whattheheck

I am not a lawyer. I am a computer consultant. However if I had been on the jury it surly would have never ended in that conclusion. This whole thing beggs the question of should the manufacturer be forced to incorporate every new feature into his or her product. Should a safety guard be required on a screw driver? I don't know anyone that uses them that has not drawn blood with one directly or off some other object while using one.

Juries tend to beleave that they have no power and must listen to the judge and his rules. That is simply not true. In the courts we often have an uninformed and clearly uneducated populous dealing with technical issues and being given rules that they do not understand. All to often they are forced to bring in a verdict based on a definition that is flawed and they do not have the guts to stand up for common sense.

I have worked with tools all my life and most of them are inherently dangerous as are guns, cars, and knives. When we use a tool we should be required by law to assume certain risks. When we remove safety features we should do so at our own risk. When a worker is given a modified tool, he should be informed of those risks. All to often the employers hires less qualified personnel and forgets that they are in danger if they do not have those skills. Apparently there was lack of training and understanding of the workings of the saw and the worker should not have been using the saw. However this is beyond the scope of the manufacturer. Some how the lawyers must have done a poor job pointing this our.

With the advent of seat belts and the like a crash becomes less dangerous for the passengers. However it does not do anything for the pedestrian. I wonder how this impacts the building of a motorized item such as the auto, tractor, truck, or boat. Have you ever seen a motor home with seatbelts and airbags for all or a boat?

This goes way beyond wood working and must be appealed.