woodpecker1

My credentials: 40 years as a woodworker; 45 years as a product liability defense lawyer representing the automotive, machine tool (not woodworking) and consumer home products industries. I have commented previously about the Osorio case and lay a lot of fault off on the the woodworking power tool/machinery industry for a mediocre defense that did not thoroughly offer the proof necessary to counter plaintiff's cost benefit analysis.

Asa, the cat is out of the bag and the toothpaste is out of the tube. Gass's Saw Stop technology works despite its cost and who knows what other damage it does to your $2,000+ cabinet saw or your $500- job site aluminum housed contractor's saw.

Moreover, from experience I can tell you the UL blessing on less expensive safety features for table saws will carry no weight with CPSC. Just ask yourself whether a federal agency, charged by Congress with the responsibility for advancing consumer safety is going to overlook Saw Stop when the cost of Osorio's injuries are weighted against the price of your most expensive cabinet saw with all of its bell's and whistles.

From what I have read, the industry is already responding to the Osorio verdict and the CPSC challenge. This is what it should be doing. All manufacturers of woodworking machinery ought to be looking at ways to instantly de-energize cutting heads or blades whenever the operator gets to close to the danger zone. I worked for years with automotive engineers who pleaded with CPSC types for more time to perfect air bag technology. These folks were sincere. They did not have a good handle on the technology when initially introduced and were blowing pig cadavers all over the laboratory along with millions in research and development. (Remember the infant decapitations from air bags?) But, while I have little regard for the CPSC's tactics and stubbornness, the agency kept pushing and the auto industry, in expedited moves of self-preservation, finally came up with the improvements which make this life saving technology technology a part of everyone's daily experience.

Hopefully, someday, devastating hand and finger injuries will be ancient history. Until then, if the industry wants to improve its position in defending Osorio cases, and there will be more, the industry needs to swallow hard and pour lots of money into finding a less costly technology that works and can be retrofitted to older units. Get ready for the next case. When you reach the punitive damage phase of the next case, the CEO doesn't want to be asked: "What have you done to improve the safety of your contractor's saw since the Osorio verdict?" The CEO will have to have a better answer than "We enlisted UL and FWW to emphasize the fact Osorio was an untrained Doe Doe Head." That won't fly. Product liability law and juries expect profit driven enterprises to consider the safety of all Doe Doe Heads when using your product.

All of my machinery was bought in the mid-90s. Even with the Unisaw blade guard in place, this equipment is unsafe and defective according to the results of the Osario appeal. Consequently, while I formerly let knowledgeable folks use my equipment: not any more. If someone is going to be hurt on my equipment it will be me. Not someone who can sue me.

Finally, I will reiterate an offering I made several years ago to FWW. Manufacturers should make CDs available with each of their products which clearly identify hazards of use, especially kick back, and spell out avoidance techniques and the proper use of safety devices. I recently came upon a more visual example. I was helping a partner's scout troop with paring down their piney wood derby blocks. I got everyone's attention and told them my machinery could hurt them. I turned on my cabinet saw and lofted an old throw pillow toward the spinning blade. The eplosion was dramatic and caught everyone's attention. I am still sweeping up stuffing.

Good effort Asa and well done. Here's to a future blessed with new, less costly but equally effective technologies which solve the problems unleashed by Osorio.

I purchased my first table saw in 1970 from Sears. I read the manual but had little appreciation for the safety warnings because the terminology was alien and, without experience, somewhat meaningless. For example, the term "kick back" is a difficult phenomena for the novice to understand when his/her knowledge is limited to the fact that a saw blade cuts wood and the novice is not expecting the blade to throw something back at him.
I stuck my right index finger into the blade in 1978 while trimming or shaving the edges of decorative, indoor window shutters because I moved the fence within fractions of an inch of the blade AND DID NOT KNOW WHAT A PUSH STICK WAS. I also did not appreciate that I could accomplish the same cut by moving the fence farther away from the blade and shaving on the outter edge of the work piece rather than the edge closest to the fence.
In 1994 I upgraded to a Delta cabinet saw with the overhead Uniguard. With the improvement of my skills, I have abandoned the Uniguard because it interfers with good sight to my cut lines and, over time, has become nicked up through use. The nicks hang up on the work piece and often create a more dangerous situation clearing the hang up while the saw is operating. The guard has since been laid up out of the way but I continue to use the original splitter to avoid kick back.
Improved Safety Suggestions: Manufacturers should include CDs or videos that demonstrate the dangers assoiciated with the use of table saws. While written warnings are satisfactory for liability purposes, the visualization of an actual kick back coupled with a verbal explanation of what causes kick back would drive the point home in dramatic fashion in mere seconds. The new product owner would not have to wait for a kick back to happen to know what it is and the danger associated with kick back. The same is true for the use of push sticks. Any number of scenarios can be demonstrated with the use of a push stick in order to inform the new owner of their importance to operator safety. (Push sticks and feather boards could be included in the package at the time of purchase, especially to a first time buyer of any table saw.
Using a cabinet saw or table saw to rip large sheet goods should be discouraged until the operator has provided for sufficient infeed, outfeed and lateral support of the large sheets during ripping.
The contact edges on all plastic guards should be trimmed out with a hardened steel band that will not nick or ding and cause a hang up of the work piece on the guard during a cut.
Finally, the power switch should be mounted a bit proud of the front edge of the table with a large paddle that can be hit with the operator's knee or thigh to de-energize the saw when the operator encounters a particularly dangerous situation in the middle of a cut. These assemblies are available as after market items, but should be standard equipment on all newly manufactured models.
I do not believe that the federal government should become overtly involved in table saw safety. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to make dangers and avoidance clear to the consumers to whom they market these wonderrful machines. I dare say that a vast majority of the 31,000 accidents attributable to table saws are either the product of ignorance or carelessness. The manufacturer is responsible for making the consumer less ignorant of the dangers of use, but neither the manufacturer nor the government can eliminate carelessness.