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

[JPG]

What I found most interesting was the difference from the actual testimony and details of who/what happened that have been read by me previously.

[dusty]

What I had read before this was pretty much repeated in this printed testimony.

The plaintiff was unskilled with power tools, the saw being used was on the floor, there was no blade guard and no rip fence and the plaintiff was attempting to perform a free hand rip cut and suddenly that damned Ryobi jumped right up and bit that poor, innocent guy.

[dlbristol]

I have no experience in the Private sector concerning training requirements, but I can tell you that in the public sector, specifically public schools, the amount of training this guy apparently got would never be considered anything but negligent. In Colorado many schools use a self insurance pool, that cuts insurance costs dramatically. Part of the reason they can do this is that the safety folks are absolutely fanatics about the issues that cause law suits. Proper training is right at the top of the list. Proper tool safety gear is another. Language is another. I still don't see much responsibility with Roybi, but I can tell you that in my limited experience, in my area of work, this was a slam dunk in favor of the guy running the saw, with the flooring company being responsible.
There is probably some of the "sue the deep pockets" going on here.
The safety folks are picky, pains in the back side, who cause lots of extra work and drive most of the rest of us nuts, BUT, the cost for insurance has been cut by as much as 60% in some districts!

[JPG]

I have no experience in the Private sector concerning training requirements, but I can tell you that in the public sector, specifically public schools, the amount of training this guy apparently got would never be considered anything but negligent. In Colorado many schools use a self insurance pool, that cuts insurance costs dramatically. Part of the reason they can do this is that the safety folks are absolutely fanatics about the issues that cause law suits. Proper training is right at the top of the list. Proper tool safety gear is another. Language is another. I still don't see much responsibility with Roybi, but I can tell you that in my limited experience, in my area of work, this was a slam dunk in favor of the guy running the saw, with the flooring company being responsible.
There is probably some of the "sue the deep pockets" going on here.
The safety folks are picky, pains in the back side, who cause lots of extra work and drive most of the rest of us nuts, BUT, the cost for insurance has been cut by as much as 60% in some districts!

What is going on here is the man with an axe(Sawstop) to grind was the 'star' witness I am sure(no interpreter needed). The whole scene IMHO was set up by Gass to force the issue with PTI manufacturers. I do not know, but I gather the jury was more interested in the irrelevant flesh detection evidence than the details of what happened and what contributed to an injury.


The details of the accident occurring are pretty much the same, but the other players(boss/vietnamese) were different. Also he had been 'sawing' for about a year prior to the accident and the Ryobi saw had not just arrived from Home Depot..


P.S. His boss was not present, and HE was the senior employee at that job site. He was there with 'whats his name' .

[algale]

What is going on here is the man with an axe(Sawstop) to grind was the 'star' witness I am sure(no interpreter needed). The whole scene IMHO was set up by Gass to force the issue with PTI manufacturers. I do not know, but I gather the jury was more interested in the irrelevant flesh detection evidence than the details of what happened and what contributed to an injury.


The details of the accident occurring are pretty much the same, but the other players(boss/vietnamese) were different. Also he had been 'sawing' for about a year prior to the accident and the Ryobi saw had not just arrived from Home Depot..


P.S. His boss was not present, and HE was the senior employee at that job site. He was there with 'whats his name' .

Respectfully, there has never been any evidence that Gass set up anything, bankrolled the case or was somehow orchestrating it. And you better believe that it would have come out a trial on Gass's cross examination if Gass was in fact bankrolling or orchestrating this case (by the way, that's illegal in Massachusetts). Speculating Gass was doing something illegal is not helpful to the debate and is pretty unfair, in my opinion.

People always seem to forget that the way this lawsuit came about is that this lawsuit was brought by a worker's compensation insurance company. Osario was compensated by the workers compensation insurance company and then sued Ryobi in Osario's name under the doctrine of subrogation (when your insurer pays your loss, it has the legal right under the insurance contract to sue anybody responsible for your injuries).

A few other comments. While the employer probably seems like a good target to sue in this case, given the abysmal training and removal of safety gear, the fact of the matter is that under workers comp, the employee (and hence the insurance company which stands in the employee's shoes) can't sue the employer.

So the insurer did the next best thing: it sued Ryobi for both (1) negligence and (2) "strict products liability." Now, there's no doubt in my mind that Osario was "negligent" to some extent. But while the plaintiff's own negligence may be a total or partial defense to a negligence claim (if the plaintiff's negligence is greater than 50%, that's a defense in some states; in others, the plaintiff can be 99% liable and still get 1% of his damages -- I don't recall what Massachusetts law is on this subject), it is NOT a defense to a claim for strict products liability.

As to strict products liability, as just stated, the plaintiff's negligence is NOT a defense at all. As Gass explained in his interview, you can disagree with the law, but in every state in this country, there is a legally recognized claim against a manufacturer of a product for injuries that could have been avoided if the manufacturer had implemented a technology/design that would have prevented the injury. Liability exists if the cost of the implementation of the fix is less than the cost of the harm likely to result from not implementing it.

The foreseeable misuse of the product also is not a defense in a products liability case. And there was probably testimony that the removal of the blade guard and splitter assembly was foreseeable. How could it not have been, given the number of blade guards and splitters that people take off their saws when they get them or which need to be taken off for certain cuts?

Any how, the insurance company hired Gass as an expert witness to testify that there was a technology available to prevent the injury at the time the saw was made and what it would have cost. As Gass points out, even an ex-Ryobi guy now with PTI also testified it would have cost Ryobi only about $55 to put this technology in the saw that injured Osario.

One may disagree with the law of strict products liability, but the result at trial and on appeal was really not surprising given the existing state of the law.

[JPG]

[quote="algale"]Respectfully, there has never been any evidence that Gass set up anything, bankrolled the case or was somehow orchestrating it. And you better believe that it would have come out a trial on Gass's cross examination if Gass was in fact bankrolling or orchestrating this case (by the way, that's illegal in Massachusetts). Speculating Gass was doing something illegal is not helpful to the debate and is pretty unfair, in my opinion.

People always seem to forget that the way this lawsuit came about is that this lawsuit was brought by a worker's compensation insurance company. Osario was compensated by the workers compensation insurance company and then sued Ryobi in Osario's name under the doctrine of subrogation (when your insurer pays your loss, it has the legal right under the insurance contract to sue anybody responsible for your injuries).

A few other comments. While the employer probably seems like a good target to sue in this case, given the abysmal training and removal of safety gear, the fact of the matter is that under workers comp, the employee (and hence the insurance company which stands in the employee's shoes) can't sue the employer.

So the insurer did the next best thing: it sued Ryobi for both (1) negligence and (2) "strict products liability." Now, there's no doubt in my mind that Osario was "negligent" to some extent. But while the plaintiff's own negligence may be a total or partial defense to a negligence claim (if the plaintiff's negligence is greater than 50%, that's a defense in some states]
Gee I wonder who suggested to the insurance company that Gass would be a good 'expert witness'?

So the case should have been Insurance Co vs Ryobi.

I never said Gass was doing anything illegal nor 'bankrolling' the case, but was definitely a driving force!

One entity having an idea does not establish a viable available technology IMHO. I consider Gasses actions regarding proposed fees and patent maneuvers far more culpable than any manufacturer who did not adopt his idea.

Fact remains that if Osario had not simultaneously violated numerous common sense safety procedures, it is quite unlikely he would have been injured.


The 'existing state of the law' is the 'problem'.

[algale]

Gee I wonder who suggested to the insurance company that Gass would be a good 'expert witness'?

More anti-Gass speculation. This would have come out in the cross-examination.

I never said Gass was doing anything illegal nor 'bankrolling' the case, but was definitely a driving force!

Again, if Gass was the driving force, it would have come out at trial.

One entity having an idea does not establish a viable available technology IMHO.

This was much more than an entity having an "idea." Gass demonstrated a fully functional prototype to Ryobi and the others.

I consider Gasses actions regarding proposed fees and patent maneuvers far more culpable than any manufacturer who did not adopt his idea.

Gass and his patent isn't the problem. Had the table saw manufacturers thought about the problem, they and their engineers were capable of coming up with their own solution to this problem probably decades before Gass came up with and patented his idea. In fact, they have now come up with their own solution, according to PTI. In addition, another guy has come up with another solution called the Whirlwind, which he has apparently patented. Many ways to skin the cat and Gass wasn't the only one who could solve the problem. Why wasn't Ryobi and PTI working on this problem before Gass? Because they didn't have to because nobody was successfully suing them. It was all a financial calculus.

Gass was trying to make a buck, no doubt. So what? That's the American way, right?

[dusty]

More anti-Gass speculation. This would have come out in the cross-examination.


Again, if Gass was the driving force, it would have come out at trial.


This was much more than an entity having an "idea." Gass demonstrated a fully functional prototype to Ryobi and the others.


Gass and his patent isn't the problem. Had the table saw manufacturers thought about the problem, they and their engineers were capable of coming up with their own solution to this problem probably decades before Gass came up with and patented his idea. In fact, they have now come up with their own solution, according to PTI. In addition, another guy has come up with another solution called the Whirlwind, which he has apparently patented. Many ways to skin the cat and Gass wasn't the only one who could solve the problem. Why wasn't Ryobi and PTI working on this problem before Gass? Because they didn't have to because nobody was successfully suing them. It was all a financial calculus.

Gass was trying to make a buck, no doubt. So what? That's the American way, right?

I agree with most everything you say. My only issue has always been with Gass's attempt to have his Sawstop made mandatory. He could have simply made his design available and let the market place decide. Using the court system to bypass my free choice is what irritates me.

I don't have any statistical data but I have heard from some in the market place that the Sawstop Table Saw is not selling like hotcakes.

What I would also find very interesting would be statistics regarding Sawstop Table Saws that are in operation in 1) professional work areas and 2) technical training classes/schools.

Incident rates, down times and recovery costs would be of special interest.

[Ed in Tampa]

I believe that unless Ryobi drops this, this verdict will be overturned. I suspect there is more to this story than either side is telling and that is why the verdict was given and why it sustained the first appeal. As ithis verdict goes to highter and higher courts my understanding the laws of evidence change slightly and evidence that was disallowed in the lower courts often is used in the higher courts during appeals.
We will see.

If this was an insurance company going against Ryobi why is a personal name and not the company name on the verdict. I think this is a case where this man was told by an ambulance chaser that he could get rich. I hope the man knows he can also end up very very very broke even more so than he might be right now.

[JPG]

More anti-Gass speculation. This would have come out in the cross-examination.


Again, if Gass was the driving force, it would have come out at trial.


This was much more than an entity having an "idea." Gass demonstrated a fully functional prototype to Ryobi and the others.


Gass and his patent isn't the problem. Had the table saw manufacturers thought about the problem, they and their engineers were capable of coming up with their own solution to this problem probably decades before Gass came up with and patented his idea. In fact, they have now come up with their own solution, according to PTI. In addition, another guy has come up with another solution called the Whirlwind, which he has apparently patented. Many ways to skin the cat and Gass wasn't the only one who could solve the problem. Why wasn't Ryobi and PTI working on this problem before Gass? Because they didn't have to because nobody was successfully suing them. It was all a financial calculus.

Gass was trying to make a buck, no doubt. So what? That's the American way, right?

You apparently have more accurate knowledge of this case than I, therefore I do need to 'speculate' regarding some 'details'. Albeit some is almost all speculation.

I do not wish to deny his 'making a buck', but consider deplorable his methods. We obviously march to a different band.

Yes efforts decades ago could have produced some safety 'improvements', but there has not been a perceived 'need' until recently(due to current protect one from one's self mentality).

I wish accidents upon on one, but really common sense and prudence could have prevented most of the 'accidents'. I guess(speculation;)) we as a society have forgotten how to apply those traits.(not good for future generations:()

Yes the maiming is deplorable and a dear price to pay for a moments carelessness, but that is the point and the reason to always exercise good judgement of a personal nature and to be dependent upon absent third parties predicting poor judgement is an unrealistic expectation in the real world outside of a courtroom.

If you are aware of documented testimony by Gass similar to that posted by wood magazine of Osario's testimony, I would appreciate being pointed towards that.