mgmeyer

Happens all the time:

http://failblog.org/2009/08/21/eye-protection-fail/

What I want to know is, say Ryobi had indeed licensed the sawstop tech back in 2000, and implemented it on their more expensive models, or as an option to be paid for. That contractor would still have bought the cheapest thing he could find, the accident would still have happened -- would Ryobi still be liable? I suppose so; after all, if the contractor had ONLY laid out $2500 more, he could have had a SawStop contractor saw for his employees. Oh wait, back in 2005 SawStop didn't have the contractor version. Okay, for ONLY $3500 more he could have had.....

Well anyway, I agree with most of the comments here, and I can hardly believe that the guy was shameless enough to bring the suit in the first place. I'd be too dang embarrassed at my own stupidity.

One thing I found, in digging around for details on this case, is this, which may explain how Ryobi looked bad enough in court to lose (still doesn't excuse the idiotic verdict, though) :

Apparently back in 2000 when Gass was hawking his technology to manufacturers, Ryobi went so far as to actually sign a license agreement. According to what I read, a typo was found in the agreement and Gass sent it back for a new signature. At this point Ryobi stalled for up to 2 years before Gass gave up. In court, the plaintiff's lawyer was able to get various Ryobi representatives to "point fingers" at each other over the failure to pursue the license agreement.

The ironic thing is, they might have come out smelling cleaner if they had rejected the blade-brake - for all the aforementioned valid business reasons - all along.