In light of some recent discussion pertaining to the liability/negligence of table saw manufacturers, I wanted to become more educated with the legal aspect of product liability. This California court case against a former manufacturer of the Shopsmith (not the current manufacturer and not the same product) had significant bearing on modern legal theory on strict liability, especially pertaining to products. Apparently, the 1955 Mark V that a wife purchased for her husband was the product in question. Regardless of our opinions of strict liability and our court system, I have some legitimate questions pertaining to this case and my 1962 Goldie (which I love).
I am sure some of you are familiar with this incident and might be able to answer some of my questions pertaining to the equipment and techniques surrounding it. The plaintiff claimed that while being used as a lathe, the work piece flew out of the machine and struck him in the forehead, causing injury.
[INDENT]The opinion states, "In 1957 he bought the necessary attachments to use the Shopsmith as a lathe for turning a large piece of wood he wished to make into a chalice." [/INDENT]
1. If the machine was purchased in 1955 and the "necessary attachments" for using it as a lathe were purchased in 1957, I assume these attachments were not the standard spur center and dead cup center that came with the machine. Does anyone know which lathe attachments were being used and if they are cause for concern?
[INDENT]The opinion also states, "Plaintiff introduced substantial evidence that his injuries were caused by defective design and construction of the Shopsmith. His expert witnesses testified that inadequate set screws were used to hold parts of the machine together so that normal vibration caused the tailstock of the lathe to move away from the piece of wood being turned permitting it to fly out of the lathe. They also testified that there were other more positive ways of fastening the parts of the machine together, the use of which would have prevented the accident. [/INDENT]
2. How could the tailstock "move away from the piece of wood" in normal use? My initial thought was that the center was not sufficiently seated into the work or tailstock. And also, what set screws are present in the tailstock that would allow for this motion? The only one I am aware of is the setscrew that holds the eccentric in position. This could potentially come loose, allow the eccentric to rotate and lose grip on the workpiece. If that is the case, it sounds like user carelessness. I noticed my 1962 tailstock has only one set screw to hold the eccentric, while today's tailstock has two. The collars also have set screws. Are they any different?
[ATTACH]12112[/ATTACH]
3. What are the "other more positive ways of fastening the parts of the machine together" that would make the lathe operation safer? For you turners out there, is there tailstock equipment that you prefer to use that would make it safer?
4. Are the modern cupped set screws better/safer than the old blunt set screws? The part number of the modern eccentric set crews is much higher than the 1058 PN in the 1962 parts list.
I suppose what I'm really asking is, what are some reasonable steps I can take to make the lathe safer? After reading this court case opinion, a sturdy face shield or mounted shield sounds like a good idea. PLEASE, let's focus on these questions of mechanics, NOT how our courts have gone bad or how lawyers have run companies out of business, at least at first.
