dromney

I am bothered by this jury award, but I seem to not fall into the same group think that I am reading here. First of all let me disclose that I am an Electrical Engineer and a SawStop owner. I love the saw, and made a concious decision based on the safety technology to pay the premium price for the SawStop. However, that in no way excuses me from behavior that puts me into danger.

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.