Powertool Woodworking For Everyone - Both 4th Edition?

[everettdavis]

Yes. It had a tremendous effect.

[RFGuy]

Yes. It had a tremendous effect.

Thanks. That sucks. Always wondered what precipitated them shutting down...

[JPG]

. . .
Here’s a shot of a post I made seeking the upper guard of a (upper / lower blade guard assembly) that MAGNA was alleged in court repeatedly, not to have produced 40 years ago and sold by Montgomery Ward back in the day. The ad I cite is from a Montgomery Ward catalog.

And as Paul Harvey was fond of saying, “And now you know the rest of the story” or at least part of it. More will be cited in my Shopsmith Book which I am still researching. I’m not satisfied that I have answered all that I can find answers to.

Everett
Looking for Greenie Upper Saw Guard.png

I obtained one(both upper and lower) on E-Bay a while back, but then I 'refurbished' it and in is now in Goldie hue. It matches the catalog pix. Somewhere there is a thread describing the process. here it is https://www.shopsmith.com/ss_forum/main ... 1-s10.html

Oh BTW fer the 'record' a 1954 Greenie was not produced by "Magna American" and neither would it have been a Mark V. Magna Tool is more likely and they were not located in Raymond Mississippi.

[everettdavis]

James,

I would point out for the post, everything I cited that was listed in italics was a citation from the record in court, not my own comment.

I know that 1954 Greenies were filed for patent March 15, 1955. The Patent was granted by US Patent office March 8, 1960. In late Dec. 1955, Magna Engineering changed its name to Magna Power Tool Corporation.

Magna was acquired by Yuba Power Products, Inc. in March, 1958.

About two years later about 1960 the year the patent was actually granted a group of employees incorporated as Magna American Corporation, acquiring the Shopsmith product line.

Magna American struggled, and the Shopsmith manufacturing ceased in 1966 after manufacturing was moved to Raymond, Mississippi.

Shopsmith, Inc., was formed in 1972 to resume manufacturing using all the original equipment molds they acquired from the company in Raymond, Mississippi who simply had stopped making it. They did not go out of business at that time however.

It would be 34 years after the 1960 patent, or 1994 before the aforementioned 1954 Mark 5 (Greenie) used by the original owner for 40 years, would be acquired at an estate sale by the Huff's, and Mr. Huff's fiance would be injured.

Everett

[algale]

This case was appealed, and appealed and appealed repeatedly costing the original Shopsmith Inc., vast sums of legal fees and ultimately drove it into bankruptcy.

There are some assumptions in this statement, Everett, that I don't see supported by this case. This looks like it was a very straightforward case decided on a legal issue at the summary judgment stage, i.e. well before trial, followed by a single appeal.

That means there were probably not a lot of legal fees incurred. In all likelihood, moreover, Shopsmith's legal fees probably were covered by their insurer anyway. Maybe you have a source that told you differently?

Blame the lawyers if you want, but Shopsmith going into bankruptcy in 2009 (8 years after this appeal was decided) is much more likely to have been caused by other things like declining sales, imprudent business decisions/expenditures, or the same thing that killed so many businesses in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis: inability to borrow.

[JPG]

James,

I would point out for the post, everything I cited that was listed in italics was a citation from the record in court, not my own comment.
. . .
Everett

Point taken! I just read the 'record' and am amazed at the amount of factual discrepancies and just plain old misleading claims.

I also find it 'interesting' that the legal proceedings took place in a state where Mark 5's were never(to my limited knowledge) manufactured nor was the 'successor' corporation established in that state.

[Steele510]

This is fantastic information added in this thread, I'm so pleased I asked the question! For the record, the white 4th edition (brand new) hard cover book that I am reading now does differ a little bit from the online version available on this site in the academy. Starting early on, some sections are slightly different, renamed or added. Doesn't enhance or detract form the overall context, but I do find it interesting that they are both labelled 4th edition if they are different at all. Perhaps the online version differs a bit from the brown 4th edition, I wouldn't know.

Another observation is that every image that has reference notation in the text to look at item A, B, C etc that the image itself is missing the lettering to identify which is which (example shown below). The online images has the lettering on it (most are obvious). Just an observation. Great reading so far...

[algale]

I also find it 'interesting' that the legal proceedings took place in a state where Mark 5's were never(to my limited knowledge) manufactured nor was the 'successor' corporation established in that state.

The law of jurisdiction doesn't work that way, JPG. While you can always sue a corporation in the state in which it is incorporated or has its principle place of business (not always the same), plaintiffs aren't limited to suing corporations in those state(s).

In fact, subject to the jurisdictional law of the state, a corporation is usually subject to jurisdiction in almost any state where it regularly does business. If Shopsmith sold other things to other customers in that state (and I assume they did business in all 50), then there would be sufficient basis for the state to exercise jurisdiction over Shopsmith in any legal proceeding brought by one of its citizens if the state's jurisdictional statute chooses to exert the maximum jurisdiction consistent with the Constitution's "due process" clause, which requires a defendant to have certain "minimum contacts" with the state (and not the plaintiff). Most states choose to exert the maximum constitutionally permissible jurisdiction over "foreign" corporations so that the state's citizens don't have to go out of state to sue.

[everettdavis]

The retailer who sold it to the original owner 40 years earlier was in all 50 states and out of business by the 1994 lawsuit.
Montgomery Ward.

The larger point that I am making is that the premise of liability to the manufacturer was that the OEM failed to manufacture a guard for the original machine and had liability for not doing so. It was considered a fault in the design.

That simply was not true. They did design an upper and lower saw guard. If one bought the machine for lathe, sanding, drilling and/or boring they would not have needed a saw guard, but one was available and therefore it was not a faulty design.

Whether the original owner had or used the saw with the guard is immaterial. The alleged fault was that it was not designed with the machine, which it clearly was. That made the product liability as alleged, moot.

Would we be able to sue Ford, Chevrolet, Dodge, or Jeep for getting into a crash with a 1954 model that did not come with a turn signal for a 1994 crash even though the car never had a turn signal?

Let’s assume they had turn signals at one point and someone bought the car 40 years later with the signal missing. Could we sue the owners of Jeep today for faulty design. Shopsmith Inc. was sued for Magna creation, which had the design safety elements in question, from the beginning.

It was wrong in so many levels for that litigation to exist.

Everett

[algale]

The retailer who sold it to the original owner 40 years earlier was in all 50 states and out of business by the 1994 lawsuit.
Montgomery Ward.

The larger point that I am making is that the premise of liability to the manufacturer was that the OEM failed to manufacture a guard for the original machine and had liability for not doing so. It was considered a fault in the design.

That simply was not true. They did design an upper and lower saw guard. If one bought the machine for lathe, sanding, drilling and/or boring they would not have needed a saw guard, but one was available and therefore it was not a faulty design.

Whether the original owner had or used the saw with the guard is immaterial. The alleged fault was that it was not designed with the machine, which it clearly was. That made the product liability as alleged, moot.

Would we be able to sue Ford, Chevrolet, Dodge, or Jeep for getting into a crash with a 1954 model that did not come with a turn signal for a 1994 crash even though the car never had a turn signal?

Let’s assume they had turn signals at one point and someone bought the car 40 years later with the signal missing. Could we sue the owners of Jeep today for faulty design. Shopsmith Inc. was sued for Magna creation, which had the design safety elements in question, from the beginning.

It was wrong in so many levels for that litigation to exist.

Everett

Since the plaintiffs lost the case on the successor liability issue, the court simply didn't need to decide any of those other factual issues about whether or not the Shopsmith was sold with a saw guard. That's how the summary judgment process works.