Lawyer Table Saw TV Ad
- Thread starter pdlandgang
- Start date
- Status
Kev said:
Making fun of his statement doesn't make it any less valid. If a manufacturer chooses not to offer an available safety device that could have prevented an accident, the question is how much responsibility do they share for the end result. Hint: the answer is not none and it's not all.
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2007
- Messages
- 5,133
Hippocrates said that Medicine is the highest profession.
He also said that Law was second because Lawyers were required to protect us from Physicians.
He solved issues in any human orifice with a red-hot poker. Medicine has come a long way. So has technology...
The SS safety technology isn't the only way to make a saw safer.
Tom
He also said that Law was second because Lawyers were required to protect us from Physicians.
He solved issues in any human orifice with a red-hot poker. Medicine has come a long way. So has technology...
The SS safety technology isn't the only way to make a saw safer.
Tom
Once the patent runs out then most saws will offer a sawstop type feature. As for the video, she forgot to mention the deffective opperators. I completely agree that a truly defective tool is a manufacturers responsibility, but I'm so tired of people trying to profit from their own negligence and stupidity and expecting the world to be free of danger for the careless.
Paul,
I honestly don't believe that to be the case. While there are a few law suits that get through rewarding people even when personal responsibility was needlessly thrown out the window, I do think when a jury hears the facts and weighs them, they factor this in. I was in the jury box in one such case (loss of fingers), and while the defendant had some responsibility, the primary responsibility was determined to lay with the plaintiff since they had ample opportunity to avoid the disaster. There was plenty of sympathy to go around, but nothing was awarded that you could take to the bank. Listening to how others felt about the situation and how we came to agreement restored my faith, even if there are flaws. There was no belief among us that the world should be free of dangers. Not everybody profits so easily.
I honestly don't believe that to be the case. While there are a few law suits that get through rewarding people even when personal responsibility was needlessly thrown out the window, I do think when a jury hears the facts and weighs them, they factor this in. I was in the jury box in one such case (loss of fingers), and while the defendant had some responsibility, the primary responsibility was determined to lay with the plaintiff since they had ample opportunity to avoid the disaster. There was plenty of sympathy to go around, but nothing was awarded that you could take to the bank. Listening to how others felt about the situation and how we came to agreement restored my faith, even if there are flaws. There was no belief among us that the world should be free of dangers. Not everybody profits so easily.
RKA said:
There may have been no award but it is safe to assume the defendant still lost a lot of money defending themselves. It is a shallow victory to be the winner and still be out 5-6 figures on all the costs associated with the frivolous lawsuit. I've heard and read about way too many frivolous lawsuits and absurd awards to have faith in a system so easily abused. It's better than pistols and 20 paces but our system needs some serious fixing.
As someone whose life was saved in 1963 by an aftermarket seatbelt, well before their installation was mandated and, as someone who was competently and ethically represented by a lawyer in a very difficult and protracted custody case, I feel very frustrated by many of the comments in this thread. It is so easy to jump to conclusions based on our own biases without true objective analysis of the issues and facts involved. While I don't know this to be absolute fact, I have heard on several occasions the SawStop is the highest selling cabinet saw in the US. It certainly has become a very popular barand at the very least. As has already been stated, there is no direct indication SS has anything to do with this ad. Why, after the seven or so years of constantly rising sales and clear evidence of beating other manufactureres at their own game would SS go the route of a sleazy ad. We all see these ads for all manner of possible claims. Auto injury, asbestos, slip and fall, you name it. Just because Gass is a lawyer there is no reason to assume he should be lumped with the worst of that profession. Upscale's posts are, in my opinion, well reasoned and well articulated. As he says, if we want to just vent we should be comprehensive and consistent about it. There are countless examples of willful negligence that should spark our outrage but seemingly don't.
I have yet to figure out why Gass gets villified when, IMO, it should be all of those manufacturers who turned their back on someone who came to them with technology that would clearly make their equipment safer. I don't buy the resentment over being told what to do by the government either. There are so many, many safeguards in place that, without them, our life expectancy would probably be about 35 years. Reading some of the posts here makes me think some of us truly resent, without acknowledging its positive impact, the time spent waiting for a light to turn green .
I have yet to figure out why Gass gets villified when, IMO, it should be all of those manufacturers who turned their back on someone who came to them with technology that would clearly make their equipment safer. I don't buy the resentment over being told what to do by the government either. There are so many, many safeguards in place that, without them, our life expectancy would probably be about 35 years. Reading some of the posts here makes me think some of us truly resent, without acknowledging its positive impact, the time spent waiting for a light to turn green .
Paul G said:
Point taken, but it was both parties that were out serious money. That barrier doesn't just limit the frivolous cases, it is also the reason some don't file cases when there is merit. The risk of losing is too high. Of course this favors the party with deeper pockets who can absorb the loss or pass it on.
It sure is amazing the amount rancor Sawstop manages to produce. Reminds me of the crap everyone spouted (including me) when the govt mandated seatbelts. Just curious how many of you that love to bash Sawstop and its invertor would prefer to be in an auto accident today w/o seatbelts or airbags. Think of the hundreds of dollars you could save if you could buy a car w/o either of these safety technologies and the 10's of thousands you'll spend on your medical bills instead. That's showing them!
I earn my living on a keyboard. I bought a sawstop for 2 reasons. One, its a very well made saw that isn't that much more expensive than competitor's products that have the same level of quality. Two, even though I've been fortunate enough to never have even had a close call (although I nearly shredded a finger on the domino a couple times) in all the years I've used a table saw, if I ever do have something go wrong, I want all the help I can get (same reason I wear my seatbelt). It's cheap insurance as far as I'm concerned. I'd buy one even if the saw was trashed after the brake fired. The cost of the saw is miniscule compared to the cost of medical care for severed digits. It just boggles my mind how emotional some folks get about the sawstop, nobody's making you buy one, chill.
Jack, I've never had a misfire because of wet wood, although I don't use much wet wood in any case and when I do I elect to give up the brake feature by turning it off and (hopefully) am even more careful than I normally am when using the saw. I've had the brake fire once when someone else using my saw pushed the aluminum fence of my incra miter gauge into the blade. You can't even feel where the blade touched the fence unless you do it with the edge of your fingernail. If it had been my finger I doubt it would have even drawn blood. In my case it saved a $20 aluminum extrusion and cost my $90 for new brake and $100 for a new saw blade. An expensive save for a $20 fence, but worth every penny if it had been my fingers.
Fred
I earn my living on a keyboard. I bought a sawstop for 2 reasons. One, its a very well made saw that isn't that much more expensive than competitor's products that have the same level of quality. Two, even though I've been fortunate enough to never have even had a close call (although I nearly shredded a finger on the domino a couple times) in all the years I've used a table saw, if I ever do have something go wrong, I want all the help I can get (same reason I wear my seatbelt). It's cheap insurance as far as I'm concerned. I'd buy one even if the saw was trashed after the brake fired. The cost of the saw is miniscule compared to the cost of medical care for severed digits. It just boggles my mind how emotional some folks get about the sawstop, nobody's making you buy one, chill.
Jack, I've never had a misfire because of wet wood, although I don't use much wet wood in any case and when I do I elect to give up the brake feature by turning it off and (hopefully) am even more careful than I normally am when using the saw. I've had the brake fire once when someone else using my saw pushed the aluminum fence of my incra miter gauge into the blade. You can't even feel where the blade touched the fence unless you do it with the edge of your fingernail. If it had been my finger I doubt it would have even drawn blood. In my case it saved a $20 aluminum extrusion and cost my $90 for new brake and $100 for a new saw blade. An expensive save for a $20 fence, but worth every penny if it had been my fingers.
Fred
Yeah, there's always a chance you get a bit embedded metal. They claim something like a staple won't cause the brake to fire, but I guess the only way to be sure would be to go over it with a detector. You can disable the brake, but it is something you have to do every time you turn the saw on. Turn it off and back on and the brake is enabled again unless you specifically turn it off each time.
Fred
Fred
Sparktrician
Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2009
- Messages
- 4,607
Cochese said:
That and the dummy that put an open cup of hot coffee between her legs while driving. McDonald's didn't reach into her car and put it there, yet they got roasted as a result of her incredible stupidity and failure to accept personal responsibility for her own injury.
Kev
Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2011
- Messages
- 7,698
RKA said:
FUN?
I am being deadly serious. The only proof I've seen is that a saw stop can protect a sausage if it is slowly moved towards the blade. I have no solid evidence that it's protect against anything else.
There's nothing to protect manufacturers against uneducated, clumsy, drunk, tired, distracted, negligent, drugged, angry or other operation of a table saw ... or any other tool for that matter - other than counter legal cases. AWESOME!
If people want to buy a saw stop, good for them!
People comparing a saw stop to a seat belt need to think a little broader ... I wear a seat belt because there are so many morons on the road drinking coffee and chatting on the phone that can kill me. I'm not afraid that someone will come into my workspace, take the guard off my saw and push my hand into it. I know NOT TO PUT MY HAND NEAR A FAST SPINNING BLADE.
Anyone that thinks the correct approach to workshop safety is to mandate saw stop or make it viable to sue a table saw manufacturer for not offering saw stop technology should also think it necessary to ban bandsaws, spindle moulders, planers, etc ... they're all dangerous tools if handled incorrectly. Just like guns! (which I personally think should have DNA encoding to the owner to prevent anyone else ever firing them ... and that on every weapon in existence - a minor expense!).
How many of the 30,000 accidents happen without a push stick? without a blade guard? using a dado blade set? inadequate lighting?
Start down this path and the tool world will split as the US legal system has a field day crippling and profiting from the US tool market ... at which point all non US tool manufacturers will probably exit the US market.
I don't really care - I don't live in the US, but can't you see what you're doing here?
If you don't understand or believe what sawstop claims their device does, I don't know what to say. The information is out there, they aren't hiding how their device works. There is even a discovery channel video out there with the owner feeding his finger into one of his saws. I suppose it's possible he paid off discovery channel and rigged the whole thing...maybe. If you're a conspiracy theorist, then nothing I could say matters. We'll move along.
What protects the manufacturers? How about the same thing that helps protect the customers, the safety device!
I can appreciate the fact that you're too smart for an accident to happen to you. I, however, am human. And try as I might, I'm not perfect. If you can add a safety net between me and that exposed blade and it doesn't hinder my ability to use the tool, I see no reason not to have the safety net. And yes, I wear a seat belt, even when there is nobody else on the road. It's a safety net just in case. That was the point being made. Not that we're so dumb we need tool manufacturers to save us from ourselves.
Those other power tools you mentioned, you're right about one thing. They aren't far behind. No they won't be banned, that's just sensationalistic talk. The table saw is just the test bed and once a precedent is set, the other tools with completely exposed blades will share a similar fate.
Once again, following your line of thinking, how is it even possible automakers can sell cars in the US? There is far more liability selling cars than there is selling power tools. If tool manufacturers wanted to leave the US market, they would have already done so. Doomsday predictions aren't compelling.
What protects the manufacturers? How about the same thing that helps protect the customers, the safety device!
I can appreciate the fact that you're too smart for an accident to happen to you. I, however, am human. And try as I might, I'm not perfect. If you can add a safety net between me and that exposed blade and it doesn't hinder my ability to use the tool, I see no reason not to have the safety net. And yes, I wear a seat belt, even when there is nobody else on the road. It's a safety net just in case. That was the point being made. Not that we're so dumb we need tool manufacturers to save us from ourselves.
Those other power tools you mentioned, you're right about one thing. They aren't far behind. No they won't be banned, that's just sensationalistic talk. The table saw is just the test bed and once a precedent is set, the other tools with completely exposed blades will share a similar fate.
Once again, following your line of thinking, how is it even possible automakers can sell cars in the US? There is far more liability selling cars than there is selling power tools. If tool manufacturers wanted to leave the US market, they would have already done so. Doomsday predictions aren't compelling.
- Status
