GrampaMike1

It is hard for woodworkers who know anything about using a table saw to accept the fact that a judge and jury could have been stupid enough to award this extremely careless, inexperienced, improperly trained, unsupervised person--using a lower priced saw from which all safety features had been removed--a judgment against the manufacturer of the saw.

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.