I imagine Sawstop has a patent on their product and other saw manufacturers can’t use it.
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/03/06/man_wins_15m_in_first_of_its_kind_saw_case/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed5
A Boston jury has awarded $1.5 million to a Malden man who injured his fingers on a saw while installing oak wood flooring several years ago in a first of its kind case that claimed the standard design of American table saws is defective.
Carlos Osorio accused One World Technologies Inc., maker of Ryobi saws, of negligence for failing to include a flesh detection technology that would prevent most serious injuries, according to a copy of the complaint filed in 2006 in US District Court in Boston.
After five surgeries and years of rehabilitation, two of Osorio’s fingers are permanently disfigured and unusable, and he has suffered numbness and loss of feeling in three other fingers.
“Hopefully, this means the industry is finally going to recognize that catastrophic injuries could be averted and they need to make this technology standard so people don’t have these senseless injuries,’’ said Richard J. Sullivan, one of the lawyers representing Osorio.
One World Technologies said it had been advised of the verdict.
“We are evaluating the results with our lawyers, and evaluating how to proceed,’’ said Jason Swanson, a spokesman for One World Technologies.
“Notwithstanding the outcome of this trial and any possible appeal, we remain confident that the saw which was the subject of this lawsuit was well-designed and manufactured with all due consideration for the needs and safety of the consumer.’’
Osorio’s case is one of more than 50 lawsuits pending throughout the United States against the major table saw manufacturers for failure to adopt the technology, which would stop a power saw blade almost instantly upon contact with human flesh.
During Osorio’s trial, an expert witness for the defense acknowledged that if the saw had the flesh detection technology, it would have created a 1/8-inch deep cut on one finger, Osorio’s lawyers said. Instead, Osorio suffered near-amputation of one finger and severe lacerations on four other fingers.
Replies
Good morning everyone,
It always amazes me as to how much money one can get for their own stupidity or negligence! My favorite story comes from an episode of sixty minutes years ago. I man someplace in this country, was working on a farm. Apparently early one winters morning, he placed an extension ladder on a frozen pile of cow manure, as he worked and the sun melted the pile, the ladder slipped he fell broke his leg and called his lawyer ( i don't remember in what order) He sued the ladder company and got a pile of money as well ... should ladders come with manure warnings ? Should cutting tools come with don't do anything stupid warnings? Do you really think this floor installer "Carlos Osorio" would have spent the extra money to buy a saw with "saw stop" technology? I am pretty sure (like a lot of us) when he opened the box he did not read the instructions or install the blade guard.
Lawyers and Bankers ya gotta love em
John
I'm surprised they didn't include the materials suppliers in the verdict. Imagine the gaul and absolutely careless disregard involved in providing materials that needed to be cut to size! ;-)
Machines don't need flesh-detection technology, they need stupid detectors and attention detectors. Waht's next? Chisels with automatically-retracting cutting edges? Paint cans that won't open if there isn't enough ventillation? Sheesh.
Ralph,
Lets cut to the chase, in this blame society where responsibility belongs to everyone but your self, lets put the blame where it really belongs.
I think every one should sue their mothers for giving birth to them and exposing them to life. I think it's despicable that a mother would do that to her child! I mean what sort of a mother is that?
It's getting beyond the pale now with warnings having to be given for any conceivable situation that misuse of a manufacturers product could bring about. You could end up with documentation the size os a set of encyclopedias just for a toothbrush.
Maybe we need tests for a 'stupid' gene and in the interest of a just society, lawyers banned from associating with them.
wot
But, Wot, shouldn't Dad be sued, too, for contributory negligence? ;-)
Good point Ralph, we almost lost a new BMW for the lawyers.
wot
Slight correction -- contributory negligence is a legal defense that has been all but elimated in most states. Under contributory negligence the damn fool that contribute to his own injury is barred from recovery. It is still a vialbe defense in only few states anymore, most are now 'comparative negligence' where being a damn fool only reduces what you recover, not elimates it. Guess when comparative negligence stated to replace contributory negligence.
Slight correction -- contributory negligence is a legal defense that has been all but elimated in most states. Under contributory negligence the damn fool that contribute to his own injury is barred from recovery. It is still a vialbe defense in only few states anymore, most are now 'comparative negligence' where being a damn fool only reduces what you recover, not elimates it. Guess when comparative negligence stated to replace contributory negligence.
Thanks, Dan. I sit corrected.
We'll nail Dad as a full-fledged accomplice. ;-)
When the technology was first developed by the owner of SawStop, he attempted to licence it to major saw manufacturers. None were interested. Some claimed the patent holder was asking too much money for the licence. Other's felt it would open them up to lawsuits on their older saws that did not contain the technology. It was impossible to retro-fit the technology as many saw components needed to be designed to withstand the forces generated when the blade stopping mechanism was activated.
Because of this push-back and lack of interest, the patent holder decided to produce his own saw and resulted in the SawStop.
Thank God, we're no longer responsible for individual actions!!!
Where's my saw?
The designer of the SawStop tried to make the technology mandatory through OSHA. The problem was, it's a mechanical device, it can be overidden and it can fail to work. Alone, it doesn't meet the OSHA standards. The real problem with table saws or other equipment injuries is untrained operators. If this person was an employee and did not recieve proper training or the saw did not meet OSHA safety standards, he would have grounds for a law suit. It's the law but it's ignored and lawyers aren't even aware of it.
Proper training on equipment is sorely needed. I would bet 98% of table saw owners have never read the OSHA standards, don't know how to read them, have never recieved training from a certified instructor and have mainly adopted methods and techniques on their own. Many never read the operators manual. Liability issues are such that personalities like Norm don't dare to say anything on TV other than wear your safety glasses. They don't even tell you what safety glasses are or the mark they should bear.
The most comprehensive training won't make up for an individual that either doesn't understand the equipment and the procedures that can lead to accidents, or chooses not to follow the rules. When such equipment is in the hands of individuals that are not employees, have no formal training and can only fend for themselves, accidents are going to happen.
The SawStop technology doesn't sense skin, it senses conductivity. Conductive materials, even damp lumber can set off the device. The brake may be disabled by the operator in such situations. It's not going to protect you from material that is launched by the saw, a carbide tip coming loose or a knot that is thrown. It's a great device but it isn't the answer to all woodworking saw accidents. I don't know how a company can be sued if they are following the existing laws. SawStop technology is not mandated. Whether it ever is is questionable since alone it doesn't meet the existing laws. When the patent runs out, we may see the sensors become more commonplace on machines. Manufacturers are listening to users as evidenced by newer improvements to such equipment. Nothing is going to make up for inexperience or poor judgement by the operator. Competent education is the answer but finding it is a real problem.
Some people can't be taught, whether it's how to cut accurately or about safety. Some are downright stupid:
I as working in an emergency room when a guy came in who'd cut of three fingers, explaining to eht ER nurse that he reached under the workpiece to see if the blade was set deep enough to go through the piece.
Hammer with this train of thought, I could produce a car without seatbelts or airbags, and tell you to take a defensive driving class? Tongue in cheek and I agree training is important. However, saw stop is a substantial improvement in safety, and if it were available on all saws OEM would that be a bad thing? If you could retrofit one to your saw for $300 bucks would you?
Morgan, who would like to have both the saw stop and the training....
There are five pages of discussion on this topic over on the WoodNet Forums, if anyone hasn't got enough here yet.
There are five pages of discussion on this topic over on the WoodNet Forums, if anyone hasn't got enough here yet.
AZMO, I think we are getting off the subject which is the law suit award. Regardless of whether the SawStop brake can or cannot reduce injuries, it's not currently required. Blade guards, splitters and anti-kickback devices are required and come on all saws sold in the US. I don't understand how the court could award a settlement because a manufacturer did not include a device that is not required.
I'm not saying it isn't a a good device or that I wouldn't want it on my daughters saw, it just doesn't meet current regulations. I drive an E-class, it has additional safety features that many other cars don't have. If my daughter gets injured in an accident with her Ford Focus, can I sue Ford for not having the same technology as a Benz?
The SawStop brake is not a fail safe device, it doesn't guard the blade, it doesn't prevent kickback. Can anyone say, unequivocally, that the SawStop brake would have worked in that case, if one was installed? I think you should avoid contacting a spinning blade with your fingers, period. People that do contact the blade are doing something they shouldn't. Is that the manufacturers responsibility?
What if the person cut themselves with a portable circular saw, band saw or router? Do we need to make everything idiot proof, and can we guarantee that whatever devices are put in place, will work, regardless of what a person might do? Aren't seat belts automatic, if you don't unhook them? Don't people still drive without their seat belts on, run red lights, drive while intoxicated and so on? Individuals need to be held accountable for their own actions. I think that's the essence of this case and it doesn't sound like common sense prevailed or justice was served. Is the court interpreting existing laws or writing a new one? Can every saw owner in Massachusetts expect a recall and a retro fit ?
As you say, "the SawStop
As you say, "the SawStop brake is not a fail safe device, it doesn't guard the blade, it doesn't prevent kickback," and this is at the heart of the safety issue. The user's ability to remove the blade guard, riving knife, or disable the SawStop chances to put him in harm's way. However, now and then I need to remove the blade guard or riving knife from my Format4, to make a pocket cut for instance, and 35 years of training myself to work safely without those devices has kept my fingers on my hand. Those devices are only part of a proper safety program, which really should be based on good, safe work habits without them.
My grandpa said to me once when I did something stupid, "Know where your fingers are, when you're working in the shop, or out on a date." That's been in the back of my mind for 50 years, and I believe it continues to keep me safe when working on all my shop tools and machines.
Hammer,
"I don't understand
Hammer,
"I don't understand how the court could award a settlement because a manufacturer did not include a device that is not required."
The first line of the article says it all. JURY TRIAL. The Expert Witness did a good job, and the defense did not. If they had the oportunity to provide this technology on their saws but blatantly rejected it for costs only, it is a tough sell to a jury. Ever served on a jury? Emotion can rule the day and logic takes a backseat. Figure that they asked the jury if they own a table saw, and they disqualifed all of those folks from the Jury? Now you have to educate an entire jury on tablesaw use!
What makes me wonder is why they took this to trial....
AZMO, who does not really like our justice system.
As HowardAcheson said earier, when Steve Gass invented the technology he presented it to all of the major manufactuers, and they passed... not because of legal reasons, or effectiveness, but because of cost.
Bottom line is Delta, Jet, dewalt, powerline, etc are out to make money, and they aren't about add a safety device than woud decrease their profit margin. They really don't care if we are safe or not using their machines, its just money to them. How many of us have stripped their cheap factory safety devices off our machines because they do more harm than good. Maybe it will take a lawsuit like this(however frivolous and definately evident of user error) to make the companies realize they need to take care of their own customers.
Its hard to admit it, we all loyal to our own brands, I myself was loyal to delta, untill they packed up the factory in my hometown, fired around a 1000 people and moved to mexico to make cheaer bandsaws... In the end they are coporations who really don't care about you and your fingers(or the American economy).
Maybe in the end we'll be able to buy the saw we want, with saftey feaures we want... rather than having to settle with only sawstop and whatever features they decide to include on their saws.
Kind of strange to see him as an "expert" witness, given that he would be the primary beneficiary of any verdict that held the saw manufacturer liable. Hardly disinterested. Did he help finance the case too?
Interesting Steve, wouldn't it be nice to know how the money moved..... Though I have to admit it is probably not illegal to do so, the prosecution can call any expert witness it wants, it is up to the defense team to derail and object and discredit the witness. Sounds like the defense team lost this battle, and during the appeal they may have learned a few things.
I wonder if the defense offered to settle first, and if they refused?
Morgan
Well, Gass was sure he'd be super-rich by now. Not surprised at all to hear of his involvement on the plaintiff's side of a lawsuit.
Great venue, too - Boston. A Perfect Storm for Gass and his attempt to have his patented technology mandated throughout the industry.
Does the concept of RAND - Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory - terms apply in such cases?
In other words, if Saw Stop technology were to become mandatory, would Saw Stop's licence fees be regulated in any way?
I dunno - ever have to spend out-of-pocket for a prescription medication still under patent?
This case is a perfect example of the result of the contingency fee system, in which the lawyer charges no fee unless there is an award , but then takes 1/3 of the total. As a physician I have seen this system close up. Abolition of this system would result in immense savings throughout the health field. It is protected tooth and nail by the trial lawyers' associations, who contribute heavily to democrat congressmen.
Tom, M.D.
NPR did a story on SawStop and Gass back in 2003 when Gass petitioned the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, petition CP 03-2. In actuality, The commission does not set any standards for saws but there may be voluntary standards that are followed by some manufacturers.
OSHA sets the standards in the workplace and enforces them. Tool manufacturers need to meet the OSHA standards if their tools are going to be used in the workplace.
UL, Underwriters Laboratories is an independant organization that has nothing to do with the U.S. government. They are setting a new standard that is in regard to blade guards. To meet that standard, a blade guard has to be able to be removed or replaced in 20 seconds, without the use of tools. This is to address excuses that the guard was removed and not replaced either due to time and complexity or lack of the needed tools.
In the lower left on this page, you can link to all you wanted to know about the petition, public comments and the ruling the CPSC made. I think Gass has petitioned the commission again lately after having addressed, suposedly, some of the issues the commission found with the SawStop mechanism. I think that the CPSC ruling is in the public comments section, part 2.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4182602
Even if the CPSC, OSHA or UL sets a standard for a device like the SawStop brake, they would not specifically say it had to be the SawStop product. Instead they would set a standard that described what a safety item had to do.
The lawyers for One World Industries, the parent company of Ryobi, must have been totally incompetant, despite how juries can be. I'm self employed and am excused from jury duty but I've served on many public commitees and know how some people can be. You have on record what the CPSC ruled concerning the SawStop and why they made their decision.
Anyone that thinks tool companies are only in it for the money aren't paying attention. The consumer asked for left tilting table saws, better guards and riving knives and we are seeing all those on saws made by many manufacturers and there is no standard regarding these that they must follow.
Our litigious society has been both good and bad. Companies that have knowingly put unsafe or worse products on the market have been held accountable. At the same time, things like our health care costs have skyrocketed as a result. As one example, the malpractice insurance an OBGYN has to pay has practically made them extinct. This Ryobi suit should have never seen the light of day. The lawyers are lining up and counting the money. Instead of a flesh sensing device, we need an idiot sensing device, as I read in a comment about the case.
The idea of a flesh sensing device is a good idea and someday the technology might be tested, dependable and even mandated. I still would advise knowing and following basic safety rules when using a table saw and don't do anything that will put your fingers in the spinning blade, SawStop or not.
The contigency fee system is a very contentious issue. Without getting into all the issues, I will just point out that without it only rich people would have access to the courts. Also, since the lawyers, who are in it for the money not "to get even", have every interest in not risking their own time and money in bringing suits with a low chance of winning.
And, on a partisan note: trial lawyers do contribute to Demoncratic Congressmen.
OK< I'm REAL lteto this
OK< I'm REAL lteto this party. Ironic, in part, because my internet access is somewhat limited in my rural community. (Ever try to get on-line without having a phone or TV set?)
Let's keep this in perspective. It's only ONE jury award. Tomorrow the very same manufacturercan contest a similar claim in front of that same court, and a different jurycould find differently. The ruling has no meaning to any other cases. That's just how the system works.
Only will there be some LIMITED effect should the judgement be appealed. I suspect that it will be appealed - but only on the size of the award. I expect that the manufacturer is not goingto want to risk a ruling that might set a precedent.
The ruling is simply contrary to law and logic. As for the sincerity of the saw-making industry, we'll see what happens in afew years (how time flies) when the patent expires.
I would not read too much into the recent addition of table saw testing to the resumeof UL. UL will not, as a matter of policy, allow its' listing process to be manipulated into requiring the use of one company's product. (A recent example was the refusal of UL to list certain new circuit breaker technology -the AFCI- until after the inventors donated their patents to the public domain. Again, UL might require such technology when the patent expires.
The inventor surely has his rights- and, if he is too greedy, the fruits of his genius are but delayed, not forever denied. Remember when the simplest laser level cost $$$? Amazing how that changed once the patent expired.
OK< I'm REAL lteto this
OK< I'm REAL lteto this party. Ironic, in part, because my internet access is somewhat limited in my rural community. (Ever try to get on-line without having a phone or TV set?)
Let's keep this in perspective. It's only ONE jury award. Tomorrow the very same manufacturercan contest a similar claim in front of that same court, and a different jurycould find differently. The ruling has no meaning to any other cases. That's just how the system works.
Only will there be some LIMITED effect should the judgement be appealed. I suspect that it will be appealed - but only on the size of the award. I expect that the manufacturer is not goingto want to risk a ruling that might set a precedent.
The ruling is simply contrary to law and logic. As for the sincerity of the saw-making industry, we'll see what happens in afew years (how time flies) when the patent expires.
I would not read too much into the recent addition of table saw testing to the resumeof UL. UL will not, as a matter of policy, allow its' listing process to be manipulated into requiring the use of one company's product. (A recent example was the refusal of UL to list certain new circuit breaker technology -the AFCI- until after the inventors donated their patents to the public domain. Again, UL might require such technology when the patent expires.
The inventor surely has his rights- and, if he is too greedy, the fruits of his genius are but delayed, not forever denied. Remember when the simplest laser level cost $$$? Amazing how that changed once the patent expired.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled