Shopsmith Repairman

[dusty]

It is the general public's propensity to seek damages in a lawsuit for injuries that are very clearly caused by ones own ignorance and/or lack of attention and disregard for safe practices that irritates me. The legal system that allows and or encourages those cases are what is at fault. The legal system is what it is as a result of "supply and demand".

If these incidences were accepted (by the injured) for what they are - "ACCIDENTS" the court would never hear them. There would be no "bottom feeders".

Think injuries caused by a kickback or by splitting a finger open while pushing a work piece into the blade.

Far too many cases that are 'caused solely by our ignorance' go to court. The Osario case is, in my opinion, one of those. Read the case reports and then tell me that the same thing would have happened to you had you been doing the work rather than him.

I seriously doubt it.

[rcplaneguy]

For what it is worth, a 5 sec Google search turned up this:

How do I contact a Table Saw Lawyer for a Table Saw Lawsuit?
The Schmidt Firm, PLLC is currently accepting table saw induced injury cases in all 50 states. If you or somebody you know has been injured after using a table saw, you should contact our lawyers immediately for a free case consultation. Please use the form below to contact our Table Saw Lawsuit Group or call toll free 24 hours a day at (866) 920-0753.

Attention Lawyers: We consider a referral from another law firm to be one of the greatest compliments. If your firm is interested in referring us a case or for us to send you a list of previous award judgments and/or average referral fees, please visit the Lawyer Referral section of our website.

http://www.schmidtlaw.com/table-saw-inj ... it-osorio/

People like these lawyers killed whole industries like General Aviation and many others. Bottom feeders? Maybe, maybe not, but they certainly seem like predators ....

JMHO

So that law firm infers I should be able to buy a sawstop type table saw for $300 (I bought my Ryobi table saw for $199). $100 over regular saws. Very cool!

[rjent]

For what it is worth, a 5 sec Google search turned up this:

How do I contact a Table Saw Lawyer for a Table Saw Lawsuit?
The Schmidt Firm, PLLC is currently accepting table saw induced injury cases in all 50 states. If you or somebody you know has been injured after using a table saw, you should contact our lawyers immediately for a free case consultation. Please use the form below to contact our Table Saw Lawsuit Group or call toll free 24 hours a day at (866) 920-0753.

Attention Lawyers: We consider a referral from another law firm to be one of the greatest compliments. If your firm is interested in referring us a case or for us to send you a list of previous award judgments and/or average referral fees, please visit the Lawyer Referral section of our website.

http://www.schmidtlaw.com/table-saw-inj ... it-osorio/

People like these lawyers killed whole industries like General Aviation and many others. Bottom feeders? Maybe, maybe not, but they certainly seem like predators ....

JMHO

So that law firm infers I should be able to buy a sawstop type table saw for $300 (I bought my Ryobi table saw for $199). $100 over regular saws. Very cool!

Yeah, I also, out of spite a few months ago, emailed sawstop and asked if I could get an upgrade for the Shopsmith. Never got an answer back ....

[davebodner]

Read the case reports and then tell me that the same thing would have happened to you had you been doing the work rather than him.

I seriously doubt it.

I wouldn't do what he did.

But, several months ago I was watching the carpenter do the same thing while he was building my porch. This guy wasn't an inexperienced kid, either. He was in his 50s and had been doing this his whole life. I figured he'd already pushed more wood through that table saw than I'd see in a lifetime. Ripping a board with no splitter, no guard, no fence--and he managed to keep his cigarette lit the whole time. No eye or ear protection, either.

Now imagine some young kid being told to go outside and cut the wood to whatever size. Without proper training, he's gonna do what he sees everyone else doing--at best. So, I blame his employer, but he's not worth suing. Notice, I haven't fingered the saw manufacturer.

If this had happened in my state of Virginia, the guy would've lost. If you're 1% to blame, you get nothing.

[Ed in Tampa]

Ed, I find your remarks alluding to the Osario case and making light of the serious injuries he suffered utterly contemptible. Maybe you should consider a late career change from Pastor and go to law school and become a defense lawyer. You've amply demonstrated that you've got the necessary mind set.

I had no specific case in mind so your outrage (contempt) is unfounded. My point which you seem to have missed is lawsuits based on contrived negligence and claiming contrived loss. I also object to lawsuits where a person displayed a total lack of common sense (I stuck my finger on the saw, who knew it would cut it off. I poured hot coffee on my head who knew it would burn me.)

I'm not sure I know why I so upset you that you felt the need to launch into a personal attack.
I did not call you a bottom feeder, I did not say all lawyers are bottom feeders, I said bottom feeders are what predicated most of action companies take to protect themselves from unwarranted law suit brought on by bottom feeders.

I don't see what is so objectionable in that position. However it is evident I did offend you and for that I apologize, please accept my apology and forgive me. Hand out reached holding a olive branch.

[rcplaneguy]

I like fried catfish (bottom feeder)!

I think the 1.5 million dollar judgement against Ryobi is and was absurd. Table saws are dangerous. Just because someone gets hurt from poor training and misuse does not mean they deserve a huge monetary award, more money than I will make in my lifetime. Awards like this could mean the end of ShopSmith.

[algale]

Ed,

I am not offended on a personal or professional level by your use of those hackneyed labels.

What I found offensive was your attempt to trivialize the suffering of your fellow human beings. Losing a thumb or finger or two is no joking matter (no matter who it happens to) and you don't have to agree the injured deserve compensation (reasonable minds can differ) to empathize with their suffering.

Olive branch accepted. And I extend one of my own. I should not have lost my temper or attacked you personally.

I'm not sure I know why I so upset you that you felt the need to launch into a personal attack.
I did not call you a bottom feeder, I did not say all lawyers are bottom feeders, I said bottom feeders are what predicated most of action companies take to protect themselves from unwarranted law suit brought on by bottom feeders. But if I offended you I apologize and ask you to forgive me. Hand out reached holding a olive branch.

I don't see what is so objectionable in that position.

[wa2crk]

I have read in the past the complete transcript of the Osario case. The employer stated that he had trained Mr Osario in the proper use of the table saw. I found that to be difficult to believe in that Mr Osario did not speak English and the employer spoke no Spanish. It would be a given that in order to train someone some communication needs to be established. The language difference seems to preclude that.
Mr Osario was not an inarticulate individual but was a trained IT technician who could not find work in his chosen profession.
As I remember the details Mr Osario was making the following mistakes.
He was making a free hand cut with no work support.
Was trying to make a tapered rip cut with no support or guide
Did not have the upper saw guard in place. ( Ryobi does include one with each saw )
The saw was on the floor and not secured to a stable surface.
Was not using the miter gauge. ( would not have been appropriate in this case )
The saw bogged down at least twice while he was trying to complete the cut. ( the saw knew more than the operator )
He forced the cut even though he was having difficulty
The "training" that he received was on a different make and model of saw
There was no trained personnel assisting him on his first day to correct mistakes
He should have walked off the job. In many states the above workplace conditions would constitute an inherently unsafe workplace and probably constitute a " Hostile work environment" to boot.
And all this is Ryobi"s fault????
I don't think so.
Ryobi should have appealed.
Our legal system is driven by expediency rather than by an examination of facts. Ryobi capitulated go just get rid of the suit and save legal fees. Osario got a few bucks and the makers of Saw Stop established a legal precedent that assured very lively sales of their product which was not very well received up until then.
Enough rant.
Bill V

[algale]

Ryobi certainly did not capitulate. In fact, it appealed the jury's verdict to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and lost. Ryobi could have asked the Supreme Court to look at it under a procedure called "petitioning for certiorari" but the Supreme Court accepts very few of these petitions and because the case only involved the application of the State of Massachusetts' tort law to a particular set of facts, the Supreme Court was unlikely to review the case.

I too have read the complete transcripts and written on this subject on the forum before and I will try one last time to explain in very basic terms the the strict liability theory (available in something like 45 states) on which the case was won. You don't have to agree with the theory; I'm just telling you what it is.

Ryobi did not lose because Ryobi caused the accident. Ryobi lost because the jury found that Ryobi failed to adopt a known, feasible design which would have prevented Osario's injury (or at least would have substantially reduced the severity of his injury). This theory of strict liability basically says if the cost of implementing the design change is less that the cost of the injuries that will occur absent the design change, the manufacture will be held liable if it doesn't implement it. The negligence of the injured party generally is not a defense under this legal theory so long as the misuse was foreseeable. Removing blade guards and splitters not only is foreseeable, but is standard practice for many types of cuts and is something done by many veteran woodworkers on all cuts Quite a few members of this forum, for instance, use neither splitters or bladeguards. Not using a rip fence or a miter gauge is crazy in my opinion but someone just posted about seeing an experienced carpenter doing just that so it probably isn't unforeseeable either, stupid as it may be.

The jury concluded the cost of adopting the design was less than the costs of the injuries that could be expected if it didn't adopt the design and this was upheld on appeal based on the record.

Although the inventor of SawStop testified as both a fact witness concerning his negotiations with Ryobi and as an expert on the feasibility of adopting SawStop technology on bench top saws, SawStop and its inventor did not bring the case or fund it. Undoubtedly, the result pleased SawStop and its inventor. I don't know it it helped SawStop sales. My recollection was SawStop claimed to be out-selling its competitors even before the Osario verdict.

Incidentally, the facts tended to show that Ryobi had verbally agreed to a royalty/license agreement to use SawStop technology but didn't execute the written agreement because the Power Tool Institute, which decided as a group to invent their own technology to save the fee of licensing from SawStop, threatened to expel Ryobi if it went through with the deal.

I have read in the past the complete transcript of the Osario case. The employer stated that he had trained Mr Osario in the proper use of the table saw. I found that to be difficult to believe in that Mr Osario did not speak English and the employer spoke no Spanish. It would be a given that in order to train someone some communication needs to be established. The language difference seems to preclude that.
Mr Osario was not an inarticulate individual but was a trained IT technician who could not find work in his chosen profession.
As I remember the details Mr Osario was making the following mistakes.
He was making a free hand cut with no work support.
Was trying to make a tapered rip cut with no support or guide
Did not have the upper saw guard in place. ( Ryobi does include one with each saw )
The saw was on the floor and not secured to a stable surface.
Was not using the miter gauge. ( would not have been appropriate in this case )
The saw bogged down at least twice while he was trying to complete the cut. ( the saw knew more than the operator )
He forced the cut even though he was having difficulty
The "training" that he received was on a different make and model of saw
There was no trained personnel assisting him on his first day to correct mistakes
He should have walked off the job. In many states the above workplace conditions would constitute an inherently unsafe workplace and probably constitute a " Hostile work environment" to boot.
And all this is Ryobi"s fault????
I don't think so.
Ryobi should have appealed.
Our legal system is driven by expediency rather than by an examination of facts. Ryobi capitulated go just get rid of the suit and save legal fees. Osario got a few bucks and the makers of Saw Stop established a legal precedent that assured very lively sales of their product which was not very well received up until then.
Enough rant.
Bill V