the technology_"

How many more will jump on the bandwagon before the major tool companies just say to hell with it and stop making saws and other tools for the home shop woodworker? I'm glad I already have my shop full of tools, I'd hate to pay the prices these things will cost in a few years.


----------



## Chief Hill (Mar 9, 2010)

I don't understand these things Multi million doller suits as a result of stupidity.  I seem to remember someone in the US winning a million dollar law suit for a RV and Cruise Control where the person set it and left the drivers seat and sued becasue "they werent warned about it not being an AUTOPILOT" when they got into an accident.  Urban Legend maybe?  I hope so....
Regardless lets see what happens in an appeal with the table saw. Keep in mind were not on the jury and we dont know 100% of the facts of this case.  I do know that ridiculous issues like this don't occur in Canadian court systems or I dont hear about them.  Its difficult to get huge sums of money for injury in Canadian courts.  Even if it is directly as a result of a manufactures defect.


----------



## sefali (Mar 9, 2010)

Maybe his Ryobi was made after manufacturers rejected the SawStop patent, but before SawStop started making complete machines. If I remember correctly, the mechanism was shopped around, and rejected, and then SawStop TS's came to be. So, he made not have had the option to buy a SawStop to begin with. Just trying to think of some kinda reason he would have a case. The jury was still made up of 12 idiots that probably never used a power tool in their lives, though. Anyone that has, should know that they are all dangerous, and should be treated with respect, for fear of bodily harm, up to and including death. Oh, and lets not forget all of the warnings that come with the saw.


----------



## sefali (Mar 9, 2010)

Does anyone else see a huge class action lawsuit coming? There must have been hundreds of thousands of table saws made since the SawStop system was patented. There have likely been thousands of injuries using those machines. Now that there's been a victory, lawyers and "victims" are gonna smell blood in the water.


----------



## wolftat (Mar 9, 2010)

Texatdurango said:


> I whacked my knuckles this morning on my Jet lathe by a protruding piece of a cole chuck I was turning with and it hurts like hell. I am seriously considering suing Jet for an undisclosed amount for pain and suffering and trauma for not providing a flesh detector on the lathe which would instantly stop the rotation upon contact with skin! If the technology is there for saws, then by God it'll work for lathes too!
> 
> While I'm at it, I might as well add Woodcraft to the suit since they sell the Saw Stop so are fully aware of the technology.
> 
> ...


 The thought of you hitting your hand like that and the sympathy pains caused me great hardship, I may not be able to go near another lathe again after hearing of your tragic accident. For that reason I am forced to seek legal actions against you, you may or may not be hearing from my attorney. Good day Sir!!!


----------



## Bree (Mar 9, 2010)

*US Constitution Article 8 Section 1*
All citizens and corporations will avoid all forms of risk at all times under penalty of criminal punishment and civil action under this Article.  There has been enough risk taking in the founding of this nation.  We are now free of risk...


----------



## David M (Mar 9, 2010)

so our used power tools will be worth more becaust i cant afford to replace it or you will have to trash it because it is a danger to use ........


----------



## HSTurning (Mar 9, 2010)

Neil 
I see a law suit for you and your bandsaw manufacture.  I know I have seen a few others that have also had a run in with the blade of any of their tools.  
Search "OUCH" and I know we have many threads on here about the same issue.  Class action suit.  I have a Ryobi table saw that I purchased just 3 years ago.  Woohoo......
sad sad sad


----------



## fafow (Mar 9, 2010)

Neil, your comments are making me laugh way too much.  If I get fired because I am laughing so much I can't get my work done, you sir, shall hear from my lawyer.

This is just plain nuts.  There are a lot of people in this country who want compensation anytime they get hurt or feel pain regardless of the cause of that.  I remember a number of years back 60 Minutes did a segment on warning labels and pretty much every warning label is a result of a lawsuit.  It's amazing that so many stupid people are still a part of the gene pool.  Read some of those labels and imagine someone actually doing what it is warning you against, then trying to get someone else to pay them for the consequence(s) of their actions, and a jury agreeing.  Absolutely incredible.


----------



## Padre (Mar 9, 2010)

For what it's worth: I was talking with a SawStop rep at my local WoodCraft, and he was telling us how (allegedly) SawStop never intended to get into the actual manufacturing of saws.  They invented the safety mechanism and offered it to all of the other manufacturers to put on their saws.  The manufacturers, according to this fellow, all said that they could not because then they would be admitting that their older saws were in fact unsafe and opening themselves up for liability.  Now in fact it has happened.  

I agree that this is a frivolous lawsuit.  Just because someone comes up with a better/safer way to work does NOT mean that all other ways are 'bad' or 'unsafe.'

Personal responsibility is no more.  Now it is "YOU make me safe, YOU do this for me, YOU think for me, yada, yada, yada."

It reminds me of the jokes by Bill Engvall in his "Here's Your Sign" routines: all those warning labels on everything mean that somewhere, at some time, someone did what it is warning against.

To the lawyers who pursued that case: :bananen_smilies068:


----------



## wolftat (Mar 9, 2010)

HSTurning said:


> Neil
> I see a law suit for you and your bandsaw manufacture. I know I have seen a few others that have also had a run in with the blade of any of their tools.
> Search "OUCH" and I know we have many threads on here about the same issue. Class action suit. I have a Ryobi table saw that I purchased just 3 years ago. Woohoo......
> sad sad sad


 Let's see if this is the proper way to word my pending bandsaw lawsuit...Due to my own stupidity and negligence, I want lots of money from you because I was not using your product as it was supposed to be used........Not going to happen from my end, I admit I was wrong when I got hurt doing what I shouldn't have been doing.


----------



## nava1uni (Mar 9, 2010)

When saws are outlawed, only outlaws will have saws.  LOL.  The rest of us will just have to go back to using hand saws or gnawing the wood.
Stupidity reigns in the courts and frivilous lawsuits cost all of us lots of money


----------



## bgibb42 (Mar 9, 2010)

Padre said:


> For what it's worth: I was talking with a SawStop rep at my local WoodCraft, and he was telling us how (allegedly) SawStop never intended to get into the actual manufacturing of saws.  They invented the safety mechanism and offered it to all of the other manufacturers to put on their saws.  The manufacturers, according to this fellow, all said that they could not because then they would be admitting that their older saws were in fact unsafe and opening themselves up for liability.  Now in fact it has happened.



Funny you should mention this.  I have read a few unsubstantiated reports that the folks at SawStop may be perpetuating some of this in hopes of securing licensing rights to their system being installed on other manufacturers table saws.  

The whole thing boils down to money--I really don't think the plaintiff or the attorneys have real consumer safety in mind.


----------



## HSTurning (Mar 9, 2010)

I went to a vocational high school and had a couple of "Old Timers" teaching me back then.  I have alot of contruction workers in my family.  Many of the "Old Timers are missing a finger or the tip of a finger.  Many have stories about getting cut off, my fault, bandaging it up and finishing the day or going to have it stitched closed and going back to work to finish the day.  I would love to hear what they would say about this or maybe put a couple in the room with this guy.


----------



## GaryMGg (Mar 9, 2010)

wolftat said:


> Yadda yadda yadda... Now my head hurts, I am going to sue the asprin company for not having any close by that I can take.


 
Now I'm going to sue Al Gore for inventing the innerweb 'cause if he hadn't done it, I wouldn't have read this and absorbed some of your headache. 
And, I'm gonna sue you for posting this painful post. :biggrin:

In a more serious tone, what we reallly need is a class action lawsuit against the tort lawyers who chase these types of frivolous cases.
They're the real problem; they've convinced a mindless public to abandon personal responsibility and play the blame game for money!
:frown:

G


----------



## gketell (Mar 9, 2010)

I've said for years that we need one new law that makes it so a manufacturer can put one sticker on all their gear: "This device is not proof against stupidity."  Then we just need juries that understand stupid is as stupid does.   

Hmmmmm might need those stickers on each seat of the jury box.


----------



## OKLAHOMAN (Mar 9, 2010)

Until we have tort reform, we will continue to have these type of law suits.:redface:Sad :redface:​


----------



## Russianwolf (Mar 9, 2010)

OKLAHOMAN said:


> Until we have tort reform, we will continue to have these type of law suits.:redface:Sad :redface:​





mmmmmmmm Raspberry *Tort*e


----------



## wdcav1952 (Mar 9, 2010)

If the source I found is correct, as of 2006, 53% of Senators are attorneys and 36% of US Representatives are attorneys.

Tort reform?  Who the heck are we kidding?!?!?!?


----------



## OKLAHOMAN (Mar 9, 2010)

Yep Cav about as likely as them not accepting the raises they passed for themself's.


----------



## jocat54 (Mar 9, 2010)

Well I agree you can't fix stupid and no one takes personal responsibility any more, our judicial system sucks. The lawyers are going to take the case because of money-but judges need to get off there ----- any throw these out. The juries are sometimes as stupid as the client.
One of the stupid tags I like the best is the one on a lawnmower warning stupid people not to change the blade with engine running!!  I would almost pay money to see that.(Guess I really do with all our waste taxes)


----------



## gmanblue (Mar 9, 2010)

If Osorio had bought a saw stop he would had sued because the saw stop damaged his blade. and sells defected saws.


----------



## NewLondon88 (Mar 9, 2010)

He SHOULD be suing his parents for not buying condoms that had spermicide in them.
The technology was available..


----------



## wolftat (Mar 9, 2010)

I'm gonna sue Sawstop, there machine keeps breaking everytime I use it as a hotdog cutter.


----------



## rjwolfe3 (Mar 9, 2010)

wolftat said:


> I'm gonna sue Sawstop, there machine keeps breaking everytime I use it as a hotdog cutter.



:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:


----------



## bgibb42 (Mar 9, 2010)

NewLondon88 said:


> He SHOULD be suing his parents for not buying condoms that had spermicide in them.
> The technology was available..



:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:


----------



## Grvado (Mar 9, 2010)

*Saw*

What a genius !!!!! I am inspired now !!!!!

I am going to stick a cross pen in my eye and sue cross for $1,000,000,000
because they should have provided safeguards to keep me from pokeing my eye out with one of thier pens. 

Pure genius !!!!

God Bless America !!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## wolftat (Mar 9, 2010)

Grvado said:


> What a genius !!!!! I am inspired now !!!!!
> 
> I am going to stick a cross pen in my eye and sue cross for $1,000,000,000
> because they should have provided safeguards to keep me from pokeing my eye out with one of thier pens.
> ...


 Do I see a new Utube craze????


----------



## markgum (Mar 9, 2010)

we have become a sue happy world. Really sad...


----------



## Padre (Mar 9, 2010)

I have always loved Sue.  Of course, I married her too!:biggrin:


----------



## David Keller (Mar 9, 2010)

I can't even bear to follow the link.  I get so pissed off every time I see something like this.

George Carlin used to do a routine about how we go over the top with safety issues just to protect stupid people.  If I remember correctly, the example he gave was in regards to high voltage boxes.  His point was that the words,"Do Not Touch" were unnecessary.  Any dipsh*t with half a brain should no not to touch it.  Anybody stupid enough to touch it, deserves to be shocked.


----------



## leestoresund (Mar 9, 2010)

The person who invented the SawStop is a lawyer.
And he tried to get laws passed that every saw manufacturer had to license his technology because it made all saws safer.
Failed.

I remember years ago when someone successfully sued Cessna because the seat latch on his seat failed. The Plane was 15 years old and parts wear out. Raised the cost on all planes about $3K from then on.

Tort reform will not stop this. Well educated jurors will. Our schools do not produce people who are well educated.

Spoken as a lawyer but this is not legal advice.

Lee


----------



## HSTurning (Mar 9, 2010)

I know a guy that stuck his hand in a snow blower right below that sign that said "do not place hand in side" and lost the tip of his finger.  He has lawyers in the family and they said lets sue.  At least he was a real guy and said "it was my fault"


----------



## Mike of the North (Mar 9, 2010)

I remember a comedian having a joke about not being surprised by stupid jury rulings, "what do you expect from 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty".


----------



## bitshird (Mar 9, 2010)

Having lost the use of one finger pretty much totally, and cutting half of another on off, I would like to sue my self for doing what I did, The flesh detection/ Saw Stop was available at the time, but like the guy in the article I was using a cheap piece of crap delta, and I do miss my fingers terribly, but it wasn't Delta fault, I was the Idiot that caused the accident. 
As a nation who's economy is regulated by Lawyers , when are we going to take responsibility for our own dumb arse mistakes. we wonder why Dr's charge so much, ever see their malpractice insurance bills?


----------



## babyblues (Mar 9, 2010)

I think it's unfair to assume the guy was stupid.  Maybe the accident it was unavoidable.  So maybe we can avoid calling the guy stupid without cause.

I find it odd that manufacturers wouldn't want this technology in their saws.  After all, by claiming that their saw is safe if certain safety precautions are followed, aren't they basically admitting that table saws are inherently dangerous thus the need for safety precautions?  What's the point of safety precautions?  To minimize the risk of serious injury.  Well, wouldn't this technology virtually eliminate the risk of serious injury?  So, if they're going to go on about safety precautions, why not put their money where their mouth is and make their saw totally safe.  Sounds like a good business move to me.  No matter what the inventor's motives, it's a good idea.  Even if the guy is a lawyer and he's trying to make it illegal not to use his product, it's a good idea.  I'm sure the guys who invented seat belts, air bags and safety switches on guns had ulterior motives...not likely.  :biggrin:


----------



## bgibb42 (Mar 10, 2010)

babyblues said:


> I think it's unfair to assume the guy was stupid.  Maybe the accident it was unavoidable.  So maybe we can avoid calling the guy stupid without cause.
> 
> I find it odd that manufacturers wouldn't want this technology in their saws.  After all, by claiming that their saw is safe if certain safety precautions are followed, aren't they basically admitting that table saws are inherently dangerous thus the need for safety precautions?  What's the point of safety precautions?  To minimize the risk of serious injury.  Well, wouldn't this technology virtually eliminate the risk of serious injury?  So, if they're going to go on about safety precautions, why not put their money where their mouth is and make their saw totally safe.  Sounds like a good business move to me.  No matter what the inventor's motives, it's a good idea.  Even if the guy is a lawyer and he's trying to make it illegal not to use his product, it's a good idea.  I'm sure the guys who invented seat belts, air bags and safety switches on guns had ulterior motives...not likely.  :biggrin:



It's not necessarily good business.  From what I read, it would cost $100-200 per machine to add this technology.  Plus 8% fees *per unit* as part of the licensing from the inventor.  These costs would likely cut out a large chunk of the market as the saws would become too expensive for the average home hobbyist or contractor.  Couple that with the cost of replacement when the unit trips.  $65 for a replacement cartridge and the cost of a new saw blade, which can run upwards of $120.  

There is also the problem with nuisance trips.  Wet or moist wood being the prime example.  There is also some evidence apparently that when the cartridge fires, there is a possibility of carbide teeth being thrown off the blade at the operator.  And while we're on the subject of safety, this technology does not prevent kickback, which is much more likely and equally dangerous event.  Yes, I know that table saws come with blade guards and anti-kickback pawls.  How many of us remove them from the table saw or don't install them all together?  People routinely defeat that safety mechanism, why wouldn't someone find a way to defeat the SawStop mechanism to avoid nuisance trips and then "forget" to reset it?  Is that stupid?  Possibly.  Is that a risk that folks take?  All the time.  Should we sue manufacturers over our own inability to calculate risk?  No way.


----------



## snyiper (Mar 10, 2010)

Babyblues that is a good point but remember when we make something idiot proof we then breed a bigger idiot! At some point we need to take responsibility for something we do, as it is now it is always someone elses fault and common sense is falling by the wayside!!


----------



## traderdon55 (Mar 10, 2010)

I can see the next television ad. HAVE YOU BEEN INJURED USING YOUR TABLESAW. CALL OUR LAW FIRM AND WE WILL GET YOU THE COMPENSATION YOU DESERVE. CALL 1-800-DUMBA$$  All jokes aside the big problem we have is 12 fools sitting on a jury who think what the heck lets give him the money,after all it's a big company and their insurance is going to pay it anyway. They tend to forget the insurance has to get the money though premiums paid by the companies. Then the companies have to get the money for the premiums by raising their prices. So in the long run we all are the ones paying for these stupid awards.


----------



## TellicoTurning (Mar 10, 2010)

bgibb42 said:


> Anybody seen this yet?
> 
> http://www.boston.com/yourtown/mald...6/man_wins_15m_in_first_of_its_kind_saw_case/
> 
> Yeah.  Blame the saw, not the operator.  Incredible.



I saw this over on FFW forum... you would think that if you bought a tool that has a sharp spinning blade that goes several thousand rpms, you would kinda think about watching where you put your fingers.....  I'm scared to death of and respect all of my saws, so I pay strict attention where and how I approach both of them.... I like my fingers and plan on taking them with me to where ever I wind up at the end of this life.


----------



## PenMan1 (Mar 10, 2010)

I think this whole fiasco can be summed up quite nicely by those immortal words of Forrest Gump's mama: " Stupid is as stupid does."

What a ridiculous world we live in!


----------



## Russianwolf (Mar 10, 2010)

I'm sueing Stanley. They have the most dangerous tool in my shop and there isn't a single warning label on the entire thing. Heck it didn't even come with operating instructions. The culprit????

The infamous Stanley Philips head screw driver. I have more scars from it than any other tool.


----------



## Daniel (Mar 10, 2010)

First I wonder how well this verdict will stand up on appeal since the technology was available but not chose. Saw Stop is patented but the inventor offered it to all manufacturers of table saw before starting his own line of saws. As far as I know it is still available to other manufacturers. they do not want to have to redesign there saws to fit it. All I can say is buy your dream saw now, you think you can't afford it now. It may not even be available tomorrow.


----------



## wolftat (Mar 10, 2010)

The guy had the option of buying a saw with the technology and made the conscious decision to buy one without it. I want the air conditioning in my '88 jeep to work, but it didn't come with it and I didn't choose the option so I don't get the benefits of it. How hard is that to understand?


----------



## Jgrden (Mar 10, 2010)

You should read a book on how people became deceased over the history of the United States. Things happen to them that are completely coincidental. We live in a modern age with safeguards, but the machinery we work with is also more powerful and sometimes unpredictable. Go easy on yourself.


----------



## babyblues (Mar 10, 2010)

bgibb42 said:


> It's not necessarily good business.  From what I read, it would cost $100-200 per machine to add this technology.  Plus 8% fees *per unit* as part of the licensing from the inventor.  These costs would likely cut out a large chunk of the market as the saws would become too expensive for the average home hobbyist or contractor.  Couple that with the cost of replacement when the unit trips.  $65 for a replacement cartridge and the cost of a new saw blade, which can run upwards of $120.



But that's what I have a problem with.  I can understand minimizing cost and all that as good business, but I think that reducing the risk of serious injury in using a company's product is good business as well.  I guess my question is: Is it worth the money to avoid losing a finger and all of the expense and agony of dealing with the repercussions of that?  To me it is.  I'm not sure I agree with making it mandatory for every manufacturer to incorporate this guy's system in their saws, but I think it would behoove manufacturers to start working on their own system.  Maybe this guy could even come up with a system that could be purchased and installed independently by the consumer.  I know there would be a whole new list of concerns there too (consumer doesn't install it correctly etc.) but it's a start.



bgibb42 said:


> There is also the problem with nuisance trips.  Wet or moist wood being the prime example.  There is also some evidence apparently that when the cartridge fires, there is a possibility of carbide teeth being thrown off the blade at the operator.  And while we're on the subject of safety, this technology does not prevent kickback, which is much more likely and equally dangerous event.  Yes, I know that table saws come with blade guards and anti-kickback pawls.  How many of us remove them from the table saw or don't install them all together?  People routinely defeat that safety mechanism, why wouldn't someone find a way to defeat the SawStop mechanism to avoid nuisance trips and then "forget" to reset it?  Is that stupid?  Possibly.  Is that a risk that folks take?  All the time.  Should we sue manufacturers over our own inability to calculate risk?  No way.



In the end, there's always a way to circumvent safety precautions for the sake of ease or time.  You're right, that's not the manufacturer's fault.  For example, it's not their fault if someone doesn't use the blade guards and anti-kickback pawls, but wouldn't they be negligent for not providing them?  Whether someone actually uses a safety mechanism correctly or not is irrelevant when it comes to the manufacturers responsibility to provide for operator safety.  The manufacturer can't eliminate operator error, but it can give operators a chance to use the safety mechanisms they have included.  The SawStop mechanism wouldn't be any different in that regard.  Of course if these problems really do exist with the SawStop mechanism, they should be addressed before making the mechanism mandatory, but like I said, it would be a good start.


----------



## snyiper (Mar 10, 2010)

I guess Manufactures should provide classes to educate buyers and users oh and lets not forget to provide safety glass and goggles for the user as well as hearing protection. Lets not stop there they must also provide a respirator and or dust collector as well to protect form dust and such. Where do we take over as purchasers? I lost the tip of a finger to a chain saw, yup my fault yea I paid the ER bill, yes I wont do that stupid trick again, lesson learned. Why not sue the Chainsaw company? Because I was holding small branches trimming them and the saw caught and jumped..wrong tool for the job my fault period and I have the scars to prove it!!!


----------



## glycerine (Mar 10, 2010)

That's amazing... but for $1,500,000 I may be willing to give up a finger or two...


----------



## wolftat (Mar 10, 2010)

How much is honor and self respect worth?


----------



## HSTurning (Mar 10, 2010)

Babyblues
I think you are missing the point.  The guy (or boss) could have bought the sawstop for $1500-$3000 that has the safty device he wanted.  He didnt want to pay that and opted for the $99 Ryobi.  To cut off his fingers I would be willing to bet a weeks pay that on top of getting the cheap saw he didnt install or removed the blade gaurd.  So he took a saw that was less safe then the Sawstop that he wouldnt spend the money on and made it even more unsafe by removing the only blade safty feature.  
I dont think that the whole world should have to pay for the people that should not be on the survival side of "survival of the fittest".
I know how to use a table saw correctly.  I have the $99 Ryobi because it is small and "CHEAP".  I would love a 16"+ Tannewitz, but I cant afford a $3,750 for a used one.  Its the choice I made.  If the Sawstop now needs to be used on all saws that $99 saw I bought 3 years ago is now $119 retail plus $250 for the unit and royalties for a total of $369 not includeing that you have more parts to go bad and need replacing.  I would still be looking to buy a table saw.


----------



## wolftat (Mar 10, 2010)

HSTurning said:


> Babyblues
> I think you are missing the point. The guy (or boss) could have bought the sawstop for $1500-$3000 that has the safty device he wanted. He didnt want to pay that and opted for the $99 Ryobi. To cut off his fingers I would be willing to bet a weeks pay that on top of getting the cheap saw he didnt install or removed the blade gaurd. So he took a saw that was less safe then the Sawstop that he wouldnt spend the money on and made it even more unsafe by removing the only blade safty feature.
> I dont think that the whole world should have to pay for the people that should not be on the survival side of "survival of the fittest".
> I know how to use a table saw correctly. I have the $99 Ryobi because it is small and "CHEAP". I would love a 16"+ Tannewitz, but I cant afford a $3,750 for a used one. Its the choice I made. If the Sawstop now needs to be used on all saws that $99 saw I bought 3 years ago is now $119 retail plus $250 for the unit and royalties for a total of $369 not includeing that you have more parts to go bad and need replacing. I would still be looking to buy a table saw.


 And Matt, don't forget, it will still break everytime you try to cut a hotdog with the saw.


----------



## HSTurning (Mar 10, 2010)

When it becomes a standard option on the bandsaw what are the butchers going to do?


----------



## Russianwolf (Mar 10, 2010)

babyblues said:


> But that's what I have a problem with.  I can understand minimizing cost and all that as good business, but I think that reducing the risk of serious injury in using a company's product is good business as well.  I guess my question is: Is it worth the money to avoid losing a finger and all of the expense and agony of dealing with the repercussions of that?  To me it is.  I'm not sure I agree with making it mandatory for every manufacturer to incorporate this guy's system in their saws, but I think it would behoove manufacturers to start working on their own system.  Maybe this guy could even come up with a system that could be purchased and installed independently by the consumer.  I know there would be a whole new list of concerns there too (consumer doesn't install it correctly etc.) but it's a start.
> 
> 
> 
> In the end, there's always a way to circumvent safety precautions for the sake of ease or time.  You're right, that's not the manufacturer's fault.  For example, it's not their fault if someone doesn't use the blade guards and anti-kickback pawls, but wouldn't they be negligent for not providing them?  Whether someone actually uses a safety mechanism correctly or not is irrelevant when it comes to the manufacturers responsibility to provide for operator safety.  The manufacturer can't eliminate operator error, but it can give operators a chance to use the safety mechanisms they have included.  The SawStop mechanism wouldn't be any different in that regard.  Of course if these problems really do exist with the SawStop mechanism, they should be addressed before making the mechanism mandatory, but like I said, it would be a good start.



Okay let's examine this from a slightly different perspective for a second. First the facts:

1)Saw-Stop technology existed when he purchased the saw.
2)He decided to buy a saw without the saw-stop technology.
3)He had an accident that the technology would have prevented or minimized.
4)He sued the manufacturer because they didn't use the existing technology on the saw he purchased.
5)He won the case.

Okay, those are the facts. Now let's look at the precedent it sets.

If I'm driving a car that doesn't have traction control, but was purchased new at the time that traction control technology existed on other cars. I have an accident in the car that traction control would have prevented/minimized. I am now able to sue the manufacturer for selling me a car that I chose to buy that didn't have something that I wasn't willing to pay for.

And yes, I bet the Auto Manufacturers are having their lawyers look long and hard at this case.


----------



## babyblues (Mar 10, 2010)

HSTurning said:


> Babyblues
> I think you are missing the point.  The guy (or boss) could have bought the sawstop for $1500-$3000 that has the safty device he wanted.  He didnt want to pay that and opted for the $99 Ryobi.  To cut off his fingers I would be willing to bet a weeks pay that on top of getting the cheap saw he didnt install or removed the blade gaurd.  So he took a saw that was less safe then the Sawstop that he wouldnt spend the money on and made it even more unsafe by removing the only blade safty feature.
> I dont think that the whole world should have to pay for the people that should not be on the survival side of "survival of the fittest".
> I know how to use a table saw correctly.  I have the $99 Ryobi because it is small and "CHEAP".  I would love a 16"+ Tannewitz, but I cant afford a $3,750 for a used one.  Its the choice I made.  If the Sawstop now needs to be used on all saws that $99 saw I bought 3 years ago is now $119 retail plus $250 for the unit and royalties for a total of $369 not includeing that you have more parts to go bad and need replacing.  I would still be looking to buy a table saw.



If you go back and read the first post I made in this thread, I believe I made this very point.  He could have purchased a saw with the technology to prevent his injury, but went with the $100 Royobi, so the fault lies with him.  Speculation on what he may or may not have done that may or may not have contributed to him almost losing his fingers is irrelevant to the conversation.  I certainly don't think suing a manufacturer solves anything, if there is indeed a problem that needs solving.

So far, all anyone has focused on are the negatives or the possible problems with incorporating SawStop technology into existing table saw designs.  I'm just trying to suggest maybe it could be incorporated as an added safety precaution.


----------



## jasontg99 (Mar 10, 2010)

Unreal.  When are we going to stop rewarding people for being stupid???


----------



## HSTurning (Mar 10, 2010)

Babyblues
I have been back to this thread many times and read all the post but I didnt read it all in one sitting so i didnt realize your point in the first post.  
All I am saying in is that if he wanted the feature he should have bought that saw.
I would love a Corvette and it has a feature that allows it to go almost 200mph.  I couldnt afford it so I bought a Neon.  A Volvo is one of the safest cars on the road.  Why dont all the safty features of the Volvo come in every car.  MONEY.  You get what you can afford.  I see no reason for it to be a standard safty feature on all saws if you triple or quadruple the cost of an entry level item.


----------



## NewLondon88 (Mar 10, 2010)

My first thought, when I read the article was
"I wonder who subsidized his legal fees for the lawsuit?"


----------



## JerrySambrook (Mar 10, 2010)

Charlie,
     After meeting the manufacturer of the Saw Stop personally a few years back at the Chicago tool show, and then listeneing to him on CNN whine before congress to have them pass a law to incorporate this as a mandatory feature, I have come to the conclusion is not a damn yankee. (Then again, YOU are from Joisy, so neither are you:wink
    I believe someone on this site that we both know and lives a state below me (that should narrow it down) even offered to demo the saw for them without using a hot dog, but in fact offering up a finger or three instead.

The other nice feature that has been brought to light about the technology(although on the internet, so I KNOW it is true) is that wet wood, and no, not green, can set it off.

Jerry


----------



## Texatdurango (Mar 10, 2010)

babyblues said:


> .....So far, all anyone has focused on are the *negatives* or the possible problems with incorporating SawStop technology into existing table saw designs. I'm just trying to suggest maybe it could be incorporated as an added safety precaution.


Well that's because I'm hard pressed to find any *positives* in this story!

A guy has an accident, so what, accidents happen everyday to millions of people in all walks of life.  Did he seek out legal counsel or did someone seek him out, we don't know.  

Regardless of how or why they were initiated, this and other similar law suits (I hear 50 have jumped on the gravy train so far), will in one way or another have an impact on the price we pay for tools and how our tools are configured in the future.   

Is the saw stop a good idea, perhaps, but I personally don't want it on my saw, just like I don't like other things on various tools in my shop and I darn sure don't want someone telling me I have to have it on my saw because some slick, greedy individual found a way to peddle his products.


----------



## jkeithrussell (Mar 10, 2010)

I'm a lawyer, so lawyer and lawsuit bashing threads always make me a little sad. There are so many myths and falsehoods perpetuated in these threads, that I wouldn't know where to start with responding to them. 

Do I agree with the verdict in this case? No. But there is a process (appeals) for getting it reviewed by a higher court. In most cases like this, the appellate courts greatly reduce the verdict. I will say this, if you study the actual history of personal injury litigation you will see that manufacturers of products often bypass safety mechanisms that could be adopted with relative ease to save money. I'm not saying that is always the case, but it has been the case with a whole lot of products. When lawsuits begin to stick, the manufacturers roll out products that are safer. 

Automobiles are a good example. Shoulder harness safety belts in middle and back seats, for example, could have been installed in all vehicles decades ago, but the manufacturers continued to use the cheaper lap belts until their attention was demanded by lawsuits. Were the people who were injured while riding in back seats with lap belts on all idiots who got what they deserved? As between the company that built the car with the lap belt and the person who was injured while using it, which should be responsible for the injuries?

I'm probably the most conservative person that you could ever hope to meet, and I don't condone frivolous lawsuits, but not every lawsuit is frivolous just because it exists. And not every person who is injured by a product is an idiot who got what he deserved. One last example, then I'll let everyone get back to spreading urban legends about various runaway juries -- hand-held circular saws used to carve gouges into people's legs all the time. A person would make a cut, take their finger off the trigger, and lower the saw to their leg. But the blade was still turning and there was no blade guard, so the thigh got sliced open. Was the operator in error? Yes. Could the manufacturer have easily and cheaply installed a braking device and safety guard? Yes. See if you can find a new circular saw now that doesn't have a slow-down mechanism and safety guard. The manufacturers did not decide to add those things out of the kindness of their hearts. 

Anyone who wants to know what really happened with the McDonalds coffee lawsuit can find it here (among many other places): http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

A parting thought for your peace and happiness: by and large, human beings are not very smart. We do things all the time that others can look back on and say "well, that guy was a real idiot." It has long been a rule of law in this country that those who manufacture products are responsible for the harm that those products cause when the harm was reasonably foreseeable at the time of manufacturing. I don't think the verdict in this case will stand up on appeal because it doesn't seem to me to meet that test. But is it reasonably foreseeable that scalding hot coffee, intentionally prepared to be far in excess of the temperature that humans can tolerate, might burn someone who is driving with a cup of it in their car (purchased from a drive-in window)? 

Ok, I'm off my soap box.


----------



## Joe Pierce (Mar 10, 2010)

jkeithrussell said:


> I'm a lawyer, so lawyer and lawsuit bashing threads always make me a little sad. There are so many myths and falsehoods perpetuated in these threads, that I wouldn't know where to start with responding to them.
> 
> Do I agree with the verdict in this case? No. But there is a process (appeals) for getting it reviewed by a higher court. In most cases like this, the appellate courts greatly reduce the verdict. I will say this, if you study the actual history of personal injury litigation you will see that manufacturers of products often bypass safety mechanisms that could be adopted with relative ease to save money. I'm not saying that is always the case, but it has been the case with a whole lot of products. When lawsuits begin to stick, the manufacturers roll out products that are safer.
> 
> ...


PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!  1. Did the man using the saw have all safety equipment in place, blade guard, river. 2. Was he qualified to use the tool?  I have seen the saw stop technology demoed, it destroys the blade, and is expensive to replace once it goes off.  And it will go off if used to cut wet wood!!   Accidents do happen, almost always due to operator mistake.  Do no t use a tool if you are not willing to accept responsibility for the consequences of your mistakes!!


----------



## David Keller (Mar 10, 2010)

I have a great friend who is a class action attorney, and we've agreed to disagree many times over similar issues.  I personally feel that manufacturers do have a responsibility to sell what they are advertising(ie.  they should not be allowed to misrepresent their products).  I DO NOT feel that manufacturers have a responsibility to make things as safe as possible for their consumers.  If that were true, all knife manufacturers would need to start making spoons...  Spoons can be used to cut things and are certainly much safer than knives.

Part of capitalism is the ability of a company to compete for earnings based on sales of its product which should be directly related to the quality and desirability of its product.  A company that makes and sells inferior products will eventually go away if allowed to compete on an even playing field.

Life is not safe.  The things around any given person can be dangerous, and the degree to which they are dangerous is often and usually directly proportional to the intelligence and focus of the individual.  There is no cure for stupid or lazy, and I don't feel it's my job to finance the actions of others which might be characterized by one of those adjectives.


----------



## GaryMGg (Mar 10, 2010)

David Keller said:


> I have a great friend who is a class action attorney, and we've agreed to disagree many times over similar issues. I personally feel that manufacturers do have a responsibility to sell what they are advertising(ie. they should not be allowed to misrepresent their products). I DO NOT feel that manufacturers have a responsibility to make things as safe as possible for their consumers. If that were true, all knife manufacturers would need to start making spoons... Spoons can be used to cut things and are certainly much safer than knives.
> 
> Part of capitalism is the ability of a company to compete for earnings based on sales of its product which should be directly related to the quality and desirability of its product. A company that makes and sells inferior products will eventually go away if allowed to compete on an even playing field.
> 
> Life is not safe. The things around any given person can be dangerous, and the degree to which they are dangerous is often and usually directly proportional to the intelligence and focus of the individual. There is no cure for stupid or lazy, and I don't feel it's my job to finance the actions of others which might be characterized by one of those adjectives.


 
Exactly. And, just because humans have proven their stupidity doesn't mean it's the government's job to force industry to build products for the
`lowest common denominator'. It's bad enough that's happening in education.

Who is John Galt?


----------



## bgibb42 (Mar 10, 2010)

GaryMGg said:


> Who is John Galt?



Beat me to it.


----------



## JerrySambrook (Mar 10, 2010)

GaryMGg said:


> Who is John Galt?



I am just finishing up the book now. Atlas Shrugged.
Most of the book is real good, but the last 300 pages just suck.

Jerry


----------



## JerrySambrook (Mar 10, 2010)

jkeithrussell said:


> But is it reasonably foreseeable that scalding hot coffee, intentionally prepared to be far in excess of the temperature that humans can tolerate, might burn someone who is driving with a cup of it in their car (purchased from a drive-in window)?
> 
> Ok, I'm off my soap box.



Some things wrong with this statement.
  1) Coffee does not brew below 170 degrees. It is brewed at over 180 but less than boiling. Because of thermal loss the temp may be at 185, but thermal loss will have the water at only 170.
  2) If the scalding issue is so, then we should not be able to boil water at home either. Most people can get scalded a little above 135 degrees. This is why "scald-proof" shower faucets and valves are made for 135 degrees
  3) If we have to take in every foreseeable item, then almost all of us should be banned from driving, because we have either had accidents, close calls, road rage, or some other form of "foreseeable" intervention.

This is not meant as a personal attack, but being a lawyer, one is typically schooled or trained to have reactionary impulses to help further the organization you belong to. Found this out taking a couple of small law classes a few years back, and decided that if I became a lawyer, I would be the one going to jail for ripping the heads off stupid people and quite a few other lawyers. Many do not use good common sense judgement, and look mostly at the monetary aspect.

Can I argue good? Absolutely, either or even both sides of a point.
Could I be a good lawyer? No, because if I had to follow a system like most of them do, I would have had a heart attack with the "ethics" they show.

Jerry


----------



## wdcav1952 (Mar 10, 2010)

In some professions, 99.5% of the members give the other 0.5% a bad name.


----------



## ldb2000 (Mar 10, 2010)

wdcav1952 said:


> In some professions, 99.5% of the members give the other 0.5% a bad name.


 

Like Dentists ?  :biggrin::tongue:


----------



## Monty (Mar 10, 2010)

JerrySambrook said:


> I am just finishing up the book now. Atlas Shrugged.
> Most of the book is real good, but the last 300 pages just suck.
> 
> Jerry


I read Atlas Shrugged a few years back when I was about 18.
Isn't the book 301 pages long?????


----------



## JerrySambrook (Mar 10, 2010)

Mannie,

It is 1168 pages.  I liked it up until just a little after Dagny leaves the canyon, after that :sleepy:

Nice talking to you last nite

Jerry


----------



## jeffnreno (Mar 10, 2010)

I hope this is appealed.
I'm sure most consumers don't read the safety instructions that come with equipment and even if they read them often don't follow them.     I for one have never installed the blade guard on my saw nor do I plan to.    This is my decision and I take responsibility for my decision.    It doesn't look like anyone that has posted has direct knowledge of this case so all of our discussion is based on opinion.    We all know what an opinion is - you get what you pay for.   No one has to pay me for my opinion - But I think this lawsuit is a great example of stupidity in America's court system and the lawsuits that clog our system.


----------



## jkeithrussell (Mar 11, 2010)

In the spirit of a friendly exchange of ideas, here are some responses to Jerry's post: 

_1) Coffee does not brew below 170 degrees. It is brewed at over 180 but less than boiling. Because of thermal loss the temp may be at 185, but thermal loss will have the water at only 170._

The case was not about the temperature at which the coffee is brewed, it was about the temperature at which the coffee was served. We can debate it, but you have to read the facts in the case which are available on the internet. It was not a case of McDonalds simply brewing coffee, serving it at normal temperature, and some idiot dumping it in her lap. Again, you have to read the facts that were developed in the case to be informed about it. 

_2) If the scalding issue is so, then we should not be able to boil water at home either. Most people can get scalded a little above 135 degrees. This is why "scald-proof" shower faucets and valves are made for 135 degrees_

The case was not about what you can do at home. If you want to boil water at home and pour it over your head, you are free to do so. The case is about a consumer going to a restaurant, being served a product, and being injured. Those of you who believe that the consumer should be entirely at his own risk in all instances are entitled to your belief, I suppose, but that's not the law in any state in this country.

_3) If we have to take in every foreseeable item, then almost all of us should be banned from driving, because we have either had accidents, close calls, road rage, or some other form of "foreseeable" intervention._

Sorry, but this doesn't make a lick of sense to me.  You driving your car has nothing to do with a manufacturer of a product taking reasonable precautions to make those products safe for the intended user.  

_This is not meant as a personal attack, but being a lawyer, one is typically schooled or trained to have reactionary impulses to help further the organization you belong to._

It's actually exactly the opposite. Lawyers are not trained to have emotional, reactionary impulses. They are trained to look at the circumstances from every possible angle, gather facts, and then present the facts in a coherent manner to support a legal position. A non-lawyer (or a poor lawyer) hears that a lady spilled coffee in her own lap and sued McDonalds and then jumps to conclusions about who is right or wrong. Again, the facts of that particular case are widely available on the internet. You can read the facts and still conclude that the lady was wrong to sue McDonalds, but you should first know and understand the facts that the jury and appellate court considered in making their decisions. 

The McDonalds case is a good "law and society" type of case because it highlights a lot of conflicting interests that we have (or at least that some of us have).  Some of you guys write as if you don't care a whit if someone is injured, but by and large our society does care about protecting consumers.  In the real world, most lawsuits are not about someone trying to grab the brass ring or hit the jackpot.  Some are, but not most.  There are entire treatises and law school courses devoted to trying to figure out fair standards for awarding damages to people who are injured through the fault of others and it is often very complicated. But I suppose it is simpler to just bash lawyers and pretend like anyone who brings a lawsuit is just doing it to get rich off of some company.


----------



## glycerine (Mar 11, 2010)

Ha ha!!  In the coffee case, here's the whole problem right here:

*Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.
*
Hot or not, if you put a styrofoam cup full of anything between your knees, chances are, it's going to spill!!!


----------



## NewLondon88 (Mar 11, 2010)

jkeithrussell said:


> But I suppose it is simpler to just bash lawyers



Noooo .. it's just more fun! :tongue:


----------



## JerrySambrook (Mar 11, 2010)

I am entering the last line of your original post again, and lets look at how it is subsequently being aswered to the challenges made to it:

"But is it reasonably foreseeable that scalding hot coffee, intentionally prepared to be far in excess of the temperature that humans can tolerate, might burn someone who is driving with a cup of it in their car (purchased from a drive-in window)? "



jkeithrussell said:


> In the spirit of a friendly exchange of ideas, here are some responses to Jerry's post:
> 
> _1) Coffee does not brew below 170 degrees. It is brewed at over 180 but less than boiling. Because of thermal loss the temp may be at 185, but thermal loss will have the water at only 170._
> 
> ...



As far as the Macdonalds case, the original judge actually called it back into case, because he heard one of the jurors on the radio tell a radio host that "the jury thought the lady was negligent for putting the coffee between her legs. However, big business has the money, and we need to show big business we can keep them in control, so they cannot run over ethe little people".  The words may not be verbatim, but the idea I am trying to get across should be enough in this case.  If not, we can discuss it further through other channels.

As far as bashing all lawyers, that was not my intent, as there are some that are "good".  However, if you are ever up here in the Northeast, you will get to see and hear all kinds of "stupid" things brought on by people that are pursued by lawyers.  No, not all are ambulance chasers. However, there are more than enough of them to make most of us have a bad taste in our mouths.

Lastly, a great number of lawsuits are brought as money making schemes, ways to enact legislation, or to cause finacial or name ruination.  Do they all deserve this labelling, no, but many do.  Maybe it is only the ones that we get to see on the many tv networks and shows that popularize and highlight this aspect. 
And this is being written by someone who's mother was a legal secratary, two aunts still are, a cousin is a lawyer, and en ex-girlfriend is a legal assistant.  Do I know everything about lawyers, no, but have seen enough to get a decent opinion of them around here

Jerry


----------



## babyblues (Mar 11, 2010)

glycerine said:


> Ha ha!!  In the coffee case, here's the whole problem right here:
> 
> *Liebeck placed
> the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
> ...



Glycerine, this isn't aimed at you personally, it's just that this is a good reference point.  Not to belabor the McDonalds topic, but SHE DIDN'T SUE BECAUSE SHE SPILLED COFFEE ON HERSELF!!!!  She sued because the coffee was so hot it caused THIRD DEGREE BURNS!!!  She didn't get scalded by the coffee.  The coffee was so hot, it destroyed the skin and muscle that it came in contact with.

Try this:  Brew a fresh pot of coffee.  As soon as it's done, take the entire pot and pour it in your lap.  Will it hurt?  Sure.  Will it cause third degree burns?  No.  Third degree burns are about as bad as it gets, folks.  Even if she's not too bright for putting a styrofoam cup between her knees, coffee shouldn't cause third degree burns.  If the coffee had been served at an appropriate temperature, she could have poured the cup in her lap intentionally and the worst that would have happened is she would have had a sensitive lap for a few days.  The "whole problem" is that McDonalds knew that it's coffee shouldn't be served at a temperature that causes third degree burns to human flesh, but still served it at that temperature anyway.  That's negligence, pure and simple.  Scalding is one thing, third degree burns are quite a bit more severe.

As this applies to the topic of this thread:  I think we can all agree that it wasn't the manufacturer's fault the guy cut himself.  But, for the sake of argument, manufacturers are responsible to ensure operator safety if their saws are used properly.  No doubt it was likely the guy's own fault, but the fact remains that even if a table saw is used properly, serious injury can occur.  Saw manufacturers will adamantly deny that fact.  Nevertheless, they are responsible to address those safety concerns.  If the saw is not being used properly, ie operator stupidity, than of course they shouldn't be held liable.

In my not-even-close-to-professional opinion, that's probably not the case with this...um...case, but from that article, we know next to nothing as far as the details go so it's all speculation anyway.


----------



## JerrySambrook (Mar 11, 2010)

Jason,
    Please go back and read the whole post again, and the highlighted areas.

My reposts and repudiations are only to show that we need to be more responsible for our own actions. If not, then we as a society should not be allowed to have anything, or do anything
Thanks
Jerry

p.s.  You coming down to Bad Dog next wekend?


----------



## mbroberg (Mar 11, 2010)

There is much law that is not grounded in good common sense.  Consequently many (not all) lawyers view the world with a skewed sense of reality.  Many (not all) lawyers believe that "Truth" is what they can convince a jury to believe.  It is ridiculous to slam an entire profession over the actions of a percentage of the profession's members.  I have interacted with many lawyers over the years.  Most of them have a high ethical standards and truly try to work towards a common good.  Some are just greedy, egotistical individuals out to shake up the system and make some good money in the process.  It seems that those are the ones we read about.

There may be a lot of facts about the Ryobi case that are not presented here.  What we do know is that a guy had an accident and cut his fingers while using a table saw.  There is no mention of the saw being defective, only that it could have had some design features built into it that were not.  Saws are dangerous.  They are designed to cut things.  I am going to make an assumption now, that many people have used saws identical or similar to the one being used by this guy, both before and after this accident and have not injured themselves.  Another assumption, there has been a small percentage of people who have injured themselves using a like saw.  Another assumption, this guy knew that there was a risk of injury to himself when he turned the saw on and started using it.

I don't necessarily believe that this guy is a moron, idiot, or even stupid.  I believe he was just a normal guy who had an accident.  But, like so many people we read about on a regular basis, he chose not to take responsibility for his own misfortune and he either found a lawyer, or a lawyer sought him out to profit from his accident.  That is what is wrong with this whole story.  Now several posters here have expressed confidence that the $1.5 Million award will be reduced or overturned on appeal.  Don't be so sure.  There are many people who probably would have predicted that this issue would have never gotten to court in the first place.

With increasing frequency there are news stories about such things as  smokers suing cigarette companies, fat people suing fast food restaurants, parents who were too lazy to be parents suing record companies, video game manufacturers, television stations and movie producers for corrupting their kids, and on, and on and on.  Oliver Wendall Holmes Jr. once said, "Lawyers spend a great deal of time shoveling smoke". Maybe if they would stick to "smoke" we wouldn't be stuck with such ridiculous case law.  Maybe if the newspapers wouldn't sensationalize these massive awards people wouldn't look at every unfortunate incident as an opportunity to get rich quick.

Sigh..............I think I will go turn a pen:neutral:


----------



## babyblues (Mar 11, 2010)

JerrySambrook said:


> Jason,
> Please go back and read the whole post again, and the highlighted areas.
> 
> My reposts and repudiations are only to show that we need to be more responsible for our own actions. If not, then we as a society should not be allowed to have anything, or do anything
> ...



OK, I see it now.  I can see your point.

Sadly, no.  I just missed the cutoff.  I think I was number 23 or something like that, lol.  If anyone has cancelled and there's room, I'd love to go though.


----------



## JerrySambrook (Mar 11, 2010)

As they used to say on The Price is Right:

"COME ON DOWN"


----------



## babyblues (Mar 11, 2010)

JerrySambrook said:


> As they used to say on The Price is Right:
> 
> "COME ON DOWN"



Sweet!  Is there anything you need me to bring?


----------



## NewLondon88 (Mar 11, 2010)

babyblues said:


> Sweet!  Is there anything you need me to bring?



Last one in brings the beer :tongue:


----------



## babyblues (Mar 11, 2010)

NewLondon88 said:


> Last one in brings the beer :tongue:



Damn! And I don't even drink.


----------



## glycerine (Mar 11, 2010)

babyblues said:


> Glycerine, this isn't aimed at you personally, it's just that this is a good reference point. Not to belabor the McDonalds topic, but SHE DIDN'T SUE BECAUSE SHE SPILLED COFFEE ON HERSELF!!!! She sued because the coffee was so hot it caused THIRD DEGREE BURNS!!! She didn't get scalded by the coffee. The coffee was so hot, it destroyed the skin and muscle that it came in contact with.
> 
> Try this: Brew a fresh pot of coffee. As soon as it's done, take the entire pot and pour it in your lap. Will it hurt? Sure. Will it cause third degree burns? No. Third degree burns are about as bad as it gets, folks. Even if she's not too bright for putting a styrofoam cup between her knees, coffee shouldn't cause third degree burns. If the coffee had been served at an appropriate temperature, she could have poured the cup in her lap intentionally and the worst that would have happened is she would have had a sensitive lap for a few days. The "whole problem" is that McDonalds knew that it's coffee shouldn't be served at a temperature that causes third degree burns to human flesh, but still served it at that temperature anyway. That's negligence, pure and simple. Scalding is one thing, third degree burns are quite a bit more severe.
> 
> ...


 
Yes, I understand your point and understand the lawsuit, but my point was that it could have all been prevented by her not trying to take the lid off with it being between her legs.  I agree that the coffee was tooooooo hot.
But on the other hand, that's almost like saying the guy who cut his fungers on the table saw did not sue because he cut himself, but instead because the blade was too sharp.
Hot it hot, sharp is sharp.  In both cases, it was the action by the person who sued that caused the accident.  I agree in the coffee situation, the accident was a whole lot worse because of the temperature of the coffee, but the spilling was still her fault.


----------



## babyblues (Mar 11, 2010)

glycerine said:


> Yes, I understand your point and understand the lawsuit, but my point was that it could have all been prevented by her not trying to take the lid off with it being between her legs.  I agree that the coffee was tooooooo hot.
> But on the other hand, that's almost like saying the guy who cut his fungers on the table saw did not sue because he cut himself, but instead because the blade was too sharp.
> Hot it hot, sharp is sharp.  In both cases, it was the action by the person who sued that caused the accident.  I agree in the coffee situation, the accident was a whole lot worse because of the temperature of the coffee, but the spilling was still her fault.



Point taken.  What are fungers?  :tongue:

I would say that these two cases differ in that table saw blades are meant to be sharp in order to function properly, however, coffee is not normally or safely served at 180 degrees.  In fact, if a table saw's blade is dull, it's significantly more dangerous than a sharp blade.  There is nothing wrong with a sharp blade, but there is something wrong with coffee hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns.  The fact that McDonalds knew the coffee was dangerously hot and ignored it is also important.

I think we all can agree that it certainly was entirely her fault that the coffee spilled in her lap and that was certainly stupid.  What if she had been holding the cup in her hand and the car hit a bump spilling the coffee on her hand or arm, wouldn't she still have been seriously burned?  Better yet, what if she had simply taken a sip and suffered 3rd degree burns to her lips or mouth?  At some point in our lives, everyone who drinks coffee has spilled it on themselves.  Is it reasonable for us to expect 3rd degree burns!?  To me it's not reasonable to expect we should take that risk drinking coffee, for goodness sake, lol.  How she suffered the burns really isn't relevant.  This would never have been an issue if not for the 3rd degree burns.  That's what it all hinges on.  If she had just been scalded, I doubt the case would have seen the light of day.

The difference with the table saw accident is there really wasn't anything wrong with the saw.  Could the manufacturer have incorporated existing technology to virtually eliminate the risk of serious injury?  Sure.  But I can agree that the blame for the accident rests on the operator.


----------



## NewLondon88 (Mar 11, 2010)

Things with sharp teeth eat meat.
Tools have sharp teeth.
People are made of meat.


----------



## kennspens (Mar 11, 2010)

tremendous


----------



## rjwolfe3 (Mar 11, 2010)

NewLondon88 said:


> Things with sharp teeth eat meat.
> Tools have sharp teeth.
> People are made of meat.



:eat::eat::eat::eat::rotfl::rotfl:


----------



## wdcav1952 (Mar 11, 2010)

I just checked two hair dryers.  Both of them had a warning not to use the hair dryer while bathing.  I have to wonder, has this ever been the subject of a lawsuit?  If so, how can the "professional" who filed such a suit have mirrors in their house?


----------



## snyiper (Mar 11, 2010)

Draino says do not consume there is a reason for this!!!!


----------



## glycerine (Mar 12, 2010)

babyblues said:


> Point taken. What are fungers? :tongue:
> 
> I would say that these two cases differ in that table saw blades are meant to be sharp in order to function properly, however, coffee is not normally or safely served at 180 degrees. In fact, if a table saw's blade is dull, it's significantly more dangerous than a sharp blade. There is nothing wrong with a sharp blade, but there is something wrong with coffee hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns. The fact that McDonalds knew the coffee was dangerously hot and ignored it is also important.
> 
> ...


 
Fungers are fingers that can't type on a keyboard... which is what I have.


----------



## sefali (Mar 12, 2010)

glycerine said:


> Fungers are fingers that can't type on a keyboard... which is what I have.



But, wouldn't those be fangers? FAt fiNGERS :tongue:


----------



## jocat54 (Mar 12, 2010)

The "whole problem" is that McDonalds knew that it's coffee shouldn't be served at a temperature that causes third degree burns to human flesh, but still served it at that temperature anyway. That's negligence, pure and simple. Scalding is one thing, third degree burns are quite a bit more severe.

My take on this is that the "whole problem" is you really shouldn't be drinking anything while driving. People in general can't drive worth a hill of beans and darn sure can't talk on a phone and drive. You can spot them in a heartbeat. Yes I do both.


----------



## tim self (Mar 12, 2010)

Like Roy mentioned, THE JURY is the ones I blame.  Not the manufacturer or the ignorant USER.  12 idiots who allowed the suit to award any money at all.  Sure we can sympothise with the operator for his pain, but not his ignorance.  RTMD


----------



## babyblues (Mar 12, 2010)

jocat54 said:


> My take on this is that the "whole problem" is you really shouldn't be drinking anything while driving. People in general can't drive worth a hill of beans and darn sure can't talk on a phone and drive. You can spot them in a heartbeat. Yes I do both.



Isn't that what McDonalds is aiming at with a drive through?  It's reasonably foreseeable that people are going to be drinking coffee while driving their cars, especially since part of their marketing plan was selling coffee to people in their cars.  I'm just sayin'.


----------



## JerrySambrook (Mar 13, 2010)

babyblues said:


> Isn't that what McDonalds is aiming at with a drive through?  It's reasonably foreseeable that people are going to be drinking coffee while driving their cars, especially since part of their marketing plan was selling coffee to people in their cars.  I'm just sayin'.



Drive throughs were created for the convenience of people, so they did not have to get out of the car to wait in a line.  Or so they did not have to unload the car and go  thrrough the store with a bunch of kids in tow. Typically, drive-up service is quicker, and lessens the need for a larger parking area. Lastly, drive up also lessens the need for a larger resteraunt as well, because those people will not be coming in to take up space while being served, or waiting for food.
       If it was so the consumer could eat and drive, then there would be no drive-up licquor stores, because the hypothisis would be that it is ok to drink and drive. Yet, the drive-up licquor stores exist.


----------



## babyblues (Mar 13, 2010)

JerrySambrook said:


> Drive throughs were created for the convenience of people, so they did not have to get out of the car to wait in a line.  Or so they did not have to unload the car and go  thrrough the store with a bunch of kids in tow. Typically, drive-up service is quicker, and lessens the need for a larger parking area. Lastly, drive up also lessens the need for a larger resteraunt as well, because those people will not be coming in to take up space while being served, or waiting for food.
> If it was so the consumer could eat and drive, then there would be no drive-up licquor stores, because the hypothisis would be that it is ok to drink and drive. Yet, the drive-up licquor stores exist.



Except it's illegal to drink liquor and drive.  It's not illegal to drink coffee and drive.  That particular detail is kind of hard to get around, lol.


----------



## GaryMGg (Mar 13, 2010)

babyblues said:


> Except it's illegal to drink liquor and drive.


Hmmmm; IIRC Loiusiana allows open containers in the vehicle and passengers can drink alcohol.
They've got a bunch of Fat-Tuesday type drive-thrus. Slushies that really are....


----------



## JerrySambrook (Mar 13, 2010)

It is illegal to do so, I agree, but then why are there drive-up licquor stores? We DO have them in Mass, You DO have them in Maine, and I was using it as a point against your hypothesis about why drive-thru was created, and what should be expected when using/having one.

     If MacDonalds served the coffee at a temp that people would not get scalded, never mind burned, then we would all complain the coffee was too cold. Our mouths can handle typically handle a heat that is higher than what might scald us on the outside. Take a sip of hot tea or coffee sometime, and then stick you finger in the same cup, and you will find you pull your finger our of the coffee/tea much fast than you swallowed it.
     As for the saw operator, HE is the one who bought the saw, and if he got his hands into a position to cut his fingers, then he probably also did not use the mechanical devices that make it very hard to cut yourself.  Impossible, no, but the "safety devices" decrease the chance of it happenning.
     As for SawStop, My OPINION is that they are the ones who helped bring this lawsuit to court. Is this fact, no, but once again, after having met the person who "invented" it, the personality might lead most people to the same conclusion. They also create a dangerous precedent, because their saw does retract when WET <not gree< wood hits the blade, and this causes a dangerous kickback.
     It is real funny that the thing we are talking about is in reference to driving, when way back in the late 1800's and early 1900's the forefathers back then said that self-propelled vehicles were inherently dangerous, would be misused, and could cause all kinds of ruckus. They were not allowed in many places where people were going to congest, were only allowed top speeds less than walking speed, and had to have some sort of pre-entry warning, i.e. a man waving a red or yellow flag approx 100 ft in front of the vehicle as it was driven through town.
     Lastly, when are WE going to be held accountable for our own actions ever again? No matter what happens in life, things can always be twisted around so that we are NOT responsible for our own actions. Just like the skier in Killington who sued because he was doing flips on the mogul trail, missed, and broke his neck. It is a semi-inherently dangerous sport, just like a rapidly spinning blade is an inherently dangerous object, and there fore should be conducted at ones own risk, under NORMAL cirumstances.
     Hopefully I will leave this thread alone from here on because as far as I am concerned, people ought to be responsible for their actions in a case like this.  If the saw had broke, and caused the blade to move in a way to cut the individual, then yes, I would say he has a case.

Jerry


----------



## GaryMGg (Mar 13, 2010)

jkeithrussell said:


> ...a manufacturer of a product taking reasonable precautions to make those products safe for the intended user.


The biggest problem I have is imposing safety standards on manufacturers whose products meet standards they believe *are reasonable*, and who honestly EXPLAIN the dangers to potential users. 
Let's look at the Table Saw as a decent example. I don't know of a single user who thinks the TS is a completely safe tool. There are inherent dangers in using one IF one does NOT pay attention and use best practices.
However, using said practices, it's a fairly safe tool.
I'd like to see the transcripts in this case 'cause I'd bet the user didn't adhere to best practices and got hurt through his own unsafe use.

Just because the tool may be made safer doesn't reasonably mean it shall be made safer.



jkeithrussell said:


> ...The McDonalds case is a good "law and society" type of case because it highlights a lot of conflicting interests that we have (or at least that some of us have). Some of you guys write as if you don't care a whit if someone is injured, but by and large our society does care about protecting consumers...


 
I never paid any attention to the McD case; you're correct in suggesting many of us simply believe the woman got burned because she was careless and acting without being sensible.
You may believe she got what she deserved -- I'll leave it that we'll agree to disagree. She may have been due medical coverage but not the huge sum she got.

My personal belief is that so long as the manufacturer or vendor *honestly and completely* informs the buyer or user of the risks, then the risk belongs to the buyer or user. It's not that I don't care if someone is injured; it's that businesses should be free to provide the level of quality they want to provide and so long as they disclose the risks, the market will determine their success or failure.


----------



## SuperDave (Mar 14, 2010)

*Power Feeders...*

Seems to me that a $200 Power Feeder will remedy the lost finger issue, as well as kick-backs. It's a one time purchase, as opposed to the expensive replacement of the SawStop cartridge and saw blades... but then you would eliminate one more need for trial lawyers...


----------



## ROOKIETURNER (Mar 14, 2010)

Better yet, we can use the lawyers to push our material through our saws, at least they will be useful.


----------



## jocat54 (Mar 14, 2010)

ROOKIETURNER said:


> Better yet, we can use the lawyers to push our material through our saws, at least they will be useful.


 

:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:


----------



## NewLondon88 (Mar 14, 2010)

ROOKIETURNER said:


> Better yet, we can use the lawyers to push our material through our saws, at least they will be useful.



That's a terrible thing to suggest. I'm appalled.

Do you know how hard those blades are to clean?


----------



## ESwindell (Mar 14, 2010)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeXQBHLIPcw
Sadly this is becoming more true every day.


----------

