Tool Addicts
More Details on the Carlos Osorio Tablesaw Lawsuit
comments (270) May 3rd, 2010 in blogs
Patrick McCombe, contributor
92 users recommend
In March, a jury awarded $1.5 million in a case against Ryobi for a benchtop tablesaw injury, claiming that the saw should have been equipped with flesh-sensing, blade-braking technology, such as the SawStop system. The verdict, which has major implications for the tool industry, set off a flurry of commentary on the Internet, including FineWoodworking.com.
In a recent article that appeared in The Oregonian, SawStop President Stephen Gass said he felt vindicated by the award. Other tablesaw manufacturers in the industry, including Ryobi and its parent company, One World Technologies, won’t discuss the award, but court documents shed some light on the case.
The blade guard and splitter were removed and
he was making the cut without a rip fence.
In April 2004, Carlos Osorio took a job as a flooring installer for PT Hardwood Floor Service in Medford, Mass. According to the defendant’s trial brief, Osorio had never used a tablesaw before, so his boss showed him how to use the tool and cautioned him about the dangers. A couple of weeks later while installing an oak floor, Osorio was ripping a 21/4-in.-wide floorboard on a Ryobi BTS 15 benchtop tablesaw. The blade guard and splitter were removed and he was making the cut without a rip fence.
When he started cutting, he felt chattering and vibration, so he shut off the machine, removed the stock, and cleared away dust and other pieces of flooring from the saw table. Thinking he had solved the problem, he started cutting again, but his difficulties continued, so he pushed the board even harder. His left hand slipped into the spinning blade, nearly removing his pinky finger and severely cutting two other fingers and his thumb. Ultimately, Osorio would undergo five surgeries and 95 occupational therapy visits to treat his injured hand.
In April 2006, Osorio’s lawyer, Richard Sullivan, who first saw the flesh-sensing technology in a CNN video, filed a civil complaint on behalf of his client against One World Technologies, the parent company of Ryobi, Ridgid, and Milwaukee power tools. The complaint alleged that the saw’s design was inherently flawed because it didn’t have "flesh-sensing technology," which would have stopped the blade when it detected Osorio's fingers. Both Ryobi and Gass agree that Gass demonstrated his tablesaw invention to One World Technologies in October 2000. Gass, a patent attorney with a Ph.D. in physics, would later launch his own tool company when he was unsuccessful in licensing the technology to existing power-tool manufacturers.
Late in 2009, when responding to a Fine Woodworking reader's question about why tablesaw manufacturers hadn't adopted the SawStop technology, the major tool companies pointed to a number of reasons why they hadn’t struck a deal with Gass when he first approached them. These ranged from doubts that the technology would work over decades of hard use, to the difficulty—even impossibility—of rolling out the technology through an entire line of tablesaws, especially the small, portable, jobsite saws (such as the saw in the Osorio case) that must stand up to weather and other forms of abuse. Also, most were concerned that if they rolled it out only on some of their saws, it might amount to a tacit admission that their other saws were unsafe.
In any case, Gass went on to found SawStop, which manufactures three tablesaws, two cabinet-style and one mid-sized contractor-type, each equipped with the new technology. It is important to note that as a start-up company, SawStop was able to roll out one model at a time, giving them an opportunity to test their engineering and market viability with less risk.
Osorio's case went to trial in February of this year and was decided about four weeks later. A jury concluded that Osorio was 35% responsible for his injuries and One World was 65% liable. They awarded Osorio $1.5 million in damages even though he was only seeking $250,000. The verdict form indicated that the jury felt the saw was "defectively designed" and the defects were a cause of Osorio's accident.
posted in: blogs, news
ABOUT TOOL ADDICTS
If you enjoy woodworking then you probably also suffer from an addiction to tools. Whether you collect hand planes or seek out the latest and greatest in power tools, our expert tool addicts will keep you in the loop with news, reviews, and commentary on the latest in woodworking tools.
New: Don’t miss posts by contributing editor Roland (aka Rollie) Johnson. Over the year’s Rollie’s tested countless tools for the magazine. His fascination with motors and gears goes beyond woodworking, he's also an enthusiastic hot-rodder who likes to restore old cars, and is the author of Automotive Woodworking (Motor Books International, 2002).
Contact us: Keep us in the loop on tool news or ideas for this blog. Email the editors at fw at taunton.com or “tweet” Rollie via Twitter at https://twitter.com/Toolwriter.
Comments (270)
Regarding Mr. Gass - the man who created an apparently worthless technology. I say worthless because consumers aren't clamoring to pay a lot more for table saws that have the technology, and companies aren't convinced it actually works either. Since he can't seem to sell his idea on the FREE market, he's decided to see if an unelected bureaucrat at the Consumer Product Safety Comission will make his technology mandatory. In other words, he'd like to force us to buy his product using the threat of fines or imprisonment; all in the name of making us "safer". This is the definition of crony capitalism, and I'm sick of it. Whatever happened to a little personal responsibility?
Posted: 9:51 pm on January 14th
Furthermore, utilizing the court system to compel companies to make safer tools does not signify the end of personal accountability.
Arguably, the courts are just another tool. And the ultimate personal accountability is represented in the freedom for ANY of us to utilize them to change things that one believes should be changed. That is, after all, why they are there.
Reasonable people may disagree on the role of government in regulating an industry, but I fail to understand why this man shouldn't be entitled to at least make his claim.
And, unless you heard all of the testimony, you're just spouting opinion by disputing the jury's decision. Don't lay claim to the facts.
Posted: 5:02 pm on January 5th
The airbag comparison doesn't make total sense in that operating an automobile, you are dealing with the interaction of other vehicles. You are more in control of the operation of the tablesaw.
We have taken shop classes out our our schools for whatever reasons. We want to create a society where we cannot be injured. This isn't reality. The purposes of shop classes is many fold. For those going into the trades it is obvious. For those going into management, art, politics, or whatever non related field, it is important to understand what has to happen to transform a piece of wood into a finished product and the content of the work involved. From whatever standpoint you are coming from, this is valuable.
Our education system, and the lack of parents' teaching their kids about physical reality, has produced jurors who are removed from reality.
When we turn on any power tool, we need to make sure our brains are connected to our hands.
I am glad to see the introduction of the riving knife and guards which still allow you to see the blade. My worst tablesaw injury was the result of kickback, which a riving knife would have prevented.
Mr. Gasses saws are extremely well built, but won't substitute for our not using our brains.
Posted: 9:03 am on December 3rd
Two decades later, the costs have dramatically dropped due to technology and volume and the number of lifes saved per year is well into the thousands. There's not very many people against airbags today and most would say that the legislation was effective.
The tool companies simply aren't going to step up to this on their own so unfortunately, we need to have it forced on them by legislation.
Posted: 8:16 am on December 3rd
As for the lawsuit, where was the judgement against the employer? THEY're the reason for the guy's accident. Where was the supervisor of this employee? If that were the case, maybe lots of woorworking and construction shops would re-evaluate their common practice of removing all the safety stuff from their saws and calling guys who use push sticks sissies.
Posted: 7:50 am on December 3rd
Posted: 6:03 pm on October 8th
Posted: 3:02 pm on May 18th
This whole things is a bit backwards why was not PT Hardwood Floor Service not found guilty of hiring a wetback and then fined accordingly. When is the American Business Owner going to be held responsible for hiring legal workers rather then illegals. It is ridiculous that Ryobie was held liable for this incident (its not an accident if you are stupid). As long as American businesses continue to hire cheap labor over Americans shit like this will continue to happen.
Now for my rant at Fine Woodworking. Who the F are you F'rs to tell me how F'ing many characters I need in my password. What are you my F'ing mother. Fck you and your website security, this is America let me F'ing decide what I want not you or you political party/government/web designer. You guys are as bad is the F'ing jury that determined this award against Ryobie.
John Bellona (an American)
Posted: 6:34 pm on May 15th
Posted: 9:52 am on February 11th
Posted: 10:15 am on February 9th
We need only one or two volunteers to cut themselves after switching off the feature, cut a piece of aluminum, and then leave it off and have a small injury.
We can then take Gass to court and sue him for not putting technology on the feature which reminded the user the last time the saw was used, the feature was user disabled.
Of course, Gass cannot put this feature on his saw (the inability to use the saw without his feature enabled) and a good lawyer could argue this and possibly win.
But then again one would think McDonald's had good lawyer when some spilled their coffee in their lap.........
Posted: 5:52 am on February 9th
I do woodworking as a hobby, am female and have been woodworking now for about 6 years. As someone else mentioned I have a healthy fear of my tools and those spinning blades. I read all manuals, I read books on table saws before I used it once..... I learned from both the user manuals and the books you must rip wood with a fence! PERIOD, no excuses, PERIOD.....
I think Sawstop technology is great and maybe the manufacturers could offer it as an option. I completely understand they didnt feel they could add it onto all theirs lines and still be comptetive. I pray our stupid government doesn't make it mandatory, as many manufacturers may just stop making the equipment since at some point its not worth it any more.
I hope the company appeals this stupid decision and gets someone worth their salt to defend them. Everyone who has any experience in woodworking can see this guy was at least 90% or more at fault. Plus, if the employer didnt clearly tell the guy how to use the equipment. Then he should be help partially responsible.
But for goodness sake this is just ridiculous.... like everyone else has mentioned we have lost all self responsiblity in this country. Too many lawyers as far as I am concerned...... has done allot to contribute to this.
Posted: 7:16 pm on December 31st
Its hard for me to not blame the judge who allowed this case to go forward.
Posted: 7:35 am on October 25th
If you decide to buy a table saw it is your responsibility to educate yourself. What I don't like about the SawStop technology is that it will make your average person less alert.
What if the technology is faulty on a particular saw? The only way to find out is when you actually have an accident.
Shame on the justice system for removing responsibility from the individual
Posted: 2:25 pm on October 18th
Posted: 9:45 pm on July 6th
I believe the true culprit here is the employer!!! He's the person ultimately responsible for creating a safe working environment and training for his employees! In Canada, we don't sue the @#$% out of people just because we can... and we have worker rights to protect them from dangerous working situations!
Shame on America for chasing the almighty dollar at all costs! What is/are the future plan(s) for making sure that something this irresponsible doesn't happen to another uneducated worker?
Posted: 6:26 pm on June 17th
I believe the implication is a technology exists that could have saved Carlos from himself. Thus Ryobi is liable due to neglect.
The blade guard was removed, a technology that helps prevent loss of digits. The ripfence was removed, a technology that helps prevents kickback and loss of digits. And yet they were removed. So if Ryobi indeed had incorporated the flesh sensing technology and someone disables it, by this juries logic, Ryobi would still be responsible!!!
When you alter the design and intent of safety features of an inherently dangerous machine and then show patent ignorance in its use, it is my opinion that you should not be awarded 6 times more than you asked for in a lawsuit!!!
If this suit becomes a precedent setting case, why would anyone build and sell a tablesaw??
Posted: 6:55 pm on June 14th
Posted: 2:40 pm on June 14th
Hundreds of Thousands of responsible individuals are forced to pay the price for one idiot. Taking responsibility for your own actions is tough, but it is what a decent human being would have done in this situation.
Posted: 1:16 pm on June 13th
Posted: 10:46 am on June 13th
Posted: 12:24 am on June 13th
Remember the adage, if you build something that is "IDIOT PROOF", sooner or later, a better idiot will come along.
Finally and seriously ... does anyone doubt that there are people who would gladly cut off a finger for a million dollars?
Posted: 8:41 am on June 10th
Posted: 12:01 pm on June 6th
The plaintiff could have been smarter (knowing what he was doing), more attentive (both to the training given and to his working environment), more patient (waiting to make the cut until the available safety attachments were indeed installed), more strong-willed (to bring up the lack of safety equipment to his supervisor), and more inquisitive (about the proper safety measures to be taken, assuming he knew enough to even ask). To receive the $1.5 million award, he had to first relinquish a portion of his quality of life. (By the way, from what I've read so far, I can't tell if his injured hand was his dominant hand but, if it was, that is even worse).
The tool manufacturer could have installed the Saw Stop mechanism, a point the jury was somehow persuaded was important. The tool manufacturer could have installed an auto-feed mechanism that was remotely controlled, so the worker did not have to touch the saw at all, except during setup. The tool manufacturer could have elected to not provide a useful tool to the market at all and, instead, required anyone who wanted to re-dimension wood to rely on natural decay rather than interactive mechanical methods. How far is reasonable for a tool manufacturer to go to ensure the safety of the users of its products? It seems that, just like automobiles (as in air-bags, as another contributor mentioned), the safety bar seems to be moved higher and higher as improved technology becomes more available. In this case, that available technology has been proven, but not incorporated into the saw in use. The tool manufacturer was indeed responsible for having not installed this available technology. But was it unreasonable for the tool manufacturer to have excluded it to the point that the manufacturer was liable for the worker's injuries? As for me, I say no. But the decision was not mine and, in fact, it was not that of the attorneys either - it was the decision of twelve disinterested people.
Now the real reason I write - the supervisors here. It sounds like whoever trained this guy did a horrible job, failing to instill in the worker any sense of the safety issues surrounding proper use of a table saw. Even if the direct training was excellent, it appears to me that subsequent supervision of the worker's performance was woefully substandard. You shouldn't train a person and then think everything you told them actually stuck in their head. The worker's performance needs to be observed, the training reiterated where needed, and the cycle repeated. An area where one can get into big trouble is the training that a supervisor should not tolerate - learning by bad example. If this worker was taught all the right things, but then saw another more seasoned worker taking shortcuts and getting away with it, the worker learn will learn a new "standard" of performance and complacency and figure he can do his job "just like the big boys." In short, apart from the worker's lack of common sense (or at least what sense a carpenter or woodworker should have), I blame his supervisors (for lack of a better name for them). They either didn't train him right and then monitor and correct his performance (i.e., what the law calls "negligent supervision") or didn't hire the right person(s) to teach him or look after him (i.e., what the law calls "negligent hiring"). Think about it - if any of you was this worker's supervisor and had seen this worker trying to rip narrow oak strips without even a fence, would you have stopped him and said something? If this was such an obvious error (and it was), sure you would've. So, in this case where the guards and the fence were removed, how did the supervisors avoid being injured themselves? They had someone else expose themselves to the risk.
Overall, I say bad supervison is a major culprit here, combined with the worker's lack of reasonable care for his own safety (assuming he was sufficiently trained in the first place so as to be able to better say "he knew better"). The tool manufacturer? It was a big target because it represented a big pocket. The juries want some source of money, any source, to pay an injured person what they think the loss is worth. If it doesn't come from the employer, then they look to whoever else just might share some responsibility, including product manufacturers. In this case, it was Ryobi.
Posted: 10:39 am on June 5th
Posted: 11:04 pm on May 22nd
As a matter of fact I'm in the market myself for a new saw and the only choice for me is the SawStop. I wish I had more saws to choose from but the fact remains, SawStop is the safest tool on the market. It's not that I'm a clumsy guy and think one day I will cut my fingers off, but I just like the idea of having this type of assurance in case of an accident. I also have a son that will one day inherit my tools and I would like to know that this new technology will protect him as well.
I know the tool companies have tough choices to make sometimes in order to keep cost down and be competitive in the market, but I just think they failed to see the opportunity here, and that is to say that operating this type of machinery is not as dangerous as it used to be. In fact I think that many companies would see a drop in insurance rates and this would well compensate for the higher cost in the machinery itself.
My heart goes out for all those who have been in horrible machinery accidents. Carpentry and woodworking do not have to be such a dangerous occupation. With a little training, common sense, and a tool that has great safety aspects, we would see less emergency rooms and greater production in the shop. Maybe instead of having one choice for now, the courts will change this to be like the auto industry: YOU HAVE TO BUY THE AIR BAG BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE !!
Posted: 1:19 pm on May 20th
The problem with everyone's outrage is this: While it's easy to sit back and say we don't want frivolous lawsuits, there really is no good way to decide which ones are frivolous and which ones aren't. The best way I (and the rest of western society over the course of our history) can think of is to get 12 uninterested people together, have each party tell their side of the story, and then let those 12 unbiased people decide who is at fault and who is not. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE AND EVERY OTHER JURY TRIAL.
It can be said (and probably in this case) that juries tend to be too emotional and sympathetic to injuries, and they decide cases on that basis. Even if that's true, how else should we decide cases? And if you want to change the system, you'll need a Constitutional amendment to repeal part of the Bill of Rights (7th amendment). Good luck with that.
In this case, the argument isn't necessarily that saw-stop itself should have been installed, but instead that the technology exists, and is economically viable to make the saw substantially safer, and that Ryobi consciously chose not to do so. The legal standard is whether Ryobi's design of the saw rendered the product unreasonably dangerous. The key word is unreasonably. All table saws are dangerous, but when there exists an economically viable technology that makes the product much safer, to not install it COULD be seen as unreasonable.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this verdict. The problem here is the intersection between law and facts. As woodworkers, many here only see the facts of this case. But when the facts are applied to the applicable legal standard, it's NOT that crazy or insane.
If you have a problem with it, the answer is to write your Congressman and tell them you want a Constitutional Amendment so as to no longer guarantee a jury in a civil trial. And then write your State Legislatures and tell them you want legislation to change the legal standards in product liability suits.
All of the arguments that you all make about personal responsibility etc. really speak to a legal defense of "assumption of the risk." Legally, sometimes that defense is available and sometimes it's not. It depends on the particular state law and the exact type of product liability claim. I'm not sure about Mass. but in some cases, if the product is proven to be unreasonably dangerous, than it doesn't really matter what the user did or did not do. I'm not saying this is a good rule, but if you don't like it, the answer is to call your state rep.
Just know that it incredibly hard to draw those lines such that people who are genuinely hurt by a defective product to get compensated for their injuries. Just ask the people with defective heart defibrillators in their chests that randomly shock them for no reason. They got nothing due to a highly technical rule dealing with the intersection of state and federal laws. The system isn't always perfect, but in this case, it seems to have functioned properly.
Posted: 12:09 pm on May 19th
Posted: 9:48 pm on May 18th
Posted: 9:43 pm on May 18th
I would've thrown this bogus case out of court.
Posted: 11:24 pm on May 16th
Posted: 10:43 pm on May 16th
Happens all the time:
http://failblog.org/2009/08/21/eye-protection-fail/
Posted: 11:17 am on May 16th
Posted: 6:35 pm on May 15th
Just because an expensive option is available on some models, it shouldn't mean that all other products are held to the new technology "gold standard". Should a car manufacturer be liable for my head trauma if I choose not to buy a car with side impact air bags? If the option was available and more expensive, so I chose not to buy it, isn't it my own fault? Or should we force car builders to remove all older models from the road each time a new technology becomes available?
What about me suing the manufacturer of my 5 year old skis for a knee injury that MIGHT have been avoided if they had used better bindings that are available today? Should they have recalled all old models when they came out with the newer, safer one?
Can I blame a golf club manufacturer for my poor golf scores after I bought the discount model set?
I think the answer to my questions should be "no". It's not an ideal world, and sometimes we have to just use common sense and take responsibility for our own safety.
Posted: 7:19 pm on May 14th
Posted: 3:38 pm on May 14th
The problem with everyone's outrage is this: While it's easy to sit back and say we don't want frivolous lawsuits, there really is no good way to decide which ones are frivolous and which ones aren't. The best way I (and the rest of western society over the course of our history) can think of is to get 12 uninterested people together, have each party tell their side of the story, and then let those 12 unbiased people decide who is at fault and who is not. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE AND EVERY OTHER JURY TRIAL.
It can be said (and probably in this case) that juries tend to be too emotional and sympathetic to injuries, and they decide cases on that basis. Even if that's true, how else should we decide cases? And if you want to change the system, you'll need a Constitutional amendment to repeal part of the Bill of Rights (7th amendment). Good luck with that.
In this case, the argument isn't necessarily that saw-stop itself should have been installed, but instead that the technology exists, and is economically viable to make the saw substantially safer, and that Ryobi consciously chose not to do so. The legal standard is whether this design rendered the product unreasonably dangerous. The key word is unreasonably. All table saws are dangerous, but when there exists an economically viable technology that makes the product much safer, to not install it could be seen as unreasonable. All of the arguments that you all make about personal responsibility etc. were no doubt made by the defense during trial. And the defense lawyers were no doubt well paid. But the jury didn't agree.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this verdict. The problem here is the intersection between law and facts. As woodworkers, many here only see the facts of this case. But when the facts are applied to the applicable legal standard, it's NOT that crazy or insane.
If you have a problem with it, the answer is to write your Congressman and tell them you want a Constitutional Amendment so as to no longer guarantee a jury in a civil trial. And then write your State Legislatures and tell them you want legislation to change the legal standards in product liability suits.
Just know that it incredibly hard to draw those lines such that people who are genuinely hurt by a defective product to get compensated for their injuries. Just ask the people with defective heart defibrillators in their chests that randomly shock them for no reason. They got nothing due to a highly technical rule dealing with the intersection of state and federal laws. The system isn't always perfect, but in this case, it seems to have functioned properly.
Posted: 2:42 pm on May 14th
The problem with everyone's outrage is this: While it's easy to sit back and say we don't want frivolous lawsuits, there really is no good way to decide which ones are frivolous and which ones aren't. The best way I (and the rest of western society over the course of our history) can think of is to get 12 uninterested people together, have each party tell their side of the story, and then let those 12 unbiased people decide who is at fault and who is not. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE AND EVERY OTHER JURY TRIAL.
It can be said (and probably in this case) that juries tend to be too emotional and sympathetic to injuries, and they decide cases on that basis. Even if that's true, how else should we decide cases? And if you want to change the system, you'll need a Constitutional amendment to repeal part of the Bill of Rights (7th amendment). Good luck with that.
In this case, the argument isn't necessarily that saw-stop itself should have been installed, but instead that the technology exists, and is economically viable to make the saw substantially safer, and that Ryobi consciously chose not to do so. The legal standard is whether this design rendered the product unreasonably dangerous. The key word is unreasonably. All table saws are dangerous, but when there exists an economically viable technology that makes the product much safer, to not install it could be seen as unreasonable. All of the arguments that you all make about personal responsibility etc. were no doubt made by the defense during trial. And the defense lawyers were no doubt well paid. But the jury didn't agree.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this verdict. The problem here is the intersection between law and facts. As woodworkers, many here only see the facts of this case. But when the facts are applied to the applicable legal standard, it's NOT that crazy or insane.
If you have a problem with it, the answer is to write your Congressman and tell them you want a Constitutional Amendment so as to no longer guarantee a jury in a civil trial. And then write your State Legislatures and tell them you want legislation to change the legal standards in product liability suits.
Just know that it incredibly hard to draw those lines such that people who are genuinely hurt by a defective product to get compensated for their injuries. Just ask the people with defective heart defibrillators in their chests that randomly shock them for no reason. They got nothing due to a highly technical rule dealing with the intersection of state and federal laws. The system isn't always perfect, but in this case, it seems to have functioned properly.
Posted: 2:42 pm on May 14th
Posted: 9:01 pm on May 13th
Posted: 8:59 pm on May 13th
That happened in a case where I worked. I worked in Engineering for a mining machine manufacturer who made roof bolting machines. We found in the end that the guy purposely mashed his hand, and tried to say his belt caught the lever that raised the drill head in one of our machines.
First, I got the job to design and build a full scale wood mock-up of the drill assembly, and we had a set of hydraulic valves attached in their correct position. We knew the mans height, and the height to the roof of the mine. The man was about 5'-6", and I was 6'-2", and try as I might, using the mock-up, and a piece of foam broad overhead, acting as the roof, I could not have made my belt come close to those hydraulic lever controls while having my hand around the drill head.
When the man and his attorney arrived at our corporate office, the attorney was stunned, especially when we asked the worker to show us what happened. We handed him a belt with a battery light and self-rescuer like they all carry, and then we found out some interesting things. We also found out that this worker confided in another worker, and told him what he actually did. The guy had wanted to retire early under disability, and hurt himself.
Instead of going to court, there was a settlement, and the case was dropped, but the head of engineering said it was cheaper this way than going to court. The guy was also forced back to work, and was threatened with fraud by workers comp. Luckily, he hadn't applied for SSI yet, or he would have had them down on him too, in my opinion.
Posted: 1:23 pm on May 13th
Personally, I would advocate that the plaintiff should review his decision making process. Assuming that the blade would stop is a decision that really has no upside to it. THe down side is obvious, you cut your hand off. Assuming that the blade would mot stop for human flesh doesn't have much of a downside other than that one has to be more careful. This is more than offset by the upside: You aren't injured!
Let's not forget also that nobody was there to corroborate the plaintiff's testimony. Who's to say he isn't lying and cut himself intentionally because he is lazy and wanted to not have to work for the rest of his life?
Posted: 12:57 pm on May 13th
What I am attempting to say, is that this guy obviously put himself into a dangerous situation (aided by not enought trainging .. likely) and really has no excuse for his accident. I own a SawStop, but I would never never never rip a board without the riving knife and a rip fence.
I feel that it was my choice to put out the extra $ to own the safety equipment, but that does not excuse me from appropriate safety concious choices.
I feel this is a bad decision by a jury, and hope that upon appeal a better decision will be reached (disclosure # 2, my son is a lawyer). However, tort reform is a slippery and dangerous slope to go down. I do not want to give up my right to sue a company that does show true negligence. This happens all the time and results in life changing injuries. If the ability to sue is limited the companies have no reason to make their products safe. Large companies understand the bottom line and can easily make the calculations on paying out nuisance fees, but think twice when the risk of a large settlement is in play. No, we need to keep our right to sue as a fundemental ability.
It is too bad our court system is abused by a few, and is threatened by reform that has the potential to cause harm to the rest of us. I hope the appeal system works in this case. This guy, if I understand the circumstances, was asking to be hurt. Just as if he ran across a busy freeway.
And .. Thanks to SawStop for pioneering a true safety innovation. I like the engineering that went into it.
Posted: 4:48 am on May 13th
Posted: 7:08 pm on May 12th
Posted: 10:58 pm on May 11th
Posted: 9:32 pm on May 11th
Posted: 9:27 pm on May 11th
Posted: 8:57 pm on May 10th
Also a Makita portable saw - same deal. How big a piece of me do I need to cut off? Which company will pay the most??
Was that my outside voice??
It's only a matter of time before someone disables a Saw Stop saw and removes a body part. Using this case as precedent
a jury would have to find for the injured party again.
Seriously - I hope One World appeals this one. And hires better legal staff. Unbelievable.
Posted: 7:08 pm on May 10th
After all, he is the one who gave Osorio this job without making sure he is skilled enough and use saftely the equipment he is having to use.
I wouldn't tell Osorio is a moron like others. We do not have enough details about this guy. However, my best guess is his boss is the first person liable for the safety of his employees. Maybe he hired Osorio because he is not skilled and is ready to work for peanuts, etc.
Posted: 5:40 pm on May 10th
I have heard rumors of Tort Reform for at least 15 years, but nothing has ever became of it. If anyone wanted to run for congress, and promise this, and follow up on it, and do it, I would whole heartedly vote for them despite their politics.
Back when the current laws were written, they were designed for a good thing, but with the loopholes included in the language, you get these types of law suits. This is one reason why a lot of the manufacturing has left the US, and went overseas. You would have to read the Uniform Commercial Code to understand why.
What is needed is a Federal Tort reform, that trumps all state law. It should limit product liability suits to malfunctioning equipment that breaks and causes an injury, and save harmless the company if any safety measures have been defeated. It should also limit the payouts of these law suits, instead of allowing them to sue for the ungodly sums they seek, and put a cap on the attorneys fees. If the attorneys wouldn't make that much money off a suit, they would quit doing it.
In this case, if the saw guard had been installed, and the fence, but the guard broke, and caused the mans hand to hit the blade, then I would say there was a case, but no other way. Unfortunately, the way the differing state laws are, and the loopholes, this isn't the case.
The problem will be the slip-and-fall attorneys, and their lobbyists in Washington, who will argue that their hands will be tied with Tort Reform, and unfortunately, we have plenty of lawyers elected to the house and senate that may agree.
Posted: 3:20 pm on May 10th
Posted: 1:20 pm on May 10th
Juries tend to beleave that they have no power and must listen to the judge and his rules. That is simply not true. In the courts we often have an uninformed and clearly uneducated populous dealing with technical issues and being given rules that they do not understand. All to often they are forced to bring in a verdict based on a definition that is flawed and they do not have the guts to stand up for common sense.
I have worked with tools all my life and most of them are inherently dangerous as are guns, cars, and knives. When we use a tool we should be required by law to assume certain risks. When we remove safety features we should do so at our own risk. When a worker is given a modified tool, he should be informed of those risks. All to often the employers hires less qualified personnel and forgets that they are in danger if they do not have those skills. Apparently there was lack of training and understanding of the workings of the saw and the worker should not have been using the saw. However this is beyond the scope of the manufacturer. Some how the lawyers must have done a poor job pointing this our.
With the advent of seat belts and the like a crash becomes less dangerous for the passengers. However it does not do anything for the pedestrian. I wonder how this impacts the building of a motorized item such as the auto, tractor, truck, or boat. Have you ever seen a motor home with seatbelts and airbags for all or a boat?
This goes way beyond wood working and must be appealed.
Posted: 12:02 pm on May 10th
Posted: 10:54 am on May 10th
Hey this might be worth a couple of hundred thou. That confused blade can't make up its mind which direction it's going.
But again frame of reference is important and if you change your frame of reference the rotation of the blade will neccessarily change too. We have shifted from personal responsibility to finding someone else to blame for something that's my fault.
Unbelievable. And the Trial Lawyers are making a fortune off companies who manufacture products people want.
Posted: 12:38 pm on May 9th
Yes you are correct, and Kelley Uustal hurried and bought a special dot com over it to advertise it. Quite catchy name they have for it; tablesawattorney dot com.
They are also spreading the same tripe, mentioning SawStop's technology, and that all the saw manufacturers knew about it in 2000. Well, so what if they did? If you go back and look at the Gass patents, he kept improving the electronics for several years afterwards. What you see from SawStop now is not what they patented in 2000.
These attorneys, and ones like them, are only out for one thing, to line their own pockets, while using some Joe who was injured, and who has no morals to sue a company over their own fault. I can assure you, that the attorney does not have any morals, or scruples, about him/her, if they would go after the same type case.
A good friend of mine cut his thumb on a table saw about two years back, and he has looked at this case, and totally agrees that what went down here shouldn't have happened. He knew what he did, his own self, was his fault, and he never sued over it. He did make a joke about it though, as he held his thumb up to me the other day, and asked, "You mean I could have gotten a million outta this"? He laughed afterwards, and we talked at length about the stupidness of this case. My friend wasn't using a guard either, nor was he paying attention to the cut, he admitted.
Posted: 11:25 am on May 9th
Posted: 10:45 am on May 9th
Stupid plaintiff with no scruples
+
Injury Lawyer
+
Jury(at least 10 stupid people)
+
Big Company = Lots of free money
In most cases, the jury doesn't care if it makes sense or not. If the attorney is smooth and likeable, the jury will go for the deep pockets. They know the company will pay, they know it's wrong, but they don't care. It's a sad commentary on the state of our country.
Posted: 10:44 am on May 9th
Posted: 9:31 am on May 9th
Posted: 10:59 pm on May 8th
I also find it interesting that this decision would in effect make it unlawful to reject any invention or improvement offered. Obviously, Ryobi is being penalized not so much for the plantiff's injuries as for not buying SawStop technology when offered. The saw was now defective, therefore this should not have dealt with product liability. This is a case of an untrained machinist being injured by his own stupidity. At the very most it should have been workman's comp.
The dude's attorney simply decided to go where he thought he could get more cash. I would hope that this case will be overturned in appeals.
Posted: 8:45 pm on May 8th
Posted: 8:14 pm on May 8th
Posted: 4:22 pm on May 8th
You bring up some very good points, especially about OSHA and Workers Comp.
First, if the Ryobi saw was defective in it's design, OSHA would have stepped in a long time ago on other job sites, and not allowed its usage.
Second, the saw was UL listed to be as safe as possible, and would have had enough safety attachments, and held up, to pass the test.
Third, the injured man should have went off work on Workers Comp, that is if his employer was not a fly-by-night business, and not paying in to Workers Comp, which is against the law by the way.
Forth, since this was a job site related injury, there should have been an OSHA investigation, and most likely one by Workers Comp against the employer.
If it had been a Union contractor-employer, a skilled worker would be the only one allowed to use the saw. In order to use one, you would have had to complete an apprenticeship program. When you join the Union, you start out as a greenhorn, and work your way up the ladder. When you get to the point of using the saw, you would be experienced, and would know better than to do what the user did. As a matter of fact, you could have refused to run it over an unsafe working condition. The contractor would have had to fix the saw, or bought a new one.
I would imagine, that not one juror knew anything about woodworking, because if I had been on that jury, I would have refused to agree with the others, and made it a hung jury. I wouldn't care if I had to be sequestered with the others for two months, I would not have folded.
Last, maybe One-World - Ryobi should look into another law firm to handle their case, as their attorney should have argued this case better. If nothing else, brought a saw, with no guards or fence, into the court room and asked the injured man to show the jury how he got hurt. You can do this, as that happened with a mine machine company I worked for. Once they saw the court stupidity of it, maybe there would have been a different outcome.
Posted: 2:54 pm on May 8th
There are a number of flaws with the "assumption" that the lawyers and jurors made:
1. The operator accepted the risks when he removed the safety features.
2. The operator was aparently aware that something was wrong when he stopped and 'diddled' with stuff... IMHO he should have asked for help, but obviously pride and stupidity prevailed.
Correct me if I am wrong but SawStop has the ability to disable/disarm the flesh-sensing so that it will not be fired by green or wet wood... lets assume that is correct, then it is only a matter f time before there will be a law suit aginst SawStop because the operator elected to disarm the safety feature.
Posted: 1:03 pm on May 8th
Osario was hired off the street to work for a flooring company. Which means he had no experience using a table saw. IF he did it was not much. That is what the prospective employer should assume. If there were no guards on the machine and obviously no other safety devices, ...where was the ever present OSHA, This was a clear violation of OSHA safety rules. Where was the State, county and city inspectors for this job, surely, they needed a permit for this job. If that contractor gave this 'New guy' a quickie lesson on how to use a table saw then this redistributes blame.
Secondly, Was this guy hired in the parking lot of Home Depot ? Is English this guy Osario's first language ? Is he an "undocumented Worker"( to be PC) who may have not understood the instructions, if he didn't it was his responsibility to say so and get further instructions on what to do. If anybody should have been sued it should have been the flooring contractor it was his employee, who he trained to run a table saw. But of course the contractor is samll potatoes compared to Ryobi.
This gives a good case for Unions. They would never allow an apprentice to run that machine on his first time on a jobsite and especially without proper safety equipment. On this, I agree with the Union .
After that contractor bought that saw it was his, I don't see how Ryobi can be held responsibile, he was sold a saw, a saws function is to cut wood, it did. And why didn't the contractor hire someone familar with construction tools and equipment?...Like say, a Carpenter. Because, he was a small contractor and couldn't afford to hire a qualified worker.
Also we didn't hear anything about what Workmens Compensation had to say about this, they too should be involved, after all governments want to regulate every aspect of our lives.
When we did a job on a site, anything pertaining to the electrical end of it, the Electrical Contractor was responsible. Even extension cords. We would(shall) supply them, if some trade showed up with an unapproved cord, we would get the fine from OSHA. That was the case when there was an option of approved grounding means as opposed to GFCIs. That may have changed with the new code, but regardless. The contractor has ultimate responsibility on the jobsite. Not the manufacturer of the equipment.
Posted: 12:31 pm on May 8th
Posted: 10:27 am on May 8th
The jury was doing what they thought best, given the evidence. Ryobi made a quality tool with the same safety features established and used by the power tool industry.
Posted: 10:07 am on May 8th
Posted: 12:11 am on May 8th
Well, they say in a court of law the jury is supposed to be a "jury of your peers"...in other words, of similar background and experience as the defendent. Evidently this jury met that criteria...cause they were as equally stupid as Mr. Osorio!
I would like to know if there was even one wood worker sitting in on that jury? I seriously doubt it. And there lies the shame of it all...you got moron lawyers, judges, and juries ruling on cases that they haven't a clue as to what is actually right or wrong cause they have no real working knowledge/ experience concerning the subject they are debating....tablesaw safety.
This lawsuit should have never come to trial. The fact that it reached court attests to the fact that the judge has no woodworking knowledge...otherwise this case would have been thrown out. The jury surely had no knowledge...the proof is in their statement that Mr. Osorio was only 35% responsible.....I say bulsh*t to that too.
In all actuality, the Foreman who "trained" Osorio was really to blame. I'd lay 75% on him and the other 25 on Osorio because it seems obvious that Osorio had no real clue as to what he was doing. As another poster said earlier, he was a neophyte...a rank beginner...just a baby when it came to knowing how to operate that saw. Foreman is to blame....and if Osorio did not have enough mechanical apptitude to recognize the danger signs when the saw is bogging down and such, then he should have never been "broken in" on the tablesaw in the first place. The foreman should have used this guy elsewhere, or not at all.
Davo
Posted: 11:18 pm on May 7th
Also Ryobi is suppose to retro-fit his saw with a flesh stop. How absurd. He obviously bought the Saw before they came out or he refused to pay the extra money for that feature. NOW, who can they blame for that...Ryobi, of course... they made it so expensive he couldn't afford the extra bucks for that particular safety feature. Boy, oh boy you can't argue with that kind of convoluted logic.
Posted: 4:11 pm on May 7th
Posted: 2:16 pm on May 7th
Posted: 12:40 pm on May 7th
While I like the SawStop technology, there is a big difference between gingerly edging a hot dog into the blade and doing so at normal working speeds.
Posted: 11:04 am on May 7th
Cheers,
Ed
Posted: 9:29 am on May 7th
The flesh sensing technology does nothing to stop kick back, and by what some have reported, you can still be cut using it. If you couldn't, they wouldn't have included a blade guard on a machine that the new technology is supposed to keep you from getting cut by, so why have the guard?
They also have something to stop kickback, which would be mounted with the guard, most likely. That would be a riving knife or splitter, and probably a hold down.
Now, I have the very Ryobi machine that is pictured for this article, the only difference in them is my base is painted black and not gray. The Ryobi has a set of pawls that hold the board down, and keep it from kicking up when the guard assembly is installed. If I remember correctly, that is what happened to help with the accident in the law suit.
From what I've read, the guy tried to force a piece of flooring through a blade, probably dull from the sound of it, without the guard and anti-kick back pawls installed. He was also doing the cut without a fence which would have guided the board straight into the blade, instead of crooked. All of this compounded the problem, and it caused him to slip and hit the blade, cutting his hand.
If the blade guard had been installed, his hand wouldn't have met the blade, most likely, and the pawls would have held the board to the table. Pure ignorance to saw safety caused this, not the saw.
This is like suing a gun company for somebody accidentally shooting himself, when the gun didn't cause it, the one messing with the gun did. If the trigger hadn't been pulled, it wouldn't have went off.
My thoughts are this, don't trust that SawStop is the cure-all for your table saw woes.
Posted: 7:58 am on May 7th
Posted: 11:19 pm on May 6th
Posted: 10:47 pm on May 6th
Posted: 10:02 pm on May 6th
Posted: 9:58 pm on May 6th
Posted: 7:01 pm on May 6th
Posted: 6:58 pm on May 6th
Posted: 6:04 pm on May 6th
Ryobi shipped a product fully in compliance with industry standards (UL), and OSHA regulations for use in a workplace. This guy ignored the tool's manual and modified it before use by removing important safety components. Seems to me the fault lies with the operator (for modifying the tool into a dangerous configuration and failing to follow the manual), and the employer (for lack of proper training and enforcement of safe workplace standards).
Posted: 5:11 pm on May 6th
"The blade guard and splitter were removed and
he was making the cut without a rip fence."
Did no one explain to the jury what would happen without these things? The blade guard is a 'meh' piece of safety equipment in my book. You can get away without using it easy if you've got more in between your ears than a sock filled with popcorn. I've got my doubts about *ahem* certain individuals at this point...
A splitter/riving knife is much more important because kickback is much more dangerous. No amount of awareness or skill is going to keep a piece of reactive wood from closing in on the blade if it wants to. You need this piece of equipment whenever you're making a through cut.
But a rip fence??? Who would be dumb enough to NOT use a rip fence for ripping!? You're pretty much begging for a serious injury if you're not using a rip fence for ripping operations! I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but the obscene audacity that some fancy pants lawyer could convince a jury that a saw was defective when it's very clear to any woodworker who's been doing it for a minute that the operator was the one who was defective! 35% liable? He is 100% liable!
Power tools are inherently very dangerous. Any adult possesing some brains and common sense can discern that. Tool companies put labels and stickers all over their products explaining the risks, telling you to read the manual, and that if you don't understand how to use the tool that you SHOULD NOT USE IT! When he was having trouble with his cut he should have gotten help. His coworkers may have laughed at him a bit and called him a dumb*&^# but he'd still have full use of his fingers and maybe he would have actually learned a useful skill instead of burdening the legal system with yet another frivolous lawsuit in the sue-happy nation we call the United States of America.
Posted: 4:25 pm on May 6th
Posted: 2:34 pm on May 6th
Oh well, I guess I'll be paying more for a new tablesaw in the future.
Posted: 1:51 pm on May 6th
In engineering, there are a lot of variables, and what safety factors to use. One example of a safety factor is that a device is meant to lift one ton, but make it withstand two tons, and it has a 2:1 safety factor.
An engineer will run every possible scenario through their head, and I give SawStop credit, they have some good ideas. However, I would have used a motor brake, or a brake mounted to the saw arbor spindle that would trigger and kill the rotation in milliseconds before it even dropped under the table. It would have saved the blade too.
The way the patent read, it considered the number of teeth on the blade, and the blades RPM for the timing on when to stop the saw, and they use the count of two of the saw teeth making contact if I recall. However, that's using a 36 tooth blade. A plywood blade, etc, will have many more teeth in contact with the skin for the same arc of rotation as the two teeth of a 36 tooth blade in the same amount of time, it's just plain mathematics.
You are also correct that a plywood blade would most likely cut into the aluminum more than a 36 tooth blade would, as that is the way slotting saws for metal are made.
I would like to hear about what would happen with a plywood blade tripping, or if someone was cut with one. That's not me wishing it would happen though.
I imagine what caused the treated lumber to trip it was the copper that is in the wood. It would make it more conductive than wet wood.
Posted: 1:48 pm on May 6th
We have a Saw Stop at work. A maintenance employee tried to using it to cut treated lumber and it tripped the safety device.
The blade is not to be reused as it incurs a violent collision with the aluminum stopping block. The blade cuts into it and becomes jammed. Maybe the blade could be reused, but it is not recommended and we did not.
Concerning the plywood blade and high tooth-count blades, we do not use them on that cabinet saw. Not only are there the concerns you mentioned, but there is the concern of the stopping efficiency of the Al block upon the blade. Once we saw the end result of the lower count blade in the aluminum block, and saw how the Al block stopped the blade, we thought a thinner or high tooth-count blade could possibly (we never tested it) spin longer, cutting through the Al block momentarily, prior to stopping the rotation.
Even with that said, the blade does slam down below the surface of the table at the same time. It seems as if it is designed to not allow items to block this downward travel, but zippers are designed not to get stuck too. Apples and oranges I know, but the point is I never trust a mechanical safety if I can avoid it.
Just putting in my 2 cents based on what I have seen.
Posted: 1:27 pm on May 6th
Whatever happened to people being responsible for themselves? My circumstance is a bit different, I am identified as the person responsible for maintaining a safe environment. However, I never saw a machine manual that claimed the device was always safe to operate regardless of how the operator uses it. On the contrary, every manual I have ever read for a power tool extensively describes specific actions that will render the tool or process unsafe.
The injured party was overwhelmingly at fault. And regardless of lawyers, they are doing what they are hired to do, juries should be smarter than this. With decisions like this, no wonder it's increasingly hard to keep prices down or even a business afloat at times.
Posted: 1:02 pm on May 6th
Bob, as you were typing this, I went and downloaded a couple of the patents, and saw the schematic for the circuit, and you are correct, that it does use capacitance, and a micro-controller, or PIC chip. What I read was that green wood, especially fresh cut could cause the saw to shut down, and then the lock out is to be used. The new saw design uses a table made like a capacitor, in layers, but I think if ones doesn't watch, the effect could be shunted, and the saw still not work properly. I would watch about using crosscut sleds on this too, as that would add a thick layer of insulation for the capacitor action.
Also, I saw the explosive restraint, and I assume you would have to purchase a new one to replace the old one with it. It works like explosive bolts do, and releases the mechanism.
One thing bothered me though, and that was the tooth number, as they seemed to keep quoting a 36 tooth blade. What about a finer tooth blade, or even a plywood blade, which would cause more teeth to bite into the skin before the time limit in the controller was up. A good plywood blade cuts like a hot knife trough butter.
I saw someone comment that if you're cut, it could be 1/8" deep before the saw stops. Well, I'm skinny by nature, and 1/8" would be close to hitting bone on the side of a finger for me. That's hitting artery's and nerves.
I think I'd just rather take my chances with a good blade guard with a splitter, feather boards, and good push sticks, keeping my hands away from the blade.
Posted: 1:01 pm on May 6th
In my opinion, if the employer removed the safety features, he/she would be just as much at fault as the user, who could have refused to run the machine without the guards in place.
The thing that troubles me is the ruling saying that by not using the SawStop system, all table saws have a design flaw. That is total BS to me, and this case could have wide reaching consequences, not just effecting our table saws. It could set a precedent for other law suits for other types of machinery, enough to shut down major business in the US until the machinery was upgraded. Not just saws, but drills, lathes, mills, or anything with a cutting tool really.
The appeal could mean a lot to whether other lawyers will suddenly dig up cases and go to court. It could also cause a rewrite of a bunch of insurance companies policies.
Posted: 12:44 pm on May 6th
Posted: 12:42 pm on May 6th
Is there any merit for a contractor to buy a SawStop? The technology can offer safety, but can also be temperamental. When the SawStop is triggered it destroys the blade and a part of the equipement. Should a contractor therefore have multiple SawStop saws on hand? How realistic is that?
I feel the same as many. It is unfortunate that Mr. Osorio was injured, but to hold Ryobi responsible is inappropriate, especially when all of the safety equipment was removed. I hope that Ryobi pursues an appeal, but I wouldn't be surprised if Ryobi decides that paying 1.5 million is cheaper than continuing an expensive legal battle.
Posted: 12:11 pm on May 6th
The cartridge has a heavyweight spring that is held in a compressed state, glued together with an explosive epoxy. When the tiny amount of explosive (like a fire cracker) goes off, it releases the spring, sending the aluminum pawl into the blade and the inertia of the impact pulls the entire mechanism down, withdrawing the blade below the table top. From detection to detonation, the time is in milliseconds.
When an arbor nut is cranked down on a blade it will make positive contact with the metal blade and the teeth of saw blades never have paint on them. Even if there is a thin layer of paint, the gap will be small enough to let charge through, thus the paint would be acting as a dielectric.
The circuit is simple, and should be fool proof. This is not to say that it can't fail, but it would have a low probability of failure. If the odds of failure were 1 in 1000, and I doubt it would be that high, it would be 99.9% reliable.
The important note to those prudent personal responsibility types, most SawStop owners will never see the device work. Its there when its needed, just like the airbags and seatbelts in your car. (Though if and when I buy one, I'm gonna put a hot dog in it)
Also the bypass is there if you need to cut wet wood, thin aluminum, certain types of plastic, etc. that might set it off. And no, you can’t sue if you bypass it.
PS I don’t see anything in the article saying that the plaintiff is the one who removed the guards, thus putting responsibility back on the employer. Sometimes it’s necessary to remove them, like when using a crosscut sled. I could see another simple circuit that would detect the presence or absence of the guard, but that too would need to be able to be bypassed.
Posted: 12:02 pm on May 6th
Posted: 11:54 am on May 6th
"The complaint alleged that the saw’s design was inherently flawed because it didn’t have "flesh-sensing technology,"
This should have been an easy claim to argue against. The phrase "inherently flawed" is what is disturbing and why the case has further implications. If this ruling stands it would mean that any TS without flesh-sensing technology would be "inherently flawed", right?
It matters not to me if my saw has this feature or not, but I disagree that it is inherently flawed without it.
Posted: 11:47 am on May 6th
If they have a lock out key, why on earth would they need one, unless the blade is being false triggered by something you're sawing? If that is the case, are they responsible for buying the user a new $100+ blade?
I agree, that if the lock out is used, and the user is then hurt, it's the users own fault. I also agree that if you take off the simple blade guard, and splitter from any table saw, and the fence too, the user is at fault. That's just an accident waiting to happen trying to saw unguided work.
As anyone knows, there is only a few instances for not using the blade guard, and that is when we use panel jigs, etc. Does that make the saw manufacturer liable to us if we get cut using a panel jig? What about making crown moulding on a saw? Is the woodworking magazines liable for showing us how to do it?
Posted: 11:45 am on May 6th
Also, what about using a blade with a painted surface? The teeth are generally bare, but I think I would rater the thing stop if I touched any part of the running blade. Also, what if the blade is painted where the arbor hole is, and keeps the blade from making contact with the sensing mechanism? What if you're wearing gloves while you work, even the thin nitrile ones?
Without knowing for sure that SawStop uses capacitance, I wont say that it will or wont work, but it would be a possibility if it did use capacitance. I guess if you own one, you could always carry a hard rubber comb or a balloon on you to rub your hair with and recharge yourself.
Here's a test to see what might happen. Using a SawStop saw, take a hotdog wiener, and put it into the blade without holding it with your hand. Use a stick to push it into an old blade that you don't care about, and see if the blade drops.
Posted: 11:31 am on May 6th
Posted: 10:44 am on May 6th
Posted: 9:28 am on May 6th
Remember the grumpy old man Dana Carvey character on SNL way back when? “We didn’t have seatbelts, if we got into an accident we knew right where we were going – straight through the windshield. AND WE LIKED IT”
Then we have on the other side we have the “Moms” who won’t let their kids go anywhere near a skateboard unless the kid is cocooned in foam and hard plastic.
In the middle are techie people like me, who know a thing or two about manufacturing, electronics, computers etc. right down to the ICs, capacitors and resistors and can tell by looking at it, the difference between an M3 screw and a 6-32 screw.
Never mind the single technology employed in the SawStop. Future woodworking tools will have computers in them and might just stop when it doesn’t like where your hands are or what’s going on with that piece of wood you’re jamming into it.
The grumpy old man types will bitch about every step between here and there all the while longer for the past which they know sucked. The “Mom” will relax a little more when “Dad” heads to the garage with a pile of wood to cut up. And Techie types like me will say ‘neato’.
As for all you people out there who think this is just about some dufuss striking it mildly rich and a poor multi-million dollar public corporation playing the victim. Ryobi will be having to make some press releases to keep the stock trading. Ryobi will be employing SawStop technology in future products and will in near term have warnings in bigger bolder letters. Other manufacturers will do the same.
Yes McDonald’s got sued by a woman who placed a scalding hot cup of coffee between her legs, but now you can go to McDonalds and get a McCaffe that will be handed to you through that window at a precise thermostatically designated temperature in a thick cup and a tightly fitting lid. Smile and STFU.
Posted: 9:25 am on May 6th
Posted: 9:04 am on May 6th
As I see it most manufacturers don't want to include the safety feature because of the additional cost. They only are thinking of today's profit, and not of the future profits, or liability. This seems to be the mind think of most businesses today. No planning for the future.
Both parties were responsible for what happened, but most of the responsibility should have been placed on the operator of the equipment for removing the safety guards. One guard should have been included that wasn't.
Posted: 8:52 am on May 6th
Very sorry he was injured so severely, but the fault does not lie with the tool manufacturer.
Hopefully, this ridiculous award will be overturned on appeal.
Only in America!
Posted: 7:31 am on May 6th
Posted: 12:57 am on May 6th
Um, wait a minute. If I make my living with this product, shouldn't I want it to be safe. This is a product that allows me to feed my family. If it can be safer so that I can continue to earn, the Stockholders will just have to take it on the chin. Better them on the chin than me on the hand.
Why would I care if a big corporation has to spend some money on making their saws safer, they don't care if I can't earn a living due to loss of fingers or hand. Come on people, just because they advertise doesn't mean you have to support stupidity.
Posted: 12:19 am on May 6th
Posted: 11:58 pm on May 5th
Any fault probably should have been laid at the feet of his supervisor for not making the guy put the safety equipment on the saw.
All of the law suits that were filed against the lawnmower manufacture where I was employed were caused by the operator's carelesness and not using good judgement when using a lawnmower. This seems to be the case here. Another case of lawsuit abuse.
Posted: 11:48 pm on May 5th
The lawyer should be sited for bringing a case without merit and ordered to pay 175% of defendant's costs and Joe No-Finger should pay 25%.
Being responsible for your own actions--rather unique concept, ya' think.
Posted: 11:27 pm on May 5th
Why don't we quit making cars because someone might get drunk and run into a tree; why don't we quit having babies because they might grow up, go skiing and get hurt when they run off the side of the slope? Should we put guard rails down all of the slopes, covered in rubber, with large wind turbines to blow them gently back on course. Come on people, we need to take responsibility for ourselves, set limits on court awards, and have judges who can judge and juries that have brains.
Posted: 11:10 pm on May 5th
Remember the lady in California who spilled hot coffee on her lap and got 15 mil from McDonalds? Was that fair to McDonalds? Of course not. Deep pocketed lawyer? Screwy jury? Or some of both! Maybe she should have had a lead lap cover.
If I'm boiling water for hard boiled eggs and I knock the pan off the stovetop, who's to blame? ME, naturally!
Will any of you say I'm only PARTIALLY at fault?
This is no different. Who will I sue? The stove manufacturer for not providing a high fence across the front to prevent the accident. How about the pan manfacturer for having the extra long handle I bought when shorter handled versions were available? Where is COMMON SENSE????
This case should never have gone this far.
Following the logic mentioned in some of these remarks regarding manufacturer responsibility, all stovetop manufacturers will be required to put permanent front fences on their appliances (something far less expensive for the stovetop manufacturer than the Saw Stop technology on a portable saw). Then there is the pan manufacturer. The same arguments would require very short handles or no handles in favor of two loop handles like on large soup pots.
There is no difference. There are products in all price ranges for all economic classes, or more simply, personal preference or need. REQUIRING a DIY handyman who only occasionally needs a table saw that can be stowed under his bench, or the flooring installer who needs portability, to purchase a saw weighing hundreds of pounds and cost thousands of dollars is tantamount to requiring anyone who needs a car to purchase a Rolls Royce. Afterall, tanks are much safer that tin cans. Maybe we can start suing auto manufacturers when someone gets injured in a car accident, and heaven forbid if anyone is killed.
Posted: 10:42 pm on May 5th
Yes, if you use a tool in an unsafe manner then you are likely to be injured and its your own damn fault. But if there is a means by which the same exact situation would result in a better outcome, then that means should have been employed. PERIOD.
Important points:
1) Ryobi had an opportunity to employ the technology and decided not to.
2) Someone was bound to get injured by a Ryobi saw after that point.
3) That someone hired a lawyer.
4) A jury, not a judge or a lawyer, but 12 people like any of us decided that Ryobi failed to do what it could to make a safer device.
P.S. Kitchen knives don't have 3 horsepower motors attached to them and I’ll bet your hairdryer is plugged into a GFCI outlet, as required by code.
Posted: 10:29 pm on May 5th
Posted: 9:46 pm on May 5th
Obviously if I drive drunk as a skunk, with under-inflated, worn out tires, brakes that are shot, while performing Clinton like acts with a woman half my age, while texting with my cell phone to buy more alcohol, and crash into a school bus full of kids, the cell phone company is to blame because it did not install flesh sensing technology - or should that be alcohol sensing? Now I confused. I going to take a shower with my hairdryer - its OK cuz' I removed the warning label.
The truth is that our courts are run by crooked judges who allow suits to proceed where the responsibility for the bad event was clearly the not the defendant's. This moron judge would make all tools unavailable/unaffordable using his alcohol twisted logic and there would be no difference in injuries since fools would still remove or deactivate the safety devices.
Posted: 9:33 pm on May 5th
Sure, the splitter and guard are extra parts, but they simple, few, and do what they are meant to do; keep ones hands away from the blade, and prevent kickback.
To use Gass' system, we have to look at how many extra parts are added, and how complicated the mechanism is. The electronic sensor uses a multitude of electronic parts, then there is the mechanism that drops the saw blade, and the brake shoe that ruins the blade once it's dropped. Plus, they rely on the electronics never failing, which, in turn, work the mechanical attributes or the mechanism. Then, you have to rely on the multi-part mechanism to not fail.
In a way, if a good attorney was to call an electrical and mechanical engineer to testify as expert witnesses, they could probably make the argument that the SawStop system wasn't as safe as a saw equipped with a simple guard, splitter, and fence. It's the Rube Goldberg approach if you will. In other words, SawStop may use 100 parts to do what a simple splitter and guard should and does do, which do not rely on sensitive electronic parts to control them.
Also, another problem arises in that by using the SawStop system, the user may think it much safer, thus making he/she braver, and do more dangerous procedures on the saw, thinking that they can't be hurt. On top of that, the SawStop system will still cut you, by what I've read, and that is still an injury, just not as bad as it could be.
Without looking at the electrical schematics for the SawStop, I am assuming they use capacitance formed between the body and saw to actuate the electronic trigger. This is the way those touch lamps work, where as soon as the skin makes contact with the lamp, it turns on. Also, by what I've seen, the blade still turns until it hits the metal brake shoe. It would have been safer to use a brake motor so when the electronic trigger switched, the motor would be stopped dead in its tracks, shutting off the blades rotation in a split second. The manufacturers could use this idea to skirt by the Gass patent, and most likely do it much cheaper.
What I'm getting at though is one is better off, and has a more reliable machine, when using the least amount of parts that could fail. It's up to the consumer to be safe in using it, when the manufacture is making machines that are acceptable to the public, and safe as past practice dictates. Especially, when the consumer knows that when going into this kind of work, he can be injured. It's not only up to the manufacturer to make the machine safe, but the consumer to use it safely.
By the way, whether I get feeling back in my finger or not, I would not sue the hammer manufacturer, even though they could design a Rube Goldberg apparatus to pull my arm back if the hammer tipped one of my fingers. They actually make a cheap screw and nail holder out of foam, and the hammer manufacturers do not include one with their product. It's really the same thing, just a different tool.
Posted: 9:31 pm on May 5th
Makes you wonder if One World Tech's lawyer might have a good chance as the new corporate lawyers for McDonald's Inc.
Posted: 9:29 pm on May 5th
What I feel is wrong with the idea that there should be no law, nothing that forces anybody to do anything and let the ‘natural selection’ of the marketplace sort it out. That is an argument for a return to jungle law, and not a modern, technological society. If you want to go live in the 50’s go there without me. I have a 1980’s Craftsman table saw and I can’t sue if it decides to bite my fingers off, but a 2010 or 2011 tablesaw has no excuse now. So now let’s talk about the real winner in this lawsuit, Mr. Gass.
Deeply ingrained in the American psyche is the idea that if you invent something, patent it, and seek to make it part of everyday life, you deserve to make some money off of it. Mr. Gass had an invention, patented it, and sought a means to get it produced. After failing to get a manufacturer to adopt it, he started his own company to produce a great product that employed the technology. Lets hope Mr. Gass is wise and licenses this technology freely.
This is a good invention and despite its high tech claims is really very simple, a big chunk of aluminum is thrown into the blade a split second after it detects a change in capacitance of a spinning saw blade and arbor. I frankly don’t believe it could be prohibitively expensive since this capacitance change is the same thing that operates a touch-lamp, a device from the 70’s. Heck my Playstation 3’s power and eject buttons operate on the same principle. The SawStop is very solidly built and can simply be reset by the installation of a new blade and cartridge. I could see a saw that would have the same safety, but would destroy itself if triggered, would be quite cheap to produce.
I suggest you go rent ‘Flash of Genius’, about Bob Kearns the guy who invented the circuit for the intermittent wiper. He showed them the device, they copied it, and blew him off since their bean counters, lawyers, and greedy dishonest executives figured that even though he had a patent, he’d never be able to enforce it. He was a fool since he tried to manufacture the device himself, and not simply ask for a royalty since day one. Hopefully somebody from SawStop is reading this flame, and they make the right moves to make this technology as ubiquitous as the intermittent wiper.
Posted: 9:17 pm on May 5th
However, I do not think that government should require that all saws be equipped with such a device. Each consumer can choose to buy and use what he wishes, fully aware of the potential dangers.
It is not analagous to car air bags or gun locks because a table saw user may injure only himself and only by his own actions. Furthermore, there IS a reasonable expectation of fully safe use of the machine IF proper precautions are taken. Also, all safety devices did not come about due to lawsuits or government decree.
The government cannot and should not protect us from all dangers, particularly those that we might impose upon ourselves. Should we ban routers because the safer alternative of a hand molding plane exists? Should we ban ice cream (one might chronically overeat it and get heart disease) since the safer alternative of non-fat yogurt exists?
The injured man, with the assistance and support of his employer, had every opportunity to perform his job safely, and yet engaged in grossly reckless procedure. They, or at least the worker, are responsible for the injury.
To me, this lawsuit, as it has been thus far described, largely comes down to issues of personal freedom and the attendant responsibility, versus blaming the deep pockets for profit by predatory lawyers. Aren't those marble floors in court houses kind of slippery and isn't there a safer alternative?
Posted: 9:02 pm on May 5th
When I drive, I follow the rules of the road. I pay attention, obey the traffic laws, and keep my vehicle in good repair. I am entitled to expect that everyone else on the road will do the same. It is our tacit agreement with each other - that we will each act reasonably so as not to harm each other.
Are you suggesting, Liberty, that if you act unreasonably, by failing to exercise reasonable caution and care, you are NOT responsible for your actions? Or are you suggesting that if your unreasonable behavior injures me, I am not entitled to recover from you for your negligence because I accepted the possibility of your negligence by entering this world, or by leaving my home, or by driving on the road?
I'm all for people, and companies, being responsible for their own actions. I'm not for people being responsible for the negligence of others. If you sell a dangerous product on the market, knowing that the people who use your product will be exposed to danger, and there is a reasonable and cost effective means of drastically reducing the danger created by use of your product, then your decision not to include that safety feature had better be reasonable too.
Posted: 8:25 pm on May 5th
Posted: 8:13 pm on May 5th
But my dear people liberty and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have the freedom to choose a lesser expensive table saw, yet surrender the responsibility for the extra level of safety and attention that you mist bring to the operation of cutting wood. This holds true with EVERYTHING (yes seatbelts, airbags, ets - seatbelt laws are WRONG - liberty dictates that you decide if you will wear one or not - responsibility dictates that you live (or perhaps die) with that decision).
The trouble with this case is that it attempts to separate the two inseparable elements Liberty/responsibility - and THAT gentlemen is why this country is such a mess. And THAT is why I vote Libertarian!
For those of you who would give essential liberty for the illusion of safety - there are hundreds of other countries to which you could move, why stay here and undermine our founding documents?
Posted: 8:05 pm on May 5th
Fortunately, I had just finished the rip and powered down the saw when the off-cut started to fall, consequently this accident only cost me one joint and three mangled fingers. Do I blame Delta for the accident--of course not. We must take personal responsibility for our stupidity and/or inattention.
However, the preventative technology exists and has not been implemented by other manufacturers because they are manufacturing to a price point. However, I do believe such technology will eventually be forced upon the other manufacturers by either the courts or legislation.
However, my suggestion for the immediate future is to implement the technology (either license from SawStop or their own invention) as soon as possible; obtain federal law which essentially holds the manufacturer harmless from anyone purchasing or using a model without this safety feature; and, for the interim, make available each model both with and without the technology, for cost containment. The market will then make the decision.
Obviously, this gentleman should have sued his employer for lack of training but his attorney was astute enough to go for the "deep pocket."
Our culture is changing. Consequently "our nanny who art in Washington" is going to intercede into our lives more and more. For whatever it may be worth, my orthopedic surgeon, who is not familiar with this litigation, also believes such a safety requirement will be imposed by government sooner rather than later.
Posted: 7:36 pm on May 5th
p.s. This took me 45 minutes to type, all 1 handed.
Justin
Posted: 7:10 pm on May 5th
Here's the real question: Is flesh sensing technology reasonably necessary? If a person acts reasonably (exercises reasonable care and caution in the operation of the machine), does there remain in existence a significant danger of harm? If so, how severe is the harm?
I don't know what specific evidence was presented at the Osario trial, and neither does anyone else posting here, unless they read the reporter's transcript, attended the trial, or sat on the jury. I take issue with calling jurors crazy or stupid for considering evidence that you and I have never seen. It may be that the jurors were wrong, or misguided, or misled. But I haven't seen the evidence.
All that I know personally is that table saws are dangerous, even when you use a fence, guard, splitter, push stick, and feather board. There is an inherent, reflexive instinct to reach for wood caught in the blade. You might say that if all woodworkers were truly cautious and safe, a blade guard would be unnecessary, because no reasonable person would ever put his hand near a moving blade.
Flesh sensing technology is ONE means of drastically reducing the danger of a table saw. Apparently even Ryobi (at least their expert) agreed that IF the Ryobi table saw had been equipped with flesh sensing technology, the damage to this man's hand would have been a 1/8" deep cut, rather than amputation of one finger and severe laceration to three more.
Let me ask you this: drivers of cars collide with fixed objects. It happens, even when drivers exercise reasonable care. Sun glare can blind a driver. Black ice can be invisible and make brakes useless. Heavy rain can make visibility extremely poor. So even though most collisions may be caused by unreasonable driver conduct, some will be caused by unavoidable conditions.
Manufacturers of cars know this. They also know that a person wearing a three point restraint will fare much, much better than a person without such a device. If the automobile manufacturer elects not to equip its cars with a three point restraint system, do we only compensate those drivers who are injured due to no fault of their own? Or, do we acknowledge that collisions are a part of driving, and that collisions commonly cause injuries, and that three point restrain systems reduce most injuries to minor damage, rather than severe injuries and death, and therefor the manufacturer must sell his product with a three point restrain system? Or do you advocate the liability free sale of cars without seatbelts?
Posted: 6:59 pm on May 5th
They're several reasons for One World to have not used Gass' technology:
First, Ryobi has to look at its competition, and what they sell their saws for, and what safety features they provide. In other words, they have to be competitive to stay in business.
Second, they have to presume that the purchaser has a modicum of sense about them in order to use it. That's where product liability reform comes in.
Third, the use of Gass' patent could cause Ryobi - One World to have to re-tool the entire manufacturing line, even having to build a new plant just to produce it. We're speaking millions of dollars here.
Forth, a new design to incorporate the technology could have made the saw larger, heavier, and less portable to the point that nobody would consider buying it when better, simpler, and cheaper alternatives are available.
If One World used this technology, and it costs them millions to provide it, (and to get that payed back, it would take years), plus raising the cost of the saw well above other brands, they would have to have customers willing to pay for it, and I am not one of them. My guess is, that I speak for the majority.
Also, anyone involved with engineering knows that anything that is made more complicated than need be, with more moving parts, will fail quicker than something more simple. It's Murphy's law if you will. I would rather have a simpler saw, that lasts longer, and be safe using it. If I didn't know how to use it, I would have better sense than to buy it, or try to operate it.
Ryobi - One World, and their competitors, have cut the manufacturing costs low so they can sell these saws for what they are meant to be, a small, light, portable contractors saw, with the same safety features that everyone else uses. One World, and it's competition, knows that the majority of users can not afford, nor will they pay for, what the technology would cost.
Also, in the very instruction manual that comes with the saw, the manufacturers warns the user about running the saw with any of the safety features defeated or removed. To me, this should hold them not liable for any injuries. The only way that they should be held accountable, is for the saw to be defective: (Something breaking, or malfunctioning), to make them liable for any injuries. The saw in question was not defective, and the user caused the problem by removing all the safety features. This also places the mans employer at fault for allowing it to happen, not Ryobi - One World.
I smashed my finger exceedingly well about two weeks ago, with a hammer, and I'm pretty sure it has nerve damage, as the filling has yet to return fully. Do you think I should sue the hammer manufacturer over it?
Posted: 6:41 pm on May 5th
Never gonna get rich this way :(
Posted: 6:29 pm on May 5th
My willingness to take your case depends upon a variety of things: the incidence of injury caused by the absence of the technology (how often does one driver rear end another because the cruise control feature fails to automatically reduce speed when approaching another vehicle); how severe the injuries are when such failure occurs; the availability of technology to prevent the incident from occurring; the cost of the technology that prevents the incident from occurring.
You've got at least two things going for you - injuries are severe, technology is available. I don't know about the cost of the technology - my cars don't have that option.
I think that the fourth issue, however, weighs heavily against you. In 17 years I've never handled a case involving a rear end accident caused by cruise control. Does it happen? I'm sure. So apparently do third degree burns caused by flaming rodents ejected from the backsides of certain individuals (check YouTube if you don't know what I mean).
Injuries caused by table saws? A little more common. The first woodworking class I took at community college included a student getting his PhD in English at Berkeley. He liked woodworking so much he suspended his studies and went to work at a cabinet shop. Shortly thereafter he cut his thumb in half (the long way). Doesn't everyone know someone who has been injured on a table saw? My own father broke his thumb from kickback on a table saw when he was making my crib.
So, Bill, I'm not taking your case. But if accidents caused by errant cruise control become more common, and the technology isn't incorporated, and you suffer a severe injury, you can call me.
Posted: 6:12 pm on May 5th
When your dream comes true, Will, we'll all have cheap tools and no one to blame but ourselves when we're injured due to lack of guards and safeties. Let the market take care of it. If the benefit of a guard, or splitter, or flesh sensing technology were valued, everyone would only buy saws that have them, and those manufacturers or models that didn't would go out of production. No employer will ever choose the cheaper, less safe model when they could pocket that extra dough as profit, even if there's tort reform that keeps the employer from being sued for providing less safe equipment. What a wonderful world it'll be . . .
Posted: 5:59 pm on May 5th
I have a 2007 Toyota that has laser assisted cruise control to prevent me from creeping up on another vehicle on the highway and thus prevent a rear end collision. I also own a 2010 Ford Edge that has cruise control but not the laser assist. So, lawyers, If I cause a rear end collision with my Ford and suffer injuries at my own hand can I sue Ford for not having the laser technology and win? After all, it has been available for at least three years. Will you guys be my lawyer?
I doubt any lawyer would take the case and I doubt that I would win. Will someone please feel sorry for me?
Bill V
Posted: 5:58 pm on May 5th
I'm not a professional risk-assessor, but I think that's how it would play out. I am, however, a professional engineer, and my guess is that the SawStop technology would very quickly become cheaper as it is installed on tens of thousands of table saws. In the meantime, some new products like the Festool track saw and others are in serious competition for the tool budget, because they are (imho) inherently safer than either table saw or portable circular saw, for jobsite tasks.
Posted: 5:54 pm on May 5th
I own and use a Ryobi saw, and I have never had one problem with it. However, I have never removed the rip fence, and the blade guard-splitter assembly. It is there for a purpose.
Now, about SawStop. Did you ever wonder how much Gass asked One World for, in cash, to use his new patent protected invention? You see, not only would they be a huge price involved, but he would get royalties off every saw made. Also, One World would have had to re-tool their manufacturing lines to use the technology. This could have cost somewhere in the several millions of dollars.
I have also studied how the SawStop system works, and it could do with some major improvements, as I have worked in the mechanical engineering field for a good while. The system senses flesh contact electronically, and throws the blade down into a metal stop. It would have been better to use a brake motor that would simply stop the motor on a dime. Also, there is probably a dozen other ways to do the same thing, simply stop, or guard the blade. The problem is, it will increase the cost of the saw, and if Gass' patent is used, it will cost way more than that.
In all, what is needed, is reform to the product liability laws that are now on the books, and we should all write our local representatives and congressmen to demand that this action be taken.
Posted: 5:45 pm on May 5th
$1.5 million to a large manufacturer or its insurance company is not going to be a big dent. Also consider that this person probably didn't have any health insurance and has probably lost his ability to work in his chosen profession. And you can also assume he’ll be in court for a while more with appeals before he ever sees a dime. This will be full employment for lawyers for a while.
Like AndrewK stated, and I tried to point out, you will start seeing these features in high-end saws, then mid-range, and then all saws. Lawsuits like this one are why you have 3 point seat belts and airbags in your car, and yes you did pay extra for them when you bought your car. You can complain about it right up to the point you get into a car accident that would have otherwise introduced your face to the windshield.
This can go two ways, either you’ll have to start signing a waiver when you buy a cheapo tablesaw or smile when you take a safety-improved product home that may have cost a little extra.
Posted: 5:42 pm on May 5th
One, PM says that "lawyers take advantage of these situations for profit." Are you a socialist? Communist? Its okay if you are, but Ryobi apparently believes in the capitalist system. As far as I know, they sell tools for a profit, not for the good of the people.
Two, you have a SawStop, so you obviously recognize that even when you use proper technique, take the proper safety measures, and use reasonable care, you can still suffer a very severe injury with a table saw. So you, an eminently reasonable man, got a SawStop. You didn't like paying the extra dough, but you are more fond of your fingers and hands than the extra dough. The extra dough won't mean much if you lose a hand.
So, we tacitly agree that even when due diligence and care are exercised using a table saw, severe injury can happen. You can't eliminate danger in a machine that spins a 60 tooth blade 3500 times per minute. But you can minimize it, and you have, by using a SawStop.
Now, lets assume that you suffer one of those unfortunate incidents where your hand goes into the blade, despite the fact that you were using proper technique, the OEM guard, a splitter, and a push stick and featherboard. You lose your hand. Your income is now non-existent, and your medical expenses are astronomical. You also aren't feeling particularly well.
You want a lawyer to represent you in a case that you feel was 0% your fault, and 100% the manufacturer's fault for not using the flesh sensing technology, or, at the least, 50/50. So you come to me, an opportunist lawyer, and you want me to take your case.
Well, One World Technologies is going to use the profits from their sales to hire the best attorneys around to defend your claim. They will charge $450/hour for the partner, $250/hr for the junior associate, and $125/hour for the paralegal. And you want to hire me to prosecute your claim for ? The good of the people? My kids don't eat the good of the people, it doesn't pay for their clothes, their daycare, my mortgage, or the expenses to run my practice.
I'm a journeyman lawyer - 17 years experience, published opinions, $1M judgment, $1M settlement, I'm worth $350 an hour in this economy. Its going to take me hundreds of hours to prepare and try your case. I am going to have to hire experts, and take depositions, and hire investigators, all of which costs money (because they don't accept good of the people as payment either).
So, if you are serious about recovering for your severe injury, I'm going to need about $150,000 out of pocket from you, maybe more. If not, I can't take your legitimate case! You wanted to cut wood. You knew that the saw was dangerous. Accept responsibility for your decision, your disability, your inability to provide for yourself and your family, and move along.
As a separate note, an employee CANNOT sue his employer for an injury caused by the employer's negligence, even gross negligence. Workers' Compensation benefits are the "exclusive remedy" for recovery by an employee against and employer. There are some states that have additional remedies when the employer commits a "serious and willful violation of the law", such as the violation of an OSHA regulation (like removing the guard from a saw). But even that additional remedy does not provide for the employee like tort damages.
Here in California, a worker who loses his dominant hand will receive the medical care that he needs for the rest of his life He will be considered to have suffered approximately 54% whole person impairment (adjusted for his age and occupation). That 54% impairment entitles him, today, to weekly payments of $230 per week until he has been paid the total of $69,747.50. The employer probably gets a hefty fine from OSHA, but that money goes to the State, not to the injured worker.
Posted: 5:34 pm on May 5th
Posted: 5:32 pm on May 5th
devil? This a sad state of affairs that we have come to.
Posted: 5:00 pm on May 5th
PM
Posted: 4:56 pm on May 5th
But, like someone wrote earlier, it's like seatbelts, TS companies will be forced to use this safety feature. The consumer will be paying more for a TS but if its safer why not.
I don't agree with how Gass is going about doing this but hey what U expect, he's a lawyer by trade.
As I get on in age, I myself is contemplating selling my 2 Ryobi TS & Delta TS to buy a sawstop TS.
Posted: 4:33 pm on May 5th
I support the jury's findings, and am frustrated that every SawStop model is prohibitively expensive. If One World Technologies and other manufacturers that Gass presented his technology to had licensed his technology, greater availability would bring the cost of the technology down to an affordable level for most woodworkers.
Incidentally, when I was a 16 years old I used a table saw for the first time. I was unsupervised and I managed to cut the tip of my finger. It wasn't a serious injury and did not require stitches, but it produced a lot of blood, and could have been much worse. It's these type of situations that are worthy of this technology. Every woodworker has dangerous tools in his or her shop, and therefore has created a situation that is dangerous for vulnerable people in his or her circle of influence.
If the technology exists to improve safety, and is reasonable in cost to implement in any of the tools we use, it should be implemented in lieu of greater profits, which really is the bottom line for any manufacturer.
Instead of whinning about greedy lawyers, I hope the award in this case motivates manufacturers to engineer better safety measures such as this technology, or something similar, into their tools.
Posted: 4:29 pm on May 5th
All tools should be used with common sense. If you mistreat the tool it might bite back - just like a junkyard dog.
The point is that all tools can be dangerous if used improperly. Nothing will ever get build if we want 100% safety. If you want a Saw Stop - buy one. If on a budget just buy hand tools. Oh, I have had many minor injuries hitting my thumb with a hammer. Had one major injury with a chisel - I was not using best practices. 100% safety would have been to never picked up the chisel.
Posted: 4:22 pm on May 5th
What is also clear is that his "instructor" did not provide adequate instruction for safe use. Why is that person not responsible for this accident?
The saw did just what it was designed to do, and there is no flaw evident of the saw itself. The user knew before he even turned on the saw that it did not have magic "flesh-sensing" technology, and knew that it would not stop moving if he flesh touched the blade, yet he chose to use it anyway. How can you expect a saw to perform a function that you know it never had, and that you did NOT even pay for?
This was USER ERROR, 100% (not 35%). Our court system has failed us all again.
Posted: 4:19 pm on May 5th
One poster suggests that the plaintiff's attorney could exclude all people who have a knowledge of woodworking or table saws. In my state of California, I have 6 peremptory challenges. That means that I can exclude a maximum of 6 jurors for any reason (other than gender, race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or any other protected class). A knowledge of woodworking wouldn't be my main concern. A love of the insurance industry, or a hatred for plaintiffs and their counsel, of which there are MANY (as demonstrated by the comments posted here). A judge would NOT exclude a juror (for cause) simply because the juror had some woodworking experience or knowledge.
Also, there are two issues here. One is the right to engage in a dangerous activity. The second is the obligation of a manufacturer putting an item, for profit, on the market with safety features that are reasonably available. You can debate whether the feature is available (given the patent issues). You can debate the effectiveness of the safety feature. But you cannot debate that the safety feature exists, reduces risk of serious injury, and was not included in this saw.
Driving a car is dangerous. Seat belts, at one time, were an option. Then consumers, through lawyers, began suing auto manufacturers for failing to install seat belts. Then lap belts were used in the rear, but lawyers showed that they actually increased injuries. Then 3 point belts were required. A driver could choose not to wear the seatbelt (until recently), but the manufacturer cannot choose not to install the feature.
Same goes for ABS - available since 1958, mandatory on commercial heavy trucks since 1995. Air Bags are moving in the same direction. First a luxury option, then widely available, and then mandatory. Does that mean that you can't buy and drive a car made without ABS or airbags? No. But it may mean that it is unreasonable for the manufacturer, given the state of knowledge and technology, to sell the item without those safety features.
Finally, it is plain folly to suggest, as some do, that people who mis-use equipment are "rewarded". There are two general defenses employed in this country - contributory negligence and comparative negligence. In five states and DC the law is "pure contributory negligence". That means that if you sue another for negligence, and you were 5% at fault for your own damages, you get NOTHING. The guy that was 95% at fault for your damages - he goes off Scott Free.
The remaining states, including mine, use Comparative Fault. That means that the judge/jury compares the fault of all parties whose conduct caused the damages. In 13 states, the courts use Pure Comparative Fault - each party whose negligence caused damage bears his precise representative percentage of responsibility.
In 33 states, the courts use a Modified Comparative Fault system. In 12 of those states, the plaintiff's cannot recover if his own fault is 50% or greater. In the other 23 states, the plaintiff cannot recover if his fault is 51% or greater.
In no state does a plaintiff recover for damages caused by his own negligence.
I always find it ironic that people complain about the results of the jury system. Having picked a few juries myself, I know that jury pools are generally comprised of people who drive (legally) and vote, since that is where the rolls are derived from. People who respond to a jury summons tend to be responsible (otherwise they would disregard the summons) and civic minded. Where I practice in California, the juries often include engineers and scientists - generally bright and educated people. These are the same jury panels relied upon to convict criminals. Yet when they come to the conclusion that a product is defective, or that a manufacturer should have done more to protect the consumer, the answer is that the jurors were morons and the lawyers were charlatans.
The Osorio case was litigated in Federal Court in Boston. The jury pool came from throughout Massachusetts - the same state that allegedly just rejected the Obama agenda and sent common sense maven Scott Brown to the Senate.
Here's a quote from the Boston Globe: "During Osorio’s trial, an expert witness for the defense acknowledged that if the saw had the flesh detection technology, it would have created a 1/8-inch deep cut on one finger, Osorio’s lawyers said. Instead, Osorio suffered near-amputation of one finger and severe lacerations on four other fingers." That's right - Ryobi's OWN EXPERT admitted that the flesh detection technology would have resulted in only an 1/8" cut on one finger.
So, for all of you amateur accident engineers who have posted their doubts here - don't you think that the defense expert, who was likely paid thousands, if not tens of thousands, to test the saw and the technology and the likely damage is in a better seat than you to state what the SawStop technology would and wouldn't do? Or, in addition to being avid woodworkers and legal scholars, are you also mechanical engineers?
Please excuse my frustration. People don't joke about carpenters (except maybe the plumbers and the electricians, but the feeling is mutual), or about cabinetmakers or furniture builders, but there's a never-ending supply of jokes and insults about lawyers. Some are for good reason, but most are as misguided as the comments posted on this good board.
Posted: 3:33 pm on May 5th
The only fault here lies in Mr. Osorio's foolish decision NOT to also have been drinking fast-food-chain coffee while making his dangerous (and warned-against) cuts without benefit of fence, or saw blade guard(s).
Think of the money he could have made THEN! Hot beverage, one handed cuts, no fence, no blade guards....
Reasoned as only a lawyer would, Scooteruk!
BRAVO!
Coffee?
Posted: 3:08 pm on May 5th
Don't get me wrong; the guy should get his medical taken care of just like anyone with an on the job injury. However, no matter how much he is awarded, you can't buy good sense. If this award is the start of a pattern, then the problem will become self curing; we won't be able to afford the tools to be foolish with in the first place.
Posted: 3:04 pm on May 5th
It is under appeal. Most recent documents are defendants memorandum in support of a New Trial and Judgment as a Matter of Law (Renewed). With the above information you should be able to access the docket and filings as they are made available. I could not find transcripts yet reported so those that imply that they have read them, please let me know where you found them.
If you read the memorandum above you will be reading Ryobi's arguments as to why the verdict should be overturned. I did not find Plaintiff's response (maybe still out...don't know).
It is an interesting read in that it lays out the legal framework of products liability law as it applies to this case. As you read it, you can get a good idea of how our legal system handles many of the arguments you have posed (e. g. "How can a manufacturer be required to employ a new technology, What are the standards for 'alternative' devices, etc.)
Despite the verbiage that shoots across these boards willy-nilly, there is rhyme and reason behind what happened legally. Ryobi had counsel. I would be very surprised if Ryobi did not have an opportunity to resolve this matter prior to trial. If they did and decided against it, then they made a business decision not to...letting the jury make the decision. Ryobi now must rely on the judicial system to support it's appeal. When all is said and done, all parties will have had their day in court. The loser will complain, the winner will rejoice.
Posted: 2:45 pm on May 5th
Posted: 2:42 pm on May 5th
Posted: 2:42 pm on May 5th
Amen !
Posted: 2:16 pm on May 5th
Well anyway, I agree with most of the comments here, and I can hardly believe that the guy was shameless enough to bring the suit in the first place. I'd be too dang embarrassed at my own stupidity.
One thing I found, in digging around for details on this case, is this, which may explain how Ryobi looked bad enough in court to lose (still doesn't excuse the idiotic verdict, though) :
Apparently back in 2000 when Gass was hawking his technology to manufacturers, Ryobi went so far as to actually sign a license agreement. According to what I read, a typo was found in the agreement and Gass sent it back for a new signature. At this point Ryobi stalled for up to 2 years before Gass gave up. In court, the plaintiff's lawyer was able to get various Ryobi representatives to "point fingers" at each other over the failure to pursue the license agreement.
The ironic thing is, they might have come out smelling cleaner if they had rejected the blade-brake - for all the aforementioned valid business reasons - all along.
Posted: 2:16 pm on May 5th
1. They are very solid, well-made saws – fit and finish are top-notch. I have used an “Industrial” 3Hhp version (the big one) in the classroom at the local Woodcraft store.
2. The brake mechanism is amazing. I had an opportunity to set off the safety brake with a hot dog during a SawStop demo. I “whapped” the hot dog into the running blade instead sliding it gently into the sawblade on a board like everyone else. The result was a cut about ¼” long, about 1/16” deep, and with a 1/8” wide in the hot dog. Had it been my finger, it probably would have bled a lot, and then healed nicely after being cleaned with antiseptic and having a bandage applied. It would have been a minor injury with no need for sutures. A friend accidentally set off her Sawstop brake with a finger, and it left no visible scratch on her skin. School shops seem to buying these saws exclusively.
3. The extra beefiness and cost of building a saw with an articulated arbor to handle the massive forces caused by slamming down the blade and arbor in 5/1000 second seems to be much greater than Mr. Gass originally estimated. The contractor saw was finally released in 2008, 5 years after the initial announced release date in 2003: From Fine Homebuilding #157 (August, 2003):
“Gass estimates that the cost of retooling to accommodate his device could initially add as much as $150 to the retail price of a typical contractor's saw, but he predicts that large-scale production should be able to bring that costs below $100.”
“By the end of this year, SawStop expects to be producing a heavy-duty 10-in. contractor saw (base price: $699), and a stationary 10-in. cabinet saw (base price: $2,199), both of which feature the SawStop contact detection braking system. “
4. Mr. Gass seems to be determined to force the contractors of the world to buy his $1,600 contractors saw (which can be used as a “portable” worksite saw with available cart) instead of a $120 Ryobi from Home Depot. There are stories circulating that when Mr. Gass initially was rebuffed by the major table/cabinet saw manufacturers, he tried, as a lawyer, to promote laws to require his device. This really upset the manufacturers. He decided to design and manufacture his own saw, and indeed, did so. Now that he has his own saw line, and a monopoly on the safety brake system, he seems to be positioning himself to attempt to FORCE the rest of the industry to bow to him and license his technology.
5. The logic of the Osorio vs. Ryobi case means that SawStop can be sued for millions if some disables or removes the safety device on a SawStop saw and injures themself. Any volunteers for a sure get-rich quick scheme?
Posted: 2:11 pm on May 5th
-The business owner made the decision to purchase THAT saw.
-The business owner/supervisor FAILED to install/keep the safety equipment on the saw (If the blade guard had been in use his hand would have struck the guard, not the blade).
-The Plaintiff FAILED to use common sense (yes, COMMON SENSE), around a fast spinning SHARP object that was doing exactly what it was designed/marketed and sold to do....CUT!
-Rather than sue his employer for NOT providing safe equipment and PROPER TRAINING, his lawyer (and keep in mind that lawyers hire people to search through public records and FIND people that get hurt), goes after what he considers the DeepPocket.
So it boils down to not JUSTICE, but "how can I get rich?
Posted: 2:04 pm on May 5th
Posted: 2:00 pm on May 5th
Posted: 1:54 pm on May 5th
When a new technology comes along that can reduce risk and increase safety it should be adopted ASAP. Industry should have learned this with seatbelts and the Airbag after that. For years the automotive industry resisted shoulder restraint seatbelts. After that they fought against airbags sighting a bazillion reasons while everyone knew it was simply about cost. Nowadays they are putting about as many airbags in as they can fit. Why? Because now it’s a selling feature.
Yes, the guy was an idiot. Yes, the SawStop feature will increase the cost of a tablesaw. Ideally even if you have the feature, you will never see it work, just like an airbag. It doesn't make the saw work any less effectively so why argue against it? You will see the feature coming on tools other than the brand name SawStop and I think thats a good thing.
The reason why Ryobi and its parent lost is because they were offered the technology, refused, and then someone was injured. The particular unfortunate person and the events leading up to the injury are immaterial.
Posted: 1:53 pm on May 5th
Posted: 1:36 pm on May 5th
I think unless the saw was defective or broken in some way, the operator is at fault. When I say fault I mean 100% fault. If you don't know how to use a tool, you shouldn't use it, period. Ripping a board freehand proves that this man did not know how to operate the tool properly.
SawStop is a good safety device, but thats all it is.
I have nothing against Sawstop, but if the main reason you bought the saw is because you think it is safer, you probably shouln't be using a tablesaw in the first place.
This ruling is very dangerous, and can, and probably have widespread implications.
Posted: 12:55 pm on May 5th
Posted: 12:48 pm on May 5th
Posted: 12:44 pm on May 5th
Sound design processes utilize self-test / fail-safe modes like that to assure the system is truly "rip-ready"!
However, a simple disabling feature (cut-off switch) for wet wood invites abuse, as well as a whole new generation of litigious insanity!
Same players; same game; same referees; same rules; different opportunities!
Posted: 12:38 pm on May 5th
Sound design processes utilize self-test / fail-safe modes like that to assure the system is truly "rip-ready"!
However, a simple disabling feature (cut-off switch) for wet wood invites abuse, as well as a whole new generation of litigious insanity!
Same players; same game; same referees; same rules; different opportunities!
Posted: 12:38 pm on May 5th
Posted: 12:34 pm on May 5th
But the lawsuit describes the plaintiffs hand slipping into the blade or coming downward on top of the blade -as if when he lost control of his work he was falling forward or some such scenario.
If you assume that that motion was a rather conservative 20 mph then simple math would tell you that in the 5 milliseconds it takes Saw Stop to react Mr Osorio would have a 1.3" deep cut. Even at 5 mph (a typical walking pace)the depth of damage would have been enough to sever a finger
The next time you see saw stop demo'd ask the snake oil salesman to slap the top of the blade with the hot dog - or perhaps his hand if he really believes his hype. What you'll see is that the hot dog or hand is just as badly mangled as it would be with any other saw!!!
Saw Stop can prevent injury in some instances but one one described isn't one of them.
Posted: 12:25 pm on May 5th
I predict, however, after reading 80% of these posts, that at some point, our esteemed governmental regulators will require that we all show THEM that we have the ability to run a tablesaw correctly in order to get a certificate of carpenter's minimum skill level. We will not be able to run a shop unless we have that certificate, ("purchased" at seminars that will resemble the lead certification seminars") OR we will be exempted if we have purchased the famous SawStop saw. Mark my words...if this suit is allowed to stand, (and you can bet your attorney's retainer that Gass is lobbying hard), insurance cos. will be forced to ask us all if we have been certified for table saw usage or if are we exempted. We have begun a trip down a path that is not going to end well for any of us. The misguided attempt to eliminate all risk from what is by nature a risky venue is going to do us all in at some point. And I hope I am wrong for all our sakes!!!
Posted: 12:19 pm on May 5th
Or what I glean from this lawsuit is that every manufacturer needs to put this technology onto their equipment, get sued, settle out of court and remove the technology. They when some idiot takes off the guards and fences and cuts himself, and decides to blame someone else in an effort to get rich, the company will be protected by the fact that the court forced them to remove the technology.
The more that I read things like this, the more convinced that I become that we as a nation are in our death throes... not willing to give up hope - I vote Libertarian!
Posted: 12:07 pm on May 5th
- I live in an area that has nature reserves (privately owned) with many trails around with mountain lions and coyotes. So if one of these animals attacks me or one of my children, are the land owners responsible for not ridding the land of the animals and putting up a "safety fence" to prevent them from returning? Outrageous I know. Sounds stupid I know. You might even say the "it's an act of nature". But you can't deny it follows the "logic". Keep in mind that the accident that Mr. Osorio had was nothing more than and act of nature if you think about the physics.
So, my 22 year old son goes to a party and has a little too much to drink, JUST UNDER the legal limit. He gets in an accident and severely injures someone. Is he 35% responsible and the CAR MANUFACTURER 65% liable for not having an alcohol detecting/measuring device installed in the car? That technology is available you know.
If you think like an ambulance chasing lawyer, the possibilities are endless. Both of my examples are outrageous to say the least, but I think they fit the thought process that would be used.
This decision absolutely needs to be overturned.
Posted: 12:06 pm on May 5th
Posted: 11:47 am on May 5th
GrampaMike1
It's not a cut off switch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I get the impression people just come here, read the story and then just blasts a post without even bothering to see if it's been said or their question has been answered.
The incredible ignorance of the Saw Stop system I see here frankly scares me.
No one bothers to research how it works and just post from ignorance spouting completely wrong information. They post how they THINK it works without educating themselves.
That says more about a lot of woodworkers than this lawsuit.
I’m done trying to talk reason here. Have fun folks.
Posted: 11:46 am on May 5th
Posted: 11:43 am on May 5th
Posted: 11:36 am on May 5th
The actual outcome is ignored or buried deep beneath the "Today's News"
Posted: 11:31 am on May 5th
This case demonstrates one of the unfortunate parts of our tort legal system. Before jurors are empaneled they are questioned by the lawyers to determine potential "bias" and it would have been possible for Osario's lawyer to exclude from the jury anyone who knew anything about carpentry or how to use a table saw.
Furthermore, the presence or absence of SawStop technology is not the reason for the accident. Even the SawStop saw has a cut off switch that defeats the safety system so that damp wood will not trigger the saw to cut off, ruining a blade and requiring replacement of the braking shoe. After reviewing the other facts in the case one can not imagine Osario's employer spending the extra money to buy a more expensive saw with the new technology. It is also hard to imagine him supplying back-up blades and brake shoes to his crews--at a cost probably greater than that of the stripped down saw that was actually provided. So even if he had bought the saw the safety system might well have been disabled.
Under workers compensation laws and tort laws the owner of the flooring company should be liable on a number of theories, but the absense of SawStop technology should not have resulted in liability for Riobi. If this verdict is not appealed and overturned it will merely increase the cost of table saws for all of us.
Posted: 11:16 am on May 5th
"I have seen many demos of the SawStop tablk saw, where they always use a hot dog. Don't any of the demonstrators have the guts to actually demo the saw with one of their fingers?"
They did.
Gass did it on the discovery show Time Warp.
Posted: 11:13 am on May 5th
Posted: 11:06 am on May 5th
Seems to me that even with SawStop technology, there needs to be a self-test feature that verifies the electronics and the mechanism are intact and capable every time the equipment is turned ON. If not O.K., then the safety feature denies power to the motor to prevent misuse and accidents.
I don't think that's in-place with today's SawStop units.
The safety feature must not only be verifiably "run-ready", it must not be removable. If people can remove riving knives, safety guards, and fences, they can remove any technology unless it is integrated into the equipment's run/don't-run mode.
Any testimonials from Saw Stop owners who have experienced a "saving moment" with it? Hot dog videos are one thing; finger/hands are another.
Posted: 11:05 am on May 5th
It seems obvious to me the employee did not have enough training, on the table saw, and therefore the accident is more the fault of the company he worked for and not the saw maker. However the employer's business would be insured by some form of worker's compensation insurance company who would be strongly in favor of passing the buck in the direction of the tool maker or the employee at fault.
As was stated by an attorney on this forum, before my post, there is much more to this story than meets the eye!
Mr.Glass, a lawyer and CEO of Saw Stop needs to pick his words more carefully, or spend the money to hire a pro to help him out in this department. Perhaps he was quoted out of context to help this storyline gain some heat? Either way he didn't do himself any favors!
For those of you that base your saw buying purchases on the fear mongering of the 'Big Brother is out to get you' theory
as proposed in the multiple posts I've read on this page. I suggest you wake up and smell the roses, compare saws for fit and finish and how it cuts wood, never mind the gimmicks!!!
Posted: 11:03 am on May 5th
Posted: 10:49 am on May 5th
I have seen many demos of the SawStop tablk saw, where they always use a hot dog. Don't any of the demonstrators have the guts to actually demo the saw with one of their fingers?
Why don't they design a CarStop so when your car meets another car on the highway it immediately stops, preventing costly repairs. Tie a hot dog on the bumper and demo it...
Posted: 10:44 am on May 5th
Zero against the equipment manufacturer because there is no safety requirement that they ignored. That can, and should, be changed!
Q. What do you call a Harley rider with no helmet?..... A. an organ donor! Q. What do you call a table saw operator without training, oversight, integrated safety equipment, and a dull blade? A. ...an amputee!
There is plenty of stupidity to go round here. Most of it for the contractor, and the operator. A little for the saw company, and the judge & jury. Too bad ignorance is not painful until it's too late!
Posted: 10:42 am on May 5th
Posted: 10:38 am on May 5th
This lawsuit was not initiated by any insurance company. You need to read both the trial transcripts, jury questionaire, and Gass' article in the Oregon paper.
This was pure and simple an idiot ambulance chasing attorney that found the YouTube video of SawStop.
The rest is history.
Posted: 10:36 am on May 5th
Firearms are the second leading cause of traumatic death related to a consumer product in the United States and are the second most frequent cause of death overall for Americans ages 15 to 24. Since 1960, more than a million Americans have died in firearm suicides, homicides, and unintentional injuries. In 2003 alone, 30,136 Americans died by gunfire: 16,907 in firearm suicides, 11,920 in firearm homicides, 730 in unintentional shootings, and 232 in firearm deaths of unknown intent, ...
Since handgun deaths are accepted as a fact of life the answer is obvious... It's not how safe or unsafe your product is, it's how good a Washington Lobby you have.
The woodworking industry needs to simply hire the same group that lobbies for the gun industry.
Posted: 10:36 am on May 5th
Posted: 10:35 am on May 5th
I don't understand why Ryobi is responsible and not the owner of PT Hardwood Flooring Services. Osorio testified that his hand "slid ON TOP of the blade of the saw" and later in the testimony that his hand "had landed ON TOP of the blade." If the guard supplied by Ryobi was in place the guard would have PREVENTED the injury.
Osorio also testified that he had never seen guard assemblies for either of the 2 saws he used. So the primary safety feature that Ryobi provided was removed by the owner.
He also was required by his boss to use the saw unsafely since he was trained to make freehand tapered cuts (no fence) following a pencil line (guard would have obstructed his view, push stick probably would not have allowed accurate control of the cut.) And the 3" blade height was either lack of training or operator error.
And knowing that he would require his workers to make these kinds of cuts, why is it not neglignce that the owner did not buy Sawstop saws?
Ryobi had 28 days to appeal and I haven't heard that they did so. The same lawyers apparently have 60 other similar suits pending, half against Ryobi because they are such a big player in the low-end saw market.
This is the first time I have ever WANTED to be called for jury duty!
Posted: 10:35 am on May 5th
"By the way, if Saw Stop technology is required on all power tools how will anyone ever cut raw wood before it has its moisture removed by a kiln or air dried"
First of all it isn't adaptable to all power tools and never will be. Saw Stop is working of a chop saw and band saw system.
Second how about reading some of the other posts in the thread then you have some of your questions answered.
To cut wet wood or metal you use the override key. It overrides the system for the time the saw is on. Turn it off and it resets to safe.
Posted: 10:31 am on May 5th
I don't wish this on anyone, but I can't help but wonder what this jerk Gass will say in court. H'mmmm, just think ...... "oh, well it's not perfect"? Or, "the operator should have been more careful"?
H'mmmm ..... well, maybe if the operator, using the SawStop had indeed been a little less dependent on the SawStop and generally more respectful of the machine and its inherent danger, maybe he would still have the finger(s).
Hopefully this will never happen, but if it does, I'd love to hear what Gass will say in court.
Just a stupid thought!
Posted: 10:31 am on May 5th
I have been a trial attorney for nearly 30 years and a serious woodworker for 40. As a result, I know the common sense of both aspects of this story.
Whenever you read about an extreme trial result like this, two things are usually going on. First, there is more to the story than is being publicized. Second, the defendant is usually publicizing and politicizing the story for its own advantage. That's where the important facts are left out.
Wait to see how this plays out. Get all of the facts and then reach an informed opinion. This ceiling scraping outrage is exactly how the large corporations in this country want you to react.
At high volume we were told that it was economically unfeasible to conduct offshore oil drilling without caps on economic damages. In response to this sky is falling hysteria, the Congress passed a law that now will likely limit BP's exposure for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill to one percent of the company's profits from last quarter. How much of that story have you heard?
Twenty years ago the gun industry was wringing its hands over federal and state requirements to add a few safety features to help avoid child related accidents. These steps would destroy the industry we were told. The changes added about ten bucks to the cost of a hand gun, have saved lives and firearms manufacturers are currently making record profits.
These people are selling you a bill of goods. The United States Chamber of Commerce, which is controlled by insurance and oil companies, spent $27 in 2007 to publicize so-called "law suit abuse." Nevertheless every independent group which has studied personal injury suits in the United States agrees that for the last 20 years the number of suits has declined, the size of verdicts has dramatically declined and the chances of an injured person prevailing in a suit has dropped from 70% to less than 45%.
Everyone loves to rant and rave about lawsuits until they or a family member is seriously hurt because of someone else's carelessness. That's when they find out that in the name of "tort reform" their chances of obtaining justice for serious injuries and huge medical bills have been severely diminished.
Take an even strain. Get the facts. Dig for the truth. Personal responsibility includes the responsibility to be informed.
Oh, and spend some time tonight putting that blade guard back on your cabinet saw.
Posted: 10:26 am on May 5th
That means that the court allowed the assembly of jurors that concluded power tool manufacturers must make all of their tools:
1. inoperable until proof can be "input into the tool" that the operator has read the manufacturer's operating manual;
2. the tool remains inoperable if any change whatsoever has been made to the power tool;
3. the tool remain inoperable until a third party documents that the operator has read, understands, and will comply will all manufacturer's instructions for use;
4. proof that the operator has taken and passed a written examination on the proper use of the tool; and,
5. all power tools have Sawstop technology.
Perhaps we need additional technology that requires electrodes be attached to the operator that measures common sense that also detects when the operator is not in compliance with the manufacturer's operating instructions.
Oh my! What will Sawstop do now? They can't comply with these standards! Perhaps Congress should hold hearings on this matter and pass a 2,000 page long law legislating the use and national certification and licensing to purchase and use such tools. Hmmm. Another hidden tax. Great idea.
By the way, if Sawstop technology is required on all power tools how will anyone ever cut raw wood before it has has its moisture removed by a kiln or air dried?
Not a bad idea! We can let our trees air dry for years before they head to the sawmills. I can't wait to purchase some of my beloved tiger maple boards from logs that have air dried for 20 years before cutting. Oh! Bad idea! I'm 67 years old.
This lawsuit has made one decision for me. I will never purchase any tool that has integrated Sawstop technology.
And, I must add, I like the few Ryobi tools I have. That is, until I drill a hole through my left elbow instead of a maple board or sand through the skin of a finger. Then it is off to court to make my millions!!!
Best of luck to Ryobi in the appeals process.
Posted: 10:22 am on May 5th
Okay, yes, the SawStop MAY be a good device, in some cases. I would still argue that we have gotten along without it with a great safety record ....... AS LONG AS YOU DON'T INCLUDE THE IDIOTS THAT SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO GET NEAR A SAW!
From Gass' article it became clear that all he really cares about is the advancement of his patented technology. And, his motives also became clear, finding out that he is an attorney himself. Has he read the extremely negative feedback from woodworkers around the country against the outcome of this lawsuit?
I may loose a finger or two one day, and would be by my carelessness (which won't be increased because I relied on a sawstop to protect me), but I will NEVER buy a SawStop. Call me ignorant or stupid, but I'm tired of lawyers and others' taking advantage of our corrupt legal system.
Posted: 10:14 am on May 5th
Posted: 10:12 am on May 5th
Second, remember a jury-people like you and me, sat and listened to all the testimony from both sides (who were ably represented I would guess) and applied the facts as they found them to the law as presented to them by the judge (jury instructions often are drawn up by the attorneys for each side and haggled over...again-Ryobi had input and a fair chance to present it's case). You can cry about 'common-sense' and all the other faldoral, but the jury found that Ryobi blew it. The jury also found that Mr. Osorio was 35% at fault thereby reducing his award.
Unfortunately, in our country manufacturers very rarely offer 'safety' improvements until they are forced to...it is a simple cost benefit analysis. Products liability law was developed as a safeguard against this reality, forcing manufacturers to improve safety of products placed into the stream of commerce or face expensive and punitive suits like this.
I'm guessing the jury faced an issue of 'accountability'. Did Osorio use the saw in a way that was unintended by the manufacturer? Did the Ryobi put an inherently dangerous product in the market knowing there was an available device that would have obviated the injury? They seemed to answer yes to both.
"Common sense" will tell you, especially if you are a contractor, that people use tools customarily without guards and in ways that are 'unsafe' all the time-especially in the field. Common sense will also tell you that the manufacturers know this and plan accordingly.
We all might want to sit back and see what the jury saw and why they thought Ryobi should have made a safer saw.... Maybe they thought that Ryobi not only knew about a safer way, but they had a sort of agreement to use SaWStop technology and then changed their minds? Maybe the jury felt that the 'industry' was trying to subvert safety technology for their own fincancial gain thereby depriving consumers a very real safety product? Maybe they thought Ryobi should be accountable for making these types of 'business' decisions...not unlike Ford in the Pinto case? I don't know, I wasn't there, but I do know a jury was...you might want to think about giving them a little respect.
Posted: 10:02 am on May 5th
Posted: 10:01 am on May 5th
I have also been the subject (not a victim) of a similar injury, unfortunately. It was not the saw's fault, it was my fault. I let my guard down for one millisecond, pulled my hand through the spinning blade. I had not reinstalled the blade guard after using a dado blade.
Posted: 10:00 am on May 5th
My story is in the accidents section of this web site. I posted in my shop tour video on You Tube why I got the Saw Stop.
This lawsuit is a tragedy and I hope that Ryobi gets a massive reduction or turnover on appeal.
There are a lot of myths, misinformation, misconceptions and misinterpretations about the saw stop and how it works.
I respectfully request that people at least learn a bit on how the system works and doesn’t work.
The system is self contained in the cartridge. If you remove the cartridge or damage it the saw will not run. If you touch the blade the system triggers. If you are touching the blade it will turn on.
There is a cartridge for 10” saw blades and 8” dado sets
The 10” blade cartridge is $69. I bought an extra one when I bought the saw.
I find comments like this “I’ve been woodworking for X years and never had an accident” disingenuous at best. Like I said in a previous post that can change tomorrow.
buckyclown said
“One of these days someone is going to be hurt using a SawStop without the guards and fence”.
The guards and fence have nothing to do with the safety system. You can remove them and the system will work as designed. If you touch the blade it will stop and drop in 5 milliseconds.
To pjlimon
If the safety system fails the saw will not start. That is part of the safety of the saw. The system is self contained in the cartridge. If the cartridge fails it won’t turn on.
To justmy2cents
You can’t disconnect the system. If you do the saw will not run. You can override it to cut metal with a key for a cut. Turn off the saw and it resets to safe mode. All the boss has to do is lock up the override key.
To Char50
You are incorrect in your assessment of how fast the system works. It stops the blade and drops it below the table in 5 milliseconds. Do you realize how fast that is?
That’s 5/1000 of a second. At the very worst you would get a knick on your hand.
I did the hot dog test at the Woodworking Show last year and it is faster than you can imagine.
Go to their web site and look at the videos.
He would not have been injured.
Posted: 9:55 am on May 5th
How many of you are familiar with the the McDonald's (Golden Arches) "Hot Coffee" lawsuit? A woman was awarded multi-millions because when she placed a take-away cup of McDonald's coffee between her legs in her driver's seat, the coffee spilled, burning her thighs & crotch. She sucessfully sued McDonald's for serving coffee that was "too hot". That award marks the advent of all the "contents hot" warnings on various food containers.
This suit appears even more egregious than that one. I was on a jury that refused to award damages to a plaintiff who was severely injured because of his stupid actions. We were immediately united in our belief that a third party (in our case the property owner where the incident occurred) should not be penalized because a patron behaved irresponsibly.
These cases are the fault not only of the ambulance chasing lawyers who file them but also the jury members who award damages to stupid plaintiffs & the judges who allow them to come to trial.
Posted: 9:54 am on May 5th
Why wasn't his boss more responsible than the manufacturer? Because the boss didn't have enough money.
How can you tell when an attorney is lying? His lips are moving! This may ruin entry level table saws for new woodworkers and raise the cost for all levels of woodworkers.
Ron White said it best, "you can't fix stupid".
Posted: 9:51 am on May 5th
What angers me the most over this unfortunate accident is that Mr. Gass of SawStop has publicly claimed he has been vindicated by the awarding of this lawsuit. I believe it is extremely disrespectful for a major manufacturer to "ride the wave" of someone else's misfortune. Mr. Gass has turned me away from being a SawStop wanabe owner to a SawStop neverwillbe owner; and I am one with 9 fingers.
Mr. Gass I challenge you in front of this woodworking audience to reach in and grasp the last moral fibre of your body. If you really want vindication and care about our safety produce us a saw with your technology that retails for an average price of $169, just like Ryobi's BTS 15.
Posted: 9:48 am on May 5th
And if you are an idiot that thinks you can cut a non-straight cut with a table saw, I guess your stupidity will soon pay off as well. See you in court!! But if you want to keep your fingers, buy a jig saw.
It is ironic that Ryobi is being punished for their greed in not wanting to pay the extra money to equip their saws with this new technology.
But it is Mr. Osorio's greed that made him take shortcuts to get the job done faster, rather than take the time to do the job safely, that landed him in this situtation.
Posted: 9:46 am on May 5th
How many times will the contractor pay to replace the protective device. I guess the Saw Stop guy is just drooling thinking about the idea of an army of half wits field testing his device every day.
Of course add to the whole circus the concept of being judged by a jury of our peers...
Don
Posted: 9:28 am on May 5th
Afterall, guns don't kill people............ -TL
Posted: 9:16 am on May 5th
Posted: 9:08 am on May 5th
1) Buy a cheap car
2) Deliberately remove driver and passenger Airbags
3) Deliberately remove seat belts
4) Step on the gas at 140 mph and crash in a wall
5) Get injured but survive, then sue the car company for not including other types of "hidden" airbags on the doors etc.
6) Sounds easy!
I think it has become so easy for Americans to sue anyone for any reason! This kind of attitude can only go down the hole. Combine this with such a bad justice system... wow!
Am I glad to live in canada.
Posted: 9:02 am on May 5th
Posted: 9:01 am on May 5th
Posted: 8:57 am on May 5th
Most accidents are a result of stupidity, which is the only thing we cannot litigate out of our society.
to Maschner: your comparison is sad. Come on, really? Did Toyota owners remove the anti-lock braking feature, THEN have an accident? No. You are a a pestilence on common sense, just like this idiot, who relinquishes all personal responsibilities for his own actions. Your comments are a perfect example of the denouement of our society.
Posted: 8:54 am on May 5th
Most accidents are a result of stupidity, which is the only thing we cannot litigate out of our society.
to Maschner: your comparison is sad. Come on, really? Did Toyota owners remove the anti-lock braking feature, THEN have an accident? No. You are a a pestilence on common sense, just like this idiot, who relinquishes all personal responsibilities for his own actions. Your comments are a perfect example of the denouement of our society.
Posted: 8:54 am on May 5th
The jury should be sued.
Posted: 8:49 am on May 5th
Posted: 8:49 am on May 5th
Rob Millard
Posted: 8:46 am on May 5th
Also, when I first read about SawStop I thought this is a GREAT idea....then I read what it actually does. To quote its website:
"SawStop® saws are equipped with a safety system to stop the blade within 5 milliseconds of DETECTING CONTACT WITH SKIN."
Note that it does not say that it stops the blade BEFORE it cuts you; it says it stops it after "detecting contact with skin". Given these 2 facts:
1)that Mr. Osorio admits in this case that he "pushed the board even harder" to get the board cut. (Even I know that you DO NOT FORCE wood into the blade)
2)the 5 milliseconds it takes for SawStop to stop the blade AFTER detecting contact with the skin;
Due to the amount of force he was using, when his hand slipped, A tool with SawStop would not have prevented his injury.
Also, maybe he should have used a "push stick" instead of his hands to push the wood to the blade?
Posted: 8:45 am on May 5th
Posted: 8:44 am on May 5th
Based on a few accidents and no deaths, Toyota recalled most of their vehicles and was fined millions of dollars to fix a gas peddle. Perhaps table saw companies should be held to the same standards.
Posted: 8:39 am on May 5th
The first step in personal safety is personal responsibility.
Posted: 8:38 am on May 5th
Ryobi includes a manual that is full of safety warnings and includes them on the saw itself. Follow the guidelines and the saw is safe to use. Take the safety features off of a SawStop(except the stop underneath), like this empoyer did, and you will still have a dangerous tool. This isn't a technology issue it is a training issue. 'Don't put your hand on the sharp thing that spins really fast'.
My hope is that Ryobi appeals and wins. If not we will all pay for this one.
Posted: 8:35 am on May 5th
Posted: 8:32 am on May 5th
This is about the lawyers for Ryobi not doing a very good job making their case, oh, and maybe something to do with letting almost everyone out of jury duty.
This will be reversed on appeal. The court system is working just fine, mostly. But if you conservatives want to get your panties in a bunch, your should be very worried about the extremist activist right-wing judges on the Supreme Court who think money is speech and corporations are people. You won't believe what's coming your way!
Posted: 8:32 am on May 5th
Posted: 8:32 am on May 5th
Posted: 8:23 am on May 5th
Posted: 8:18 am on May 5th
Posted: 8:11 am on May 5th
Posted: 8:03 am on May 5th
Posted: 7:58 am on May 5th
Posted: 7:51 am on May 5th
Oh, I’m not one of those people. I’ve already cut myself but I was fortunate.
I can’t eliminate all risk but I try to minimize it so when I upgraded to a cabinet saw I bought a SawStop.
Posted: 7:50 am on May 5th
Posted: 7:43 am on May 5th
Woodworker also turn on their saws, but a woodworker NEVER forget that before he turns hes saw on to do a cut he FIRST turn on hes BRAIN..
Posted: 7:41 am on May 5th
I cut without a fence on occasion as does every contractor I know. Following a long non-straight scribe line is the most common situation. I've never known anyone to cut themselves following that practice.
From the article:
"When he started cutting, he felt chattering and vibration, so he shut off the machine, removed the stock, and cleared away dust and other pieces of flooring from the saw table. Thinking he had solved the problem, he started cutting again, but his difficulties continued, so he pushed the board even harder."
Sounds to me like the blade was dull and the worker untrained and not sensible enough to realize that it's a bad idea to push your hands directly towards the blade. I'm not sure why one would ever need to "push hard" to freehand scribe to a line but I'm guessing he was trying to move too fast.
Would a Saw-Stop have prevented his injuries? I guess so. So why not require the saw-stop technology in every circular saw? Every router? Band saw? Drill Press? Recip-saw? Planer? Side-angle grinder? Etc...
It's a fact that if you wear cast iron knee boots it practically eliminates the most common lawnmower injuries. I think the jury should be made to mow their lawns with boots like that while they re-think their decision.
Posted: 7:05 am on May 5th
Eventually, a case will arise in which the flesh-sensing technology of a SawStop failed, and a serious accident occured. The settlement will not be small. Perhaps that is why established tool companies did not want to adopt flesh sensing.
Posted: 7:02 am on May 5th
Reading the comments, it seems Mr. Osorio didn't have any common sense. So, the blade guard, and splitter had been removed from the saw and he was using it without a rip fence?????????? It was Mr. Osorio's lack of common sense that caused this accident. I feel sorry for him but, alas, no to the tune of 1.5 million dollars.
Posted: 6:59 am on May 5th
Years ago I was told I would never serve on a jury because "I was too well educated." Horrors and there goes our justice system...
Posted: 6:59 am on May 5th
Here's just a little from http://blog.woodshopnews.com/workbench/?p=238#more-238
"From transcripts posted online, we get a clearer picture of what happened, and as I (AJ Hammer) see it, 11 things clearly led to the accident:
1. He had never used the saw before, and had no experience or training on it.
2. He operated the table saw on the floor, kneeling as he used it.
3. His employer didn’t provide, and he wasn’t using, a guard.
4. Although he saw safety warnings on the saw, he testified that he didn’t bother to read them.
5. His employer did not provide, and he never read, the saw manual.
6. He was making a free-hand rip cut without a fence.
7. He was not using a push stick of any kind.
8. He was making a tapered cut in the board free-hand.
9. He also – for reasons not explained – had the blade tilted slightly.
10. He had the blade raised to its full height, although the board was only 3/4″ thick.
11. While cutting, the board jammed and vibrated, so with his hand in line with the blade he pushed the board as hard as he could, resulting in his hand going right into the blade."
Anyone who has ever watched the New Yankee Workshop - casually or serious fan - has even heard Norm say something to the effect... Before you use any power tool, read and understand the manufacturer's manual on how to use the tool.
Posted: 6:45 am on May 5th
Posted: 6:43 am on May 5th
Keep in mind that there were 59,999 table saw injuries last year where there was no lawsuit and no reward. The sky is not falling.
Posted: 5:16 am on May 5th
Bottom line is the Plaintiff still gets the $1.5 million award.
Where is the NEWS on Ryobi's Motion for Directed Verdict, Motion to Set Aside or Modify The Verdict and God knows what other post trial Motions not to mention Appeal and New Trial?
Tell us something that is NEW; FWW! Or else stop stoking the flames of passion on this issue.
Posted: 5:12 am on May 5th
Posted: 5:07 am on May 5th
Now that I hear the details, the boss should lose his business. This guy had no clue what he was doing! If I were Gass I'd think twice about supporting this case. One of these days someone is going to be hurt using a SawStop without the guards and fence. When that case goes to court they will point to his comments on this case and argue that Gass implied that his device made the guard and fence an option. Then we'll see how smug he feels.
Oh, and tvbob, let's not make this a race issue. I know plenty of dumb white folks with missing digits (smart ones too!) The color of your skin has nothing to do with common sense.
Posted: 5:02 am on May 5th
Posted: 4:39 am on May 5th
Step 2: Remove all safety equipment.
Step 3: Cut wood even if it binds up.
Step 4: Call ambulance for trip to hospital after injury.
Step 5: Call Lawyer.
Step 6: Retire for life on the jury settlement.
Sounds easy.
Buy the way, whatever happened to COMMON SENSE?
Posted: 4:20 am on May 5th
While I'm pretty sure I've seen my father use a small table saw to cut a larger piece of plywood without a fence (going on 50 years back), you may be assured he had the skill to do it and kept his hands well away from the blade (and you may be further assured I'm not recommending it). I don't think anyone who'd never used a table saw before could be regarded 2 weeks later as qualified to deal with a board perhaps beyond the saw's capacity.
Regardless of Osorio's poor judgment, the employer has a responsibility here. But I can't see liability on Ryobi's part unless, through some design or manufacturing defect, that, say, the blade came loose in the middle of the cut.
Does anyone know what was up with the jury? I hope this is appealed successfully.
Posted: 4:19 am on May 5th
Posted: 3:36 am on May 5th
True, the price may be unattractive, but the fact remains that to err is human and the price of those errors (missing fingers / hand trauma)is many, many times higher than prevention. To say nothing of the pain, suffering and rehab. Or worse, living with amputated digits.
We willingly accept airbags in our cars & trucks, and smoke & CO detectors in our homes. We require sprinklers in offices and schools and many more such examples. Why fight a massive advance in safety using integrated technology when the old approaches generate 30,000 horror stories each year?
The testimonials from the many who oppose Saw Stop style technology (many with lifetimes of accident free saw use) are mildly interesting, but they fall far short of making a compelling case to deny an integrated, fail-safe approach to safety.
Posted: 3:19 am on May 5th
Posted: 2:29 am on May 5th
Posted: 11:33 pm on May 4th
Posted: 11:29 pm on May 4th
Posted: 11:27 pm on May 4th
Posted: 10:33 pm on May 4th
Posted: 9:52 pm on May 4th
Posted: 7:29 pm on May 4th
My comment was in no way intended to cast the Delta Unisaw in a bad light. In fact, I believe that the Delta Unisaw IS the best saw on the market and I would have purchased one if SawStop did not exist. For me, the SawStop was comparable to the Delta and the fact that the SawStop has blade braking technology was important enough to me that I went in that direction. Again, I am sorry if you felt that my comment put the Delta Unisaw in a bad light.
Steve
Posted: 7:23 pm on May 4th
The only thing that saved GA was liability reform in 1994. If it wasn't for that bill NO GA aircraft would be being manufactured in the US.
Posted: 7:19 pm on May 4th
Posted: 7:03 pm on May 4th
Posted: 6:37 pm on May 4th
I guess everything manufactured now will be up for law suits as long as people like this are allowed to work.
Posted: 6:37 pm on May 4th
OK. Breath. Relax. Off to the wood shop.
Posted: 6:11 pm on May 4th
Every time I push the "On" button on my table saw, or any other power tool, I take full responsibility for my actions. If I am injured by the negligence of someone else, they are responsible. If I am injured by my own negligence, ignorance, or just plain stupidity, it is my responsibility. Sheesh! I would have loved to have been sitting on that jury panel.
With regard to Saw Stop, it's a piece of perceived peace of mind, I suppose. Impressive technology, overpriced, not necessary. And I'm deeply resentful of Gass' attempts to force the market to accept his invention by way of regulation and litigation. Let the thing compete in the free market! I, for one, am thankful, that my trusty Delta UniSaw will outlive me.
Rant over.
Posted: 6:09 pm on May 4th
Having said all of that, I think this lawsuit is ridiculous. It's like suing a car manufacturer for not installing airbags in a particular model of car, if the buyer knew it didn't have airbags when purchasing the vehicle, then they are the only ones that should be held responsible for not having airbags should an accident occur. The accident may not be that persons fault, but suing the car manufacturer for not installing airbags, when that person knew of other models that did include airbags, is just ridiculous.
Posted: 6:01 pm on May 4th
Famous last words.
What's that saying in the investment world?
"Past earnings are no indication of future performance".
How about the lack of accidents in the past is no protection from an accident today.
You could step into the shop tomorrow and lose a hand.
The truth is we have no idea when the seam will break.
I bought my Saw Stop because I had an accident and no, I did not even think of suing Jet the makers of my last saw.
Posted: 5:17 pm on May 4th
Posted: 4:51 pm on May 4th
Regarding unmet responsibilities, Osario certainly wasn't listening very well when use of the table saw was explained: He broke at least three obvious safety rules. The article doesn't say anything about his boss's responsibility, i.e. having put a new guy on a table saw and then apparently not checking later to see what he was doing. Removal of safety devices in a woodworking shop strikes me as a big and obvious no-no that should have been caught.
Finally, there is Ryobi. I think that they got hit for a lot more than they should have been in this case but, as representatives of the woodworking machinery industry, I don't think they should have escaped totally. Why? Because they, and most power tool manufacturers (SawStop an exception!), have done very little to improve the fundamental safety of standard small-shop tools, with the table saw being Exhibit A. This is the 21st Century, yet basic designs of saws, joiners, routers, etc haven't changed for hundreds of years. Tool development has led to improved materials and less expensive products (not bad things!), but little basic change that would make the tools harder, or impossible, to dangerously abuse. Surely, there must be novel, contemporary ways to shape wood that don't leave you vulnerable to accidentally removing digits or limbs! As an avid woodworker of many years I know how to be careful with the machines I've got, but why should I or, especially, the new woodworker have to fear the tools we use? It's time for imagination and true innovation in the woodworking machinery world! Perhaps the Osorio case is a wake-up call.
Posted: 4:07 pm on May 4th
Following then same logic as the attorney's argument that the saw should have been equipped, why are there lawsuits against car manufacturers for installing disc brakes in front and drum brakes in back when disc brakes are superior, or more currently what about those cars equipped with sensing devices that tell you when you are near a car in your blind sight. Isn't that superior to turning your head while driving? Where are the suits along these lines?
Lastly, I agree with the others who have commented about the stupid juries who award such decisions and the judges who award the penalties. I just hope Ryobi appeals this decision all the way until they find people who have some sense about them!
I agree with Bill2- no way would I ever buy a saw made bu Gass. I have been a profession woodworker for 30 years without an accident using a saw with out Gass's technology. His attitude about being vindicated is condescending and arrogant, and I won't support him with a purchase of his equipment.
Posted: 4:07 pm on May 4th
"How many of you could honestly say you never did anything that was "against the rules" in favor of time or convenience?"
Me, that's who, and I have the re-modeled right thumb to prove it. But I didn't dream of suing anybody for my own stupid mistake.
Just because some safety features are good, doesn't mean that any and all are. Why should ALL of us pay for the stupidity of idiots who can't or won't follow simple directiions?
This case is particularly unfair, because it presupposes that all new saws sold could, and should have a device the manufacturer was incapable of manufacturing in sufficient quantity to equip all new saws from the date their first device rolled off the production line. Is the world supposed to stop while they make enough for all new saws?
Are double bladed axes next? Chain saws? Butcher knives?
This jury was composed of idiots. This kind of verdict costs us ALL money.
Posted: 3:55 pm on May 4th
Posted: 3:37 pm on May 4th
Products are safer than they ever have been, thanks to the courts. Lawn mowers cut off fewer fingers due to better blade guards, paper shredders strangle fewer necktie-wearing idiots, fewer children of lazy (not supervising their kids) parents die in locked car trunks, fewer mattresses burst into flames when their owners smoke in bed--the list truly goes ON and ON.
The point is--every one of these products was implemented under threat of litigation and cost the company money that was passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices.
But ultimately, many of the above arguments prove the point. Saying he could've prevented the accident by putting the guard on is to admit that at least SOME safety features are a good and necessary evil and the cost that was added by their presence is reasonable based on their ability to effectively prevent injury when used correctly. So go ahead and state your opinion, but I'm guessing that the jury--after being presented with expert opinions from both sides of the case--is more likely to make the right choice than a bunch of us spouting uninformed opinions based solely on our personal experiences.
By the way, it is extraordinarily difficult to disable the safety feature from a SawStop saw.
(And, no--I don't work for or otherwise benefit from SawStop. But I do like my SawStop Cabinet Saw...)
Posted: 3:24 pm on May 4th
Posted: 3:21 pm on May 4th
It would be a cold day in h--- before I bought anything this guy makes!!!
Another case of a total idiott doing a totally stupid thing & an ambulance chaser seizing the moment and snowing a jury.
Guess what just happened to tool costs.
What! nobody is making saws anymore !!
Another McDonald's fiasco.
Posted: 3:07 pm on May 4th
Osorio did everything wrong when using that saw and I agree he doesn't deserve anywhere near the amount awarded. I hope it is drastically reduced on appeal as was the McDonald's hot coffee suit was. .
I do want to make a comment regarding disabling the Saw Stop system.
I have a Saw Stop and it takes several steps to disable the system. You have to turn a key, that can be removed, then turn on the power and wait until the green light comes on. Then an only then can you turn the saw motor on. The system is off for only the time saw is running. Once you turn it off it resets to safe. All the boss would have to do is take the override key. If you try to disable or defeat the system any other way the saw just will not start. You can't run the saw unless the cartridge is in place so if you remove it it's a no go. There are interlock switches on the doors so it won't start if a door is open. It won't start if you are touching the blade.
The cartridge is small and self contained. It can be adapted to saw as small as a bench top.
Whether that ever happens is another story.
Posted: 2:49 pm on May 4th
Posted: 2:40 pm on May 4th
Posted: 2:23 pm on May 4th
Are Benchtop Saws Gone? - http://blogs.popularwoodworking.com/editorsblog/Are+Benchtop+Saws+Gone.aspx
Court Documents: Osorio Wasn't Using the Guard or Rip Fence - http://blogs.popularwoodworking.com/editorsblog/Court+Documents+Osorio+Wasnt+Using+The+Guard+Or+Rip+Fence.aspx
A Response From Ryobi Technologies, Inc. - http://blogs.popularwoodworking.com/editorsblog/A+Response+From+Ryobi+Technologies+Inc.aspx
Actual Table Saws in Use: A Numbers Game - http://blogs.popularwoodworking.com/editorsblog/Actual+Table+Saws+In+Use+A+Numbers+Game.aspx
SawStop Safety System Saga Steams Forward - http://blogs.popularwoodworking.com/editorsblog/SawStop+Safety+System+Saga+Steams+Forward.aspx
Posted: 2:00 pm on May 4th
It's these type of lawsuits that force manufacturers to put ideotic safety stickers on every square inch of a tool.
Oh by the way, thankfully there is a sticker at the top of my step ladder that tells me that I can fall and hurt myself. If I do fall, I expect $3 million dollars because there should be technology out there that senses the abrupt weight transfer which would deploy an air mattress to break my fall.
Posted: 1:02 pm on May 4th
Posted: 12:58 pm on May 4th
Posted: 12:26 am on May 4th
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.