Table Saw Injury

joedw00 · Post by **joedw00** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 11:39 am

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 11:44 am

joedw00 wrote:Another table saw injury lawsuit won.

G D table saw chasers!!!:mad:

No 'new' case. It references the 'original'.

Wonder who their 'silent' law partner is?:rolleyes:

P.S. that truncated finger pix reveals much. Improper holding method and ring on finger. How is the saw manufacturer responsible for that?

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 11:53 am

This case was on a Ryobi Table Saw with no riving knife and the injury is alleged to be the result of kick back.

Hmmm, kickback - caused by the work piece being picked up by the back of the blade and thrown toward the operator. Most likely would not happen if a riving knife had been installed.

Why is this a charge against Ryobi. The operator made the decision to "use no riving knife".

Even if the saw has no facility to accept a riving knife, the operator made the decision to use it anyhow.

Does the operator have no responsibility at all. I guess not - not if the lawyers are good enough.

For 1.5 million I guess some people lose all conscience and self respect.

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 12:16 pm

dusty wrote:This case was on a Ryobi Table Saw with no riving knife and the injury is alleged to be the result of kick back.

Hmmm, kickback - caused by the work piece being picked up by the back of the blade and thrown toward the operator. Most likely would not happen if a riving knife had been installed.

Why is this a charge against Ryobi. The operator made the decision to "use no riving knife".

Even if the saw has no facility to accept a riving knife, the operator made the decision to use it anyhow.

Does the operator have no responsibility at all. I guess not - not if the lawyers are good enough.

For 1.5 million I guess some people lose all conscience and self respect.

Devious is the word I would use in 'polite' company.

Wonder how much the 'client' actually got his hands on?

P.S. IIRC he was free handing it as well.

wa2crk · Post by **wa2crk** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 12:34 pm

Best safety device ever invented is the one between the left ear and the right ear. As Confucious would say " Make sure brain in gear before setting power tool in motion"
Bill V

heathicus · Post by **heathicus** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 12:38 pm

Remember, the Ryobi case was not a home hobbyist. It was a job injury. If my memory is serving me correctly, the person using the saw didn't speak English, had never used a table saw before, and he was free-hand cutting - no fence, no miter gauge, nothing holding the work. Just using his hands to move the workpiece as needed to follow a line on the board. Safety equipment had been removed. He was having difficulty (he had already stopped once to clear debris off the table) and was pushing extra hard to get the piece of wood through the saw. Recipe for disaster. I still don't understand how Ryobi was held at fault.

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 12:47 pm

heathicus wrote:Remember, the Ryobi case was not a home hobbyist. It was a job injury. If my memory is serving me correctly, the person using the saw didn't speak English, had never used a table saw before, and he was free-hand cutting - no fence, no miter gauge, nothing holding the work. Just using his hands to move the workpiece as needed to follow a line on the board. Safety equipment had been removed. He was having difficulty (he had already stopped once to clear debris off the table) and was pushing extra hard to get the piece of wood through the saw. Recipe for disaster. I still don't understand how Ryobi was held at fault.

Jury? If so a flaw within our 'system'.

I still fail to understand how a person acquitted can be held liable for something done that was 'unproven'. Flaw 2.

Letting lawyers write law. Flaw 3

Add the 'oriental' who owned the business and purchased the saw did not speak english well either. His lawyer obviously did. But then Gass was not targeting him!

Notice a self interest vein herein? Attorney self interest that is.

joedw00 · Post by **joedw00** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 12:59 pm

dusty wrote:This case was on a Ryobi Table Saw with no riving knife and the injury is alleged to be the result of kick back.

Hmmm, kickback - caused by the work piece being picked up by the back of the blade and thrown toward the operator. Most likely would not happen if a riving knife had been installed.

Why is this a charge against Ryobi. The operator made the decision to "use no riving knife".

Even if the saw has no facility to accept a riving knife, the operator made the decision to use it anyhow.

Does the operator have no responsibility at all. I guess not - not if the lawyers are good enough.

For 1.5 million I guess some people lose all conscience and self respect.

I agree Why is this a charge against Ryobi
Like Bill said Best safety device ever invented is the one between the left ear and the right ear. As Confucious would say " Make sure brain in gear before setting power tool in motion"
I do not use the upper guard and with no riving knife, but if something happened I would not sue Shopsmith because of my on neglect. It would be my problem.

eartigas · Post by **eartigas** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 1:47 pm

This case is scary. It's scary because is the result of a judge ruling on something he or she does not understand and that is common today.

I guess most woodworkers would have volunteer an opinion, if asked, expressing the fault on the user and the responsibility on the owner.

Whit what I know about this case, I can't think otherwise.

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:17 pm

joedw00 wrote:I agree Why is this a charge against Ryobi
Like Bill said Best safety device ever invented is the one between the left ear and the right ear. As Confucious would say " Make sure brain in gear before setting power tool in motion"
I do not use the upper guard and with no riving knife, but if something happened I would not sue Shopsmith because of my on neglect. It would be my problem.

Ditto re sueing any body for my neglect.

Truth be told, this was not Osario vs Ryobi It was Gass vs Power Tool Association(or whatever it is called).

You expect common sense from a judge(aka lawyer). They only think in terms of 'precedent', and blame.