AndrewK

I agree with those who say that when it comes to my PERSONAL shop, whether for hobby or livelihood, it should be my choice. My opinion is different when it comes to shops that employ others. Employees have no control over the quality of equipment that they are asked to use. They are at the mercy of their employer's discretion. Employers should take reasonable steps to provide reasonable levels of security and safety. You can say that the sawstop technology only protects the foolish, but the undeniable truth is that we are all foolish (evidenced by the fact that we choose not to pursue a safer hobby/livelihood). The real issue is the coincidence of our foolishness with the bad fortune of a circumstance that can cause harm. To wit - we have all taken our eyes off the road while driving, but most of us have been lucky enough not to hit anything. The less often we are foolish, the fewer occasions for coincidence.

From a practical side, if you are an employer, and you pay for workers' comp insurance, you are truly a fool not to have a SawStop. Given that any injury with a table saw is likely to be severe, investment in a SawStop is far less costly than the increase in your insurance premiums that will come from nearly any table saw injury.

Hey, Liberty, if your founding fathers did not want tort liability, they could have outlawed it in the Constitution. Tort liability is part of the "common law", the law we inherited from England (unless you live in Louisiana, which is Civil law, from the French). Most of the guys working on the Constitution were lawyers. If they believed in Liberty the way that you describe it, they could have declared that recovery for the torts of others was prohibited. They didn't. Moreover, they included the Commerce Clause, to allow government to regulate commerce.

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.

You can't, cannot, are not allowed, are not permitted, may not, and otherwise are unable to sue your employer for a workplace injury. Doesn't anyone find it interesting that the jury didn't apportion ANY of the fault to the employer. NONE. Not a single percentage. 35% to the worker, 0% to the employer. Juror idiocy? No. 80 year old legal precedent? Yup.

Well, Will, did not the splitter and guard increase the number of parts, the manufacturing cost, and the complexity of the machine? Why not strip the saw of those safety features as well? Ford introduced seat belts in 1956. If Chevy and Pontiac didn't have them, then Ford was foolish to increase the cost of, and complicating the design of, their cars. And yet Ford seems to be the only American manufacturer with its head above water right now.

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?

BillVan,

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.

So, Will, let me get this straight: you, a mechanical engineer, have devised several less complicated, less expensive ways to stop the blade - methods that Ryobi could have hired you to install. It would have cost Ryobi "millions" to retool their equipment to incorporate this design. Ryobi's own expert says that the SawStop design would have prevented any serious injury. And the solution is . . . . not for Ryobi to spend the millions to protect all saw users, not for Ryobi to spend the millions defending this ONE lawsuit and paying the judgment, but for consumers to write to Congress and say "Let Ryobi keep their millions - change the law of our land and make them immune from judgment, so that only government regulators can make them change their safety designs, not the people of this country."

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 . . .

Sorry fellas but you are making my point.

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.

I'm a wordworking hobbyist. I'm also a personal injury lawyer. This comment is NOT legal advice on any particular issue or set of facts, including the ones in this case. I appreciate the comments posted on this board. Unfortunately, many of them come from people who are as ill informed about the legal system and they claim that the judge and jurors were about woodworking.

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.