Man Wins Big Money in Tablesaw Lawsuit

[AdamM]

Of course, I understand that we probably still wouldn't have seat belts if Congress hadn't mandated them back in the 60's. For the life of me, I can not understand why large companies don't see the value in making a safer product on their own, without getting the government involved.

The story of getting seat belts into cars is almost comical.  Car makers were against seat belts because it meant admitting their product was unsafe to use and were afraid customers wouldn't but a product that wasn't safe.  Fast forward half a century or so and now safety is a major selling point in cars.

 

[southern_guy]

as someone NRINA (not resident in ....) I can honestly say that your legal system is screwed. As has been pointed out, on the one hand we have a saw manufacturer that was offered a technology, and chose not to purchase it. On the other we have a consumer who had the choice of buying a saw with that technology, but chose not to take up that choice. Not only that, but the consumer had the choice whether or not to adopt safe practice when using the saw he bought, but chose unsafe practice instead. The responsibility for the injury lies fairly and squarely with the user of the saw.
The latest S series Mercedes have technology that prevent the vehicle tailgating the car in front. If the above case is any precedent, any other car manufacturer that doesn't include such technology is now screwed.

 

[jonny round boy]

As another member NRINA, I must say that I think this is a bad omen, and I sincerely hope that Ryobi does appeal, and wins. If a precedent like this is set, then it's bad news for everyone (unless you're either a lawyer, or someone so stupid they shouldn't be using power tools).

I urge all of you to read the wikipedia link that AdamM posted. This was an elderly lady who was very seriously injured and only asked for medical bill payment of $20,000. The pictures of the damage done to her upper legs was astounding. Very poorly handled by McDonalds at the time. So many make fun of the McDonald's coffee incident but know nothing about it.

Peter,

I did read that link. And several other related links. Yes, McDonalds could have handled it better, but they chose not to settle beforehand because they felt they had no case to answer. And I for one agree with them. Someone tried the same here in the UK afterwards, and quite rightly the judge threw it out.

She may indeed have been an elderly lady, but the fact that she was of advancing years should have worked in her favour - since she had lived for 79 years up to that point, she had 79 years to learn that coffee is hot. The fact that she failed to do that wasn't really McDonalds fault.

This reminds me of the lawsuit between Mcdonalds and the woman who burnt herself by spilling coffee on her lap.

There was a time when made fun of this lawsuit as well.  Then I learned the real story...McDonalds was setting their coffee pot temperature at 180-190 degrees F, which was so hot that it would cause 3rd degree burns in 12-15 seconds.  Coffee really only needs to be around 140 degrees F.  McDonalds argument was that customers wanted to take it back to the office, however that contradicted McDonalds own research indicating customers intended to drink it while driving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

The section of the above highlighted in bold is completely contradicted by statements in the link you provided - namely "The National Coffee Association of the U.S.A. instructs that coffee should be brewed "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit [91?96 ?C] for optimal extraction" and consumed "immediately". If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit"."

 

[henry1224]

I wonder who the "expert" on flesh sensing technology was.....

Jeff,
I was wondering the same thing.

The expert could be a lawyer who happened to shop at a Woodcraft store and tried out a sawstop

 

[Inner10]

I urge all of you to read the wikipedia link that AdamM posted. This was an elderly lady who was very seriously injured and only asked for medical bill payment of $20,000. The pictures of the damage done to her upper legs was astounding. Very poorly handled by McDonalds at the time. So many make fun of the McDonald's coffee incident but know nothing about it.

I remember it well, in fact I even drank that terrible McDonald's coffee at the time, and I drank it black.  I feel for the woman and all the skin graphs and time she spend in the hospital but that doesn't change the fact that she should have used common sense!

I guess you guys are not coffee drinkers because the water should be 200 degrees when it hits the grounds and served HOT.

Seriously, common sense is not so common and the all-American way is if you are a fool and hurt yourself you should sue someone else because it was their fault. 

Give me a break!

 

[The Toolman]

Ambulance chasing lawyers ARE the downfall of the USA!

 

[bobbobbob]

I would think $1.5 million is still no even trade of losing functioning phalanges!  Did anyone see this article:

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2010/03/sawstop_saw_brake_safety_devic.html

Not than I am a lawyer, but the root of the problem IMHO is the lack of personal responsibility in the US.  There wouldn't be so many lawyers here if they didn't have something to do... then again ask anyone born in Italy who has had to deal with estate issues (or other legal issues) in Italy about how drawn out that process is in Italy versus in the US...

 

[waynew]

Dont get me wrong, I'm totally against the mandating of this commercial technology, especially for hobbyist and one man shops but I think the difference with the Sawstop and the other tools you mention is that the laywers could claim that the technology is available for the tablesaw, its not yet available for those other equipment. I can see a future case coming for the bandsaw but the others would probably need a different design.

This is a precedent. In this case lawyers can claim compensation for ANY injuries  with ANY power tool included, but not limited:
Miter saws
Chain saws
Jig saws
band saws
routers
planers
shapers
sanders
drills
nail guns
grinders
lathes
shears
etc.
Could you imagine adding "flesh sensing" modules to the tools listed above?
Leave alone price tag. But where is common sense? 
Nobody is trying to sue ski resorts; you are at your own risk.  Why ladders don't have body catching devices?
I injured my left hand with chisel, should I sue Stanley?

Stay safe.
VictorL

 

[Jonhilgen]

Who cares if I cut my fingers off anyway.  It's not like I have to pay to have them fixed anymore, the Government will pick up the check once they pass health care reform (and by "Government", I mean all of us poor shmucks that actually work for a living and pay taxes).  Hmmm, can I sue the government for not warning me enough about the dangers of leaving my house every morning to go to work...

Honestly, the minute this guy got hurt, he was looking for a payday.   Talk about the American dream!  

 

[mouppe]

Against the overwhelming opinion on this forum, I am glad he won. Yes, it was an accident, and yes, the payoff is a lot, (not so much after you consider $400,000 in medical bills) but the point of his case is that it may force manufacturers to adopt the technology which is surely a good thing.

It is akin to air bags in cars. There was tremendous resistance to putting them in initially because of the cost, but now it is mandatory and fatalities on the roads are at the lowest since the early 1950s in the US- amazing when you consider the faster speed of today's cars on highways and the greater volume of vehicles on the road. Can you honestly tell me that you notice the cost of an airbag when you buy a car?

So table saws will all cost $200 or more for a while? Big deal. That's two systainers and a heck of a lot of fingers. Oh and by the way, the cost of replacing the cartridge and blade would be a nice bonus to the manufacturer and would offset the technology cost.

Richard.

P.S. Justice is blind, so the plaintiff's immigration status is an irrelevance.

 

[jonny round boy]

It is akin to air bags in cars.

I don't think it is akin to airbags, and here's why:

Imagine you have a car without airbags. If you drive dangerously or wrecklessly, or fall asleep, or make an error in judgement, you could get injured. That would be your own fault. Having an airbag would limit that risk. HOWEVER - in your car, you're on a public road. YOU are not the only person who could potentially injure you. No matter how carefully YOU drive, another driver could run into you and cause you injury through no fault of your own.

So, an airbag protects you from injury caused by you or another person.

If you have a table saw without SawStop, and you operate it dangerously or recklessly, or fall asleep, or make an error in judgement, you could get injured. That would be your own fault. Having SawStop fitted would limit that risk.

So, SawStop protects you from injury caused by you, and only you.

Unless you have someone else in your shop acting wrecklessly, distracting you & potentially causing you injury, any accident you have is your own responsibility. It doesn't make a tablesaw unsafe.

And if that person is in your shop, you shouldn't be operating that tablesaw until they leave.

So to say it's akin to airbags is over-simplifying the issue.

Accidents happen. And when they do, it can be tragic and I do feel for people who have suffered an injury. But at the end of the day the manufacturer is not (and should not be held) responsible. It's down to the individual to use it correctly and use it in conjunction with common sense.

What gets me more than anything is that this situation is occuring in a country where 1000 people per year are killed in accidents with firearms, yet no-one legislates against those. Maybe the tool manufacturers should lobby politicians as much as the firearms makers. But that's an argument a discussion for another day. [tongue]

 

[CharlesWilson]

Now that we are going to mandate flesh detection into tablesaws, lets bite the bullet and protect the user from the dreaded kickback. By putting motion sensors on the machine to detect wood being flung back at the operator and stop the blade, we can eliminate the second most hazardous quality of the tablesaw.

 

[John Stevens]

I would think $1.5 million is still no even trade of losing functioning phalanges!  [snip]Not than I am a lawyer, but the root of the problem IMHO is the lack of personal responsibility in the US.  There wouldn't be so many lawyers here if they didn't have something to do...

Agreed on both counts.  Although did you ever hear about the town that was so small it couldn't support a single lawyer?  Odd thing was, it could support two.

Regards,

John

 

[score0matic]

I wonder who the "expert" on flesh sensing technology was.....

Jeff,
I was wondering the same thing.

The expert could be a lawyer who happened to shop at a Woodcraft store and tried out a sawstop

OR a patent attorney who invented the saw-stop bahahahah
Craig

 

[peter halle]

Perhaps because from time to time I exercise poor judgement, all tools I own should have the technology to not operate in those instances. Sure would save some material.

Peter

 

[harry_]

On this one Shakespeare had it right: 'kill all the lawyers'

 

[Steve F]

Not to make take this discussion to another level, but it's all about choices. 

I respect the right to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, but not the right to make my health insurance premiums go up.  So, you can ride without a helmet, if you can guarantee me that your medical expenses won't affect my health insurance premiums.  If you get injured, I end up paying regardless of whose fault it was.

I also respect everyone's right to buy and use dangerous power tools, but not the right to make my taxes go up.  So, some knucklehead can buy a table saw and use it without any training, but only he can guarantee me that I won't have to support him and his family when he loses a hand and can't go to work anymore.

The problem is not the people who use these tools every day, are aware of the dangers, and use these tools with the proper level of respect and fear.  As an amateur, I could probably use a table saw safely 99.9% of the time, but won't own one until I am certain that I can use it safely 100% of the time - even when I am in a tired, frustrated, and my wife is yelling at me to hurry up.  The problem is the millions of people who have the right to buy these tools without training or adequate respect for the potential dangers.

So, unless we're going to limit the sale of these tools to people who are properly trained (not a bad idea), I think we need to do everything we can to make the tools as safe as possible.  Safety will always be cheaper than medical care and loss of earning capacity.

So, I think I have discovered a powerful, effective, and cheap safety feature that should be mandatory on every power tool.  It was inspired by another thread at:
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=134472&highlight=router+injury

Replace the useless warning stickers that are on these tools with full color, gory, bloody, pictures of some the injuries people have suffered while using that tool.  No sawstop, no more safety guards, no redesign, no retooling.  Just a reality check.  Might get some resistance from the manufacturers, but they'll try to resist anything that might reduce profits.  Just think of the savings in liability and health insurance costs.
 
Actually, not a bad idea for cars as well.  Full color pictures of dismembered accident victims on the dashboard.  Sales might suffer, but people might stop talking on their cell phone while their driving, letting my health and auto insurance premiums drop.

Steve

 

[JimRay]

Not to make take this discussion to another level, but it's all about choices. 

I respect the right to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, but not the right to make my health insurance premiums go up.  So, you can ride without a helmet, if you can guarantee me that your medical expenses won't affect my health insurance premiums.  If you get injured, I end up paying regardless of whose fault it was.

I also respect everyone's right to buy and use dangerous power tools, but not the right to make my taxes go up.  So, some knucklehead can buy a table saw and use it without any training, but only he can guarantee me that I won't have to support him and his family when he loses a hand and can't go to work anymore.

Well put!

Jim

 

[mikeneron]

Saw an update to this on another forum.  Looks like he did everything possible to cause the accident himself.

http://blogs.popularwoodworking.com/editorsblog/Court+Documents+Osorio+Wasnt+Using+The+Guard+Or+Rip+Fence.aspx

 

[JimRay]

Saw an update to this on another forum.  Looks like he did everything possible to cause the accident himself.

http://blogs.popularwoodworking.com/editorsblog/Court+Documents+Osorio+Wasnt+Using+The+Guard+Or+Rip+Fence.aspx

After reading the blog, I can't imagine how a jury could ever come to any conclusion but that the Plaintiff's injuries were due to his own ineptitude and willful misuse of the tool. The argument that "Flesh Detecting Technology" would have saved his hand is the only thing that the Plaintiff could argue, because every other argument would run into the problem of operator stupidity. While he was looking for scapegoats, I can't believe he did not go after his employer - except that I suspect that the lawyer whispered "Ryobi has Deep Pockets" in his ear.

Another example of ridiculous jury awards (this rates right up there with the famous lawnmower / hedge trimming decision)!

Jim Ray