Osorio Verdict Upheld On Appeal; CPSC Votes On Table Saw Rule-Making

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:42 am

algale wrote:Dusty,

This is what I have gleaned from CPSC's website over the years. CPSC rule making (which is what they are proposing to do) applies to things manufactured after the effective date of the rule. Thus the rule will have no impact on anything you already own and there will be no mandatory retrofit for items already in the possession of end users -- i.e. consumers.

CPSC can issue recalls. A recall, however, only binds a manufacturer and distributor to allow consumers who want to return the product to do so. I did this recently with a Ryobi drill that was recalled. Nobody came to my basement to get my Ryobi drill and nobody is going to try to come into your garage, shop or basement and try forcibly to recall or take your 10e, 10er, Mark 5, Mark V, Mark VII or Mark 7.

Also, it is unclear whether CPSC will attempt to regulate multi-function tools like the Shopsmith at all. IIRC, the current voluntary standard published by UL that CPSC would be replacing applies only to fixed or permanent table saws, not multi-function tools (even if a function is table saw). I suppose it is possible they will decide to look at multi-function tools, but I think that might require them to start the process over of seeing how many people have been injured by multi-function tools to see if the problem is severe enough to justify the action.

Just my $0.02.

Al

I do hope that you are correct.

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:20 am

algale wrote:Dusty,

This is what I have gleaned from CPSC's website over the years. CPSC rule making (which is what they are proposing to do) applies to things manufactured after the effective date of the rule. Thus the rule will have no impact on anything you already own and there will be no mandatory retrofit for items already in the possession of end users -- i.e. consumers.

CPSC can issue recalls. A recall, however, only binds a manufacturer and distributor to allow consumers who want to return the product to do so. I did this recently with a Ryobi drill that was recalled. Nobody came to my basement to get my Ryobi drill and nobody is going to try to come into your garage, shop or basement and try forcibly to recall or take your 10e, 10er, Mark 5, Mark V, Mark VII or Mark 7.

Also, it is unclear whether CPSC will attempt to regulate multi-function tools like the Shopsmith at all. IIRC, the current voluntary standard published by UL that CPSC would be replacing applies only to fixed or permanent table saws, not multi-function tools (even if a function is table saw). I suppose it is possible they will decide to look at multi-function tools, but I think that might require them to start the process over of seeing how many people have been injured by multi-function tools to see if the problem is severe enough to justify the action.

Just my $0.02.

Al

Not the 'case' with the Ryobi/Amigo circus.

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:13 am

If you read Gass's recent comments you will learn that he is also working on an application for other devices.

It appears that he has CPSC in his hip pocket and if that is true you can bet that he will spread out into other sources of income.

It is such a shame. This technological advance is great if only he had put it up it out there to earn its own position n the market place. Spinach is good too but don't try to "make me eat it".

To understand how this verdict came down as it did, one must first read the complaint. Pay particular attention to what is alleged; what the plaintiff alleges that he did and what Ryobi failed to do.

Is it true that the plaintiff was operating with "all due care"?

Following is a excerpt from the case filing:

On or about April 19, 2005, Plaintiff, while working for his employer, PT Hardwood Flooring, was operating the subject Ryobi Saw with all due care when the Ryobi Saw injured Plaintiff.

If I had been sitting on the jury at this point, I would have been waiting to hear facts regarding the plaintiff's experience level, the actual work environment and the actual procedures used to accomplished the task.

Were all of the available safety devices in place and being used? Was the plaintiff properly trained to use the tools that were needed for the job?.

I have attached an article from a magazine. It contains the plaintiff's comments (answers to questions asked by the defendant's lawyer). I know what my decision, as a juror, would have been. You read the record and judge for yourself.

jm51 · Post by **jm51** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 10:42 am

Wasn't it supposed to be his first day working there?

World wide there seems to be a high % of accidents on the 'first day'.

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:24 am

jm51 wrote:Wasn't it supposed to be his first day working there?

World wide there seems to be a high % of accidents on the 'first day'.

I thought that I had heard/read that too but this testimony doesn't seem to support that.

I also wonder if he (or the Vietnamese worker) understand English real well. I have worked with several ethnic groups as a technical instructor and my experience has shown that their understanding is often difficult to ascertain.

Simply asking - "Do you understand"? just doesn't do it.

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 12:26 pm

Anyone downloaded those PDFs? I cannot get the wood site to respond.

NEVER MIND I think I got them!

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 12:51 pm

Some of the communication from Wood is redacted.

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:00 pm

Well there is little in that testimony that leads to the 'result'. I wonder what 'other testimony' was. The participant to the 'event' was quite articulate(or at least the interpreter was).

How a manufacturer which has provided safety equipment and warning labels which were all ignored be twice as culpable as the individual who ignored them is beyond me!

Maybe the last word on the verdict form tells it all!;)

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 3:01 pm

[quote="JPG40504"]Well there is little in that testimony that leads to the 'result'. I wonder what 'other testimony' was. The participant to the 'event' was quite articulate(or at least the interpreter was).

How a manufacturer which has provided safety equipment and warning labels which were all ignored be twice as culpable as the individual who ignored them is beyond me!

Maybe the last word on the verdict form tells it all!]

I do not think you were wise at all in GOING THERE.

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 3:14 pm

dusty wrote:I do not think you were wise at all in GOING THERE.

Neither were 'they'! I wasn't trying 'to be wise', just 'observant'!;)