MP5SD

What interesting dialogues! This case reminds me of recent firearms tort where plaintiffs alleged that firearm manufacturers were liable for deaths as a result of one human killing (shooting) another human using a gun made by that particular company. I feel the essential question was do firearms kill people and by inference, do firearms manufacturers kill people? Or could it be that people kill people- all are terrible tragedies, no doubt about it. To me people harm others using whatever instrument may be at hand. If it not a gun it would have been something else, heck, maybe even a table saw! Holding the maker of the gun liable for a death is to me, like holding the ocean responsible for being salty, because if you drink enough seawater you will also die- but it is not the fault of the ocean, is it. A company’s decision to use or not use a technology based on profit motive, and market position is reasonable and is at the core of our economic system. At the risk of sounding elitist, I would not spend my money for the saw in question at the current street price, and absolutely would not waste my hard earned money for it if it cost any extra with any safety device, preferring to rely on my judgment and skills as a woodworker. And yes, I have injured myself using power tools, but it was not the saws fault, it was mine. I harbor no anger, or grudge against my Jet Cabinet Saw or Jet, or the WMH Tool Group, rather, it is my daily reminder to take care and respect the tool, always. Product liability cases (large awards) are appropriate when there is a more clearly defined set of negligent conditions with a product say, baby pajamas that are very flammable, or tainted food that is knowingly put in the market, or tobacco products that are known carcinogens. Not limiting the liability in cases like these I hope serve as an incentive for companies to do the right thing first and always. Look at the mess that BP has wrought to our country and people in the Gulf in particular. And for what? It seems to me that that the plaintiffs legal team, almost certainly with the help of SawStop corporation and of course the willing participation of the plaintiff, and his (former?) employer (who is probably really relieved that he was not the target of the suit) exploited a hole in the legal process that targets manufacturers and tends to completely ignore that old, long gone practice called “Personal Accountability”. We need this back in all its forms and right now. I have wanted to buy a SawStop since they came to market but now I will NEVER buy one, even though I can get an employee discount on it- yes, there are some things more important than money.