pendoreille

Interesting arguments all around. I haven't seen the argument that the employer is primarily liable because he failed to provide a SawStop tablesaw for his employee. I'm sure the lawyers looked at this, but felt there was nothing to gain. They went after Ryobi instead.

Is there any merit for a contractor to buy a SawStop? The technology can offer safety, but can also be temperamental. When the SawStop is triggered it destroys the blade and a part of the equipement. Should a contractor therefore have multiple SawStop saws on hand? How realistic is that?

I feel the same as many. It is unfortunate that Mr. Osorio was injured, but to hold Ryobi responsible is inappropriate, especially when all of the safety equipment was removed. I hope that Ryobi pursues an appeal, but I wouldn't be surprised if Ryobi decides that paying 1.5 million is cheaper than continuing an expensive legal battle.