Will_Matney

They would want to scare us by using 10 finger cuts per day, but, according to Google, as of July 2009, there were 307,006,550 people in the US. Dividing that by 3,600 supposed accidents per year, and you have a whopping 1 in 85,279.5 of us. Assuming that half are children, then you have 1 in 42,639.75 of us that get hurt. That 3,600 doesn't sound so big to me, does it you? I would also say that this number is way low, as I doubt half the US population are children without doing some research. The children probably count for about 1/3 of us (children, of age, and elderly). This also includes women, and some do use table saws.

In other words, folks, you odds are 1 in 42,639.75, assuming children for 1/2 the US population, for getting hurt on table saw as of now. In reality, we would need to know how many use a table saw on a daily basis to get the figure, and compare those to the number of ones who get hurt. However, odds are odds.

Now, if I were using a saw, and the blade guard failed, or the riving knife failed, or some other part, and that caused me to get injured, then yes, I would sue. However, if it was of my own idiocy, I would absolutely feel ashamed to walk into a court room, even as a witness for workers comp., and ask for money.

Did you ever wonder why Gass is pushing this so hard? He owns the patent, and that would force the other manufacturers to pay him royalties if they use his system.

However, that doesn't stop the saw manufacturers engineering departments from designing something close, and getting a patent themselves, without paying him one red cent.

It also doesn't stop the numerous law suits from people who have been injured. After the saw manufacturers start using a similar system, thus admitting liability, as was stated in the article, the big payouts will either start closing the doors of some companies, or adding more onto the cost of the new saws.

The federal government has been guilty of making things ten times worse, especially the CPSC, when it comes to tools, or our workplace. It's true that we needed some of it, but they can go overboard, and I think the skin sensing technology will be one case in particular.

Folk's, it all boils down to the user making a dumb mistake, and getting cut, all on his own. It doesn't matter who sued whom, what matters is that it made it into the legal system to start with.

I mentioned the gun scenario a long time ago, about this very same thing, as I've seen listed under these comments here. When you buy a gun, and shoot yourself, or somebody else, the gun did nothing wrong; the one who pulled the trigger was at fault, and this is the same exact thing. You got yourself cut, so live with it! Don't expect to go into court to sue a company because of your own idiocy. Some tried that with the gun manufacturers too.

The only way a suit should be brought, is that if a guard malfunctioned, or broke, and or a riving knife failed, and caused an accident. If they were in place, and worked like they should, it was your own fault.

Take responsibility for what you did to yourself, and don't make the rest of us pay for it in the future. That includes state workers comp. too! If you want to be in the insurance business, expect to pay out over peoples carelessness, and don't try to collect what you lost from somebody else. If the tool malfunctioned, then go for it, but if it didn't, as with this case, well sorry, it was your loss for insuring them in the first place.

Instead of providing cut lists, why not simply state what material was purchased for the job? How many sheets of 3/4" Birch plywood, how many 1X's, and so on. I think we, as builders, can figure out the rest. If there's a little left over, who can gripe?

I have seen cut lists for plywood, with all the parts lain out, but they didn't take into consideration the saw blades kerf width. By the time you finish cutting, you could lose 1/2" or more due to the kerf, as it's according to how may cuts are made.

Just now overhauling my shop, and the book could come in handy. Thanks for the book contest!

I agree with Luke42 to a point. However, there's one thing about a CNC machine that the user must understand, and that is that the machine can not think for itself.

I used to own a consulting firm, and was a manufacturers rep for a welding automation manufacturer out of St. Louis. We made fully automated welding cells using CNC and robotics. No matter how well the system was designed, they could not weld like a human can. The human can think while they make the weld, and adjust to the conditions around him.

In woodworking, a human can think as they work, and if carving wood, you know when it's time to switch direction on the chisel over the grain, and a CNC machine can not know this, and can not do this (In twisted or figured grain). It will continue to cut against the grain, and probably ruin the piece. It also uses the same router bit for everything, unless the user stops it to change the bit, and that means the new bit has to be installed exactly like the one beforehand, because of height differences, etc. What you end up with is a rough carving that still has to be finished by hand. About all they're good for is sign making, or plywood/MDF cutting, in my humble opinion.

If any are familiar with gun stock making, they are produced, or roughed out, on a duplicator. A duplicator is a 3D type router mill, and is hand operated. However, the router bit leaves behind ridges and valleys that still have to be smoothed out by hand, and it would be the same if you add CNC into the works.

I do not believe that a CNC will ever replace skilled craftsmen in our world, or at least until the machine can learn, and think on its own.

It's like I said in earlier posts, that tort reform at the federal level is needed.

We have to remember that even though there were two supposedly expert witnesses, who say that a guard wouldn't have helped, and I would have to question this considerably, and we remember that the man forced the wood through the saw, it was both his and the employers fault in my opinion.

If tort reform came to be, at the federal level through legislation, it would trump all state laws. If they would put a cap on the pay-outs to the one bringing suit, and a cap on the amount the attorneys are allowed to charge based on a percentage, it would quell a lot of these suits.

In other words, put a cap on the money for the plaintiff by paying out on what was injured, say so much per finger, just like insurance companies do, and put a cap on the attorneys percentage payment, say dropping it from 40% to 20%, or more, capping it there, and that would stop the majority of all this ridiculousness.

Then again, we elect attorneys into the house and the senate, so getting them to agree to it is a different matter. I've heard several make promises, but haven't seen one bit of action on it.

To Tyman1,

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.

To whattheheck;

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.

To philroe;

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.

To MotorT;

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.

What's really troubling me with some of the posts I've read is that, I'm afraid, some may believe that SawStop is a cure-all for everything that can happen with a saw, when it's really not.

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.

To techedghs:

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.

To Bob_Buddha;

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.

Oh I imagine they wouldn't want the employer involved over workers compensation, and a state investigation. The employee could file for workers comp too.

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.

This is to zzpm,

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?

Something else I thought of after my last post yesterday, was about skin sensing technology. If the SawStop system does use capacitance to work the electronic circuit of the trigger, there is a possibility it could not work every time. If any have touch lamps, you'll know why. Every now and then, a touch lamp wont turn on-off by touch, and that is because the human body fails to act as a capacitor. In other words, the human body acts like a capacitor or battery, and holds a static charge, and this technique is used by the lamp, to actuate it. I'm sure you've all been shocked before by grabbing a car door handle, or something metallic, and that is the static charge in your body dissipating. Every now and then, your body can't do this, and the switch on a lamp wont work.

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.

AndrewK,

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.

To answer AndrewK,

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?

This very judgment should finally bring about product liability reform, and changes in the law. It was a ridiculous law suit, and a ridiculous award. The one who made out was the attorney who sued Ryobi; after all, he received a percentage of the award; most likely, 40%. These attorneys, I often refer to as ambulance chasers.

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.