Exactly right. My frustration came when I realized the lawyers representing Shopsmith Inc. could have ended this travesty and had the case dismissed on its face at the initial filing.
They wanted a shot at a major case law event for their own benefit rather that actually representing their client first.
Imagine the Shopsmith of today if all those stores closed due to the losses of lawsuit expense and damage done to the brand name at the time had never occurred.
What strength might be there, how many people might still be there, and what could they have achieved if their lawyer had simply proven the design flaw allegation never existed.
In order for them to have a safety omission, the design and subsequent manufacturing and sale of the guard couldn’t have happened, but it did.
The real missing design flaw was in the missing defense of the Shopsmith lawyers who struck out at the plate on their first at bat, and repeatedly missed every pitch afterward.
Short term history
Moderator: admin
-
everettdavis
- Platinum Member
- Posts: 2163
- Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2014 11:49 am
- Location: Lubbock, TX
-
JPG
- Platinum Member
- Posts: 35600
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:42 pm
- Location: Lexington, Ky (TAMECAT territory)
Re: Short term history
Oh but THAT would have killed the goose. 
╔═══╗
╟JPG ╢
╚═══╝
Goldie(Bought New SN 377425)/4" jointer/6" beltsander/12" planer/stripsander/bandsaw/powerstation /Scroll saw/Jig saw /Craftsman 10" ras/Craftsman 6" thicknessplaner/ Dayton10"tablesaw(restoredfromneighborstrashpile)/ Mark VII restoration in 'progress'/ 10E[/size](SN E3779) restoration in progress, a 510 on the back burner and a growing pile of items to be eventually returned to useful life. - aka Red Grange
╟JPG ╢
╚═══╝
Goldie(Bought New SN 377425)/4" jointer/6" beltsander/12" planer/stripsander/bandsaw/powerstation /Scroll saw/Jig saw /Craftsman 10" ras/Craftsman 6" thicknessplaner/ Dayton10"tablesaw(restoredfromneighborstrashpile)/ Mark VII restoration in 'progress'/ 10E[/size](SN E3779) restoration in progress, a 510 on the back burner and a growing pile of items to be eventually returned to useful life. - aka Red Grange
Re: Short term history
I like lawyer-bashing (present company excepted) as much as the next guy, I've been sued before. But I cannot follow the logic here.
It is not unusual in a lawsuit that the original assertions are found to be less than 100% correct. Both sides go through discovery, find out things that are not necessarily known or in the public domain at the time of filing. The claims would likely change to fit something provable. I doubt that the existence of a guard would have resulted in case dismissal. My impression is that the early Mark 5s were sold without, and the guard was optional. Probably reasonable for the times. IIRC Shopsmith Inc. at one time was selling an upgrade kit consisting of saw guards and targeting those early units that were sold without. (Another good defense point, if accurate). But the point is that these are all facts, which are for the finders of fact, usually a jury, to decide. Corporate Lawyer 101 is to avoid juries at all costs, and when that doesn't work minimize the number of things a jury is allowed to consider. In this instance the defense team extricated Shopsmith from the case in the early phases on the basis that they had not taken over product liability when they took over the product line. The judge agreed. The jury, if they ever heard about anyone's liability, heard about the boyfriend's.
The judgment that SS received in this case is far better, in my opinion, and far less expensive and far less risky than what you suggest. The final judgment supports the position that SS has no product liability on any product produced by their predecessors. SS was untouchable with regard to Magna products. And they got that as a summary judgment, early (= less$) in the life cycle of the lawsuit, and no jury. Yes, the plaintiff did appeal resulting in small additional cost, but in exchange Shopsmith received a bullet proof endorsement by the Mississippi Supremes supporting their position.
The part I'm really missing is how this relates to the bankruptcy of SS Inc. The motion is filed by Shopsmith in '97, decided in '98. Appeal filed, and no doubt answered, in '99 and was decided in 2001. So their last expense, other than victory celebrations, was in '99, and this puts them into a ten year tail spin culminating in their bankruptcy in 2009? I understand it can be slow like that, just not feeling how it happened like that in this case. I admit I was not paying any attention to Shopsmith during that time period.
On top of that, I'd suspect that most of the cost of defending was shouldered by their insurer. But for sure, managing the defense, whether their own lawyers or their insurer's, was Shopsmith's responsibility. If they didn't want this outcome, their job was to direct their defense team not to pursue it.
If there is a string tying these various facts together I'd like to hear about that. From what I can see, this is the best possible outcome, and for relatively low cost, of this lawsuit for Shopsmith.
- David
It is not unusual in a lawsuit that the original assertions are found to be less than 100% correct. Both sides go through discovery, find out things that are not necessarily known or in the public domain at the time of filing. The claims would likely change to fit something provable. I doubt that the existence of a guard would have resulted in case dismissal. My impression is that the early Mark 5s were sold without, and the guard was optional. Probably reasonable for the times. IIRC Shopsmith Inc. at one time was selling an upgrade kit consisting of saw guards and targeting those early units that were sold without. (Another good defense point, if accurate). But the point is that these are all facts, which are for the finders of fact, usually a jury, to decide. Corporate Lawyer 101 is to avoid juries at all costs, and when that doesn't work minimize the number of things a jury is allowed to consider. In this instance the defense team extricated Shopsmith from the case in the early phases on the basis that they had not taken over product liability when they took over the product line. The judge agreed. The jury, if they ever heard about anyone's liability, heard about the boyfriend's.
The judgment that SS received in this case is far better, in my opinion, and far less expensive and far less risky than what you suggest. The final judgment supports the position that SS has no product liability on any product produced by their predecessors. SS was untouchable with regard to Magna products. And they got that as a summary judgment, early (= less$) in the life cycle of the lawsuit, and no jury. Yes, the plaintiff did appeal resulting in small additional cost, but in exchange Shopsmith received a bullet proof endorsement by the Mississippi Supremes supporting their position.
The part I'm really missing is how this relates to the bankruptcy of SS Inc. The motion is filed by Shopsmith in '97, decided in '98. Appeal filed, and no doubt answered, in '99 and was decided in 2001. So their last expense, other than victory celebrations, was in '99, and this puts them into a ten year tail spin culminating in their bankruptcy in 2009? I understand it can be slow like that, just not feeling how it happened like that in this case. I admit I was not paying any attention to Shopsmith during that time period.
On top of that, I'd suspect that most of the cost of defending was shouldered by their insurer. But for sure, managing the defense, whether their own lawyers or their insurer's, was Shopsmith's responsibility. If they didn't want this outcome, their job was to direct their defense team not to pursue it.
If there is a string tying these various facts together I'd like to hear about that. From what I can see, this is the best possible outcome, and for relatively low cost, of this lawsuit for Shopsmith.
- David