Table Saw Injury

[algale]

G D table saw chasers!!!:mad:

No 'new' case. It references the 'original'. There is a new case. http://www.tablesawinjurylawyers.com/he ... y-verdict/


Wonder who their 'silent' law partner is?:rolleyes: Whether he is or isn't has zero to do with the merits of the case or the outcome. But as I have said in the past when you have insinuated Gass is funding these suits, there's not only no evidence that Gass is not partnering on these lawsuits but he has had his testimony taken in deposition and in court in the Rosario case as a witness. So if he had been partnering it would have come out.


P.S. that truncated finger pix reveals much. Improper holding method and ring on finger. How is the saw manufacturer responsible for that? That ad is stupid. It also isn't depicting what happened in the case.

See my comments above.

[algale]

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. The injury wasn't from the kickback itself, but from the hand being pulled into the blade when the piece was thrown. http://www.tablesawinjurylawyers.com/heygood-orr-pearson-obtains-1-25-million-table-saw-injury-verdict/ Most likely would not happen if a riving knife had been installed. True, but the article says this saw had the old-style guard, presumably without a true riving knife. Whether the splitter was installed isn't indicated nor the kind of cut being made.

Why is this a charge against Ryobi. I assume the theory was that if Ryobi had installed the brake/flesh detection technology, then when the hand was pulled into the blade as a result of the kickback the injuries would not have been so severe. The operator made the decision to "use no riving knife". The law of strict product liability holds the manufacturer liable for "foreseeable" misuse.

Even if the saw has no facility to accept a riving knife, the operator made the decision to use it anyhow. See above comment about forseeable misuse.

Does the operator have no responsibility at all. Not under the law of strict liability unless the misuse was entirely unforeseeable. I guess not - not if the lawyers are good enough. Nothing to do with the lawyer's skill]

For 1.5 million I guess some people lose all conscience and self respect. Same could be said about the Ryobi execs who decided they'd rather risk people's fingers than pay a little money in royalties.

My comments are above.

[algale]

Jury? Yes. The article mentions a jury verdict. http://www.tablesawinjurylawyers.com/he ... y-verdict/ If so a flaw within our 'system'. Not at all, you just disagree with strict products liability which has been adopted in a majority of states.

I still fail to understand how a person acquitted can be held liable for something done that was 'unproven'. Flaw 2. I can't follow this at all. Acquitted is for criminal cases. Liable is for civil cases. What was unproven?

Letting lawyers write law. Flaw 3 It's okay when they write laws that favor manufacturers or business owners?

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! Not sure why anyone's race or whether they spoke English is relevant to any of this. Business owner's are immune to lawsuits for personal injuries to their employees because of workmen's compensation laws (who wrote those laws??). And Gass wasn't targeting anyone. While he has a law degree, he isn't a trial lawyer or litigator and he isn't acting as a lawyer in any of these cases and isn't deciding who to sue. That's a 100% figment of your imagination and would have come out in his depositions and trial testimony if he were involved in the capacity you insinuate.

Notice a self interest vein herein? Attorney self interest that is. Give it a rest.

My comments are above.

[algale]

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). This new case isn't Osario at all and again, Gass is not orchestrating these lawsuits. If he had been, it would have come out in his trial and deposition testimony in the Osario case. I've read that testimony and I assure, he is not involved in directing or orchestrating these suits. I bet he's smirking like heck, however.

You expect common sense from a judge(aka lawyer). This decision was by a jury, but in my experience some judges are lacking in common sense. They only think in terms of 'precedent', and blame. That's pretty much the job description of a judge in civil case sitting without a jury: follow the law and assign the blame. In this new case, the jury assigned the blame.

My comments are above.

[algale]

Devious is the word I would use in 'polite' company. I suppose the defense had no devious lawyers on their side?

Wonder how much the 'client' actually got his hands on? Usually 2/3rds in a contingent fee case, which I assume this was.


P.S. IIRC he was free handing it as well. Rosario was. Not clear if that's what happened in this new case. Doesn't sound like it. http://www.tablesawinjurylawyers.com/heygood-orr-pearson-obtains-1-25-million-table-saw-injury-verdict/

Comments above.

[algale]

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. The jury decided this new case, not the judge.

I guess most woodworkers would have volunteer an opinion, if asked, expressing the fault on the user and the responsibility on the owner. Not sure there was an owner in this case separate from the user but if it was a business owner, they are immune under workmen's compensation laws.

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

My comments are above.

[JPG]

I now 'see' the second case.

When 'assigning' blame, the diligence of the injured to prevent that should be paramount!

If I walk out of a store towards the parking lot and do not look to see if any vehicles are approaching and get struck by one of those cars, it is MY fault. I was taught to look both ways prior to kindergarten. What idiots defined the legal definition differently?

Same thing re bicycles.

[algale]

I now 'see' the second case.

When 'assigning' blame, the diligence of the injured to prevent that should be paramount!

If I walk out of a store towards the parking lot and do not look to see if any vehicles are approaching and get struck by one of those cars, it is MY fault. I was taught to look both ways prior to kindergarten. What idiots defined the legal definition differently?

Same thing re bicycles.

I don't begrudge you your opinion. I'm just pointing out that in most states, strict products liability laws puts the onus on manufacturers to take steps to make their products safe for their customers, even when the customers are not being diligent. Thus, that is the paramount consideration for assigning the blame. There are arguments pro and con. Personally, I like it because it incentivizes manufacturers to bring new, safer technology to market rather than save a few bucks.

As to the "idiots," the concept of taking steps to protect the careless from themselves goes back to biblical times. http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/22-8.htm So I guess you should blame that idiot or idiots who wrote the bible.

I doubt that's the answer you are looking for. So, in the modern U.S., strict liability came into the existence in the 1940s and 50s as a reaction to the earlier laws that said that if the injured person was even 1% at fault, the injured person could not recover anything from the person who was 99% at fault. Both the old laws that strict liability replaced and strict liability laws were adopted differently in different states. In some states, the rules were created by legislators writing and enacting what is known as statutory law. In others, state supreme court judges (elected or appointed depending on the state) made the law through decisional law, i.e. the common law. In the latter case, legislators are free to enact a statute modifying or repealing the decisional judge made law for all future cases since it does not involve a question of constitutional interpretation.

P.S. In California, the landmark case adopting strict products liability involved a man injured by ... a Shopsmith.

[BuckeyeDennis]

... But as I have said in the past when you have insinuated Gass is funding these suits, there's not only no evidence that Gass is not partnering on these lawsuits but he has had his testimony taken in deposition and in court in the Rosario case as a witness. ...

A triple negative? I had to fall back on my Boolean Algebra training to untangle that one! To be consistent with your argument, I believe that one too many slipped in there!

But seriously, I think you nailed it when you said that the real disagreement is over the "law of strict liability".

Does the law permit economic issues to be considered in such cases?

Suppose that Ryobi, and Ryobi alone, decided to license the SawStop patent and put the technology on all of their saws. Further suppose that the hardware plus royalties added $75 to the manufacturing cost of the saw, and that this translated to a $100 price premium at retail. Would enough customers pay the extra bucks, or would Ryobi be forced out of the saw business, leaving only the "unsafe" competitor models on the store shelves?

And what if Ryobi left the choice up to the consumer? A model Whiz-Bang Basic retails for $400, while the Whiz-Bang Super-Safety model retails for $500. And of course, you can buy the Super-Safety upgrade for only $125, and install later it on your basic model.

So Joe Cheapskate, a jobshop owner, buys the basic model, and his new/untrained trainee promptly loses some fingers. Is Ryobi liable?

The moral of this story: if a safety feature should be mandatory, the legislative branch needs to make it mandatory for all manufacturers. Like seatbelts in automobiles. Unpredictable rulings from the judicial branch are all but impossible for even the best-run businesses to manage well, on the playing field of free-market competition.

And by the way, if I recall correctly Gass' royalty demands are a bit excessive, at 3% of the price of the saw. Sure, 3% sounds reasonable, and that percentage is indeed reasonable and customary when applied to an appropriate basis. Me, I have a great idea for a more reliable tire valve. And I will gladly license it to any car manufacturer for a mere 3% of the price of the entire car.

[JPG]

I don't begrudge you your opinion. I'm just pointing out that in most states, strict products liability laws puts the onus on manufacturers to take steps to make their products safe for their customers, even when the customers are not being diligent. Thus, that is the paramount consideration for assigning the blame. There are arguments pro and con. Personally, I like it because it incentivizes manufacturers to bring new, safer technology to market rather than save a few bucks.

As to the "idiots," the concept of taking steps to protect the careless from themselves goes back to biblical times. http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/22-8.htm So I guess you should blame that idiot or idiots who wrote the bible.

I doubt that's the answer you are looking for. So, in the modern U.S., strict liability came into the existence in the 1940s and 50s as a reaction to the earlier laws that said that if the injured person was even 1% at fault, the injured person could not recover anything from the person who was 99% at fault. Both the old laws that strict liability replaced and strict liability laws were adopted differently in different states. In some states, the rules were created by legislators writing and enacting what is known as statutory law. In others, state supreme court judges (elected or appointed depending on the state) made the law through decisional law, i.e. the common law. In the latter case, legislators are free to enact a statute modifying or repealing the decisional judge made law for all future cases since it does not involve a question of constitutional interpretation.

P.S. In California, the landmark case adopting strict products liability involved a man injured by ... a Shopsmith.

There was enough blame there to go all around. It also killed Yuba.

I agree the 1% 99% was ridiculous. I think the 'correction' has been over done. The result is a generation or two with little sense of self responsibility.

BTW you can bad mouth EEs if you feel the need!:D