04-15-2010 10:48 AM
Where do they find these stupid juries? This ranks as stupid as the guy who got a brand new RV, put it in cruise control, and then went back to get some coffee. Of course he wrecked. He sued and won because the manual never told him not to leave the driver's seat when he puts the RV in cruise control. Then last month a lawyer in Miami sued a guy on eBay for giving him negative feedback and ruining his 100% positive record - defamation of character he cried! How come common sense is thrown out of court before these stupid cases are???
04-15-2010 10:58 AM
Only if the parents have money. Ryobi is guilty of having money! Any blame outside the stupidity of the guy operating the saw, goes to the contractor (who doesn't have money or he would be paying as well and he would likely not be hiring illegal alliens.) I really doubt this guy had a green card and I think you have to speak English to be a naturalized citizen unless that has changed. (Which wouldn't surprise me.)
04-15-2010 10:59 AM
All points are well made. Let's look at it from a slightly different manner. Ryobi did not feel the cost of the SawStop device was worth their while. They chose not to use it on the saw; they took a gamble. An analogy would be General Motors deciding on not including seatbelts and airbags on their cars. It's a risk they chose to take.
Yes, I can practice all the safe habits I know, but if there is a device out there that could save fingers, why be cheap? In a sue crazy society, don't take the chance.
What do you think will happen when SawStop's patent runs out? I bet we see every saw company coming up with their own version. Unless they decide the risk is no longer worth the wait.
I'm not that bright; I only know what my wife tells me I should know
04-15-2010 11:14 AM
When looking at it from a slightly different manner again, in my opinion it is unlikely the boss would have bought the saw with the flesh technology and if he did he would not have trained him juding by the results in this case. What kind of saw do you have? How many of the readers on here have upgraded their saws as soon as this technology was announced?
What were the defence [UK spelling] lawers doing allowing that form the jury filled in? I have never seen such a biased or leading set of questions.
On another note how many people do you know who have accidently cut off all the fingers on one hand leaving only the thumb? I have met two and met them within an hour of each other; one fitting my kitchen and the other a visitor to my business, on holiday from Australia.
Keep sane. Rich.
04-15-2010 11:26 AM
as with any power tool you have to have some measure of personal responsibility, and be sure to take advantage of the safety features recommended by the manufacturer of the power tool. from what I have read, I believe this was a clear case of operator error not a manufacturers defect; nor do I feel there was a need for any kind of warning tag.
04-15-2010 11:48 AM
With Osorio's success, it was only a matter of time, but here's the next tablesaw injury suit claiming a defective saw due to lack of flesh-detecting technology, this time against Bosch.
04-15-2010 12:08 PM
Let me jump in and address a couple of points that have been raised in this thread, as I've read the entire 1,100-page trial transcript.
First, Mr. Osorio's citizenship status was never at issue in this case, and it is unknown whether he is a legal or illegal immigrant. Let's not go there.
Second, the plaintiff argued that Ryobi knew about flesh-detecting technology back in 2000 and had they pursued it at the time, it would have been on the saw that Mr. Osorio's boss bought. The jury apparently decided that failing to act on this knowledge and implement the device constituted a design defect resulting in "breach of warranty."
Mr. Osorio's employer was discussed little if at all outside of the excerpted testimony. There seemed to be little attempt to implicate him.
04-15-2010 12:32 PM
I just recently purchased a table saw and it included a blade guard a riving knife and anti kickback palls. One of the first things I did see in the owners manual as I was assembling the saw was read your owners manual before using this tool. This manual tells you the steps to make adjustments to the saw for various reasons,it tells you what not to do. It tells you the dangers of this tool,it tells you to USE The BLADE GUARD!!!! Execpt when operaration such as using a stack dado set but it does clearly state the max size diameter of tyhe stacked dado head you can use and not to use a molding head on this paticular style saw. The book even has the second part in spanish, so maybey if the company this guy worked for had this document it would of explanied what might happen if you do not use the safety devices on this paticular tool. I feel you should not hold the manufacturer at fault,because I am sure if the saw was purchased from a store that it would have a blade guard, seems osha would of not allowed a saw go into production on the market without it. And if by chace there was not a blade guard in the box the owner of the company would of brought it back and explained that there was not one. But in this case the use of a guard was a negligent move on the companys part. The owner of ryobi did not call up the worker and say don't use the blade guard,it was just a negigent part on the operator and the sole responsibilty that the owner of the company should of made sure the guard was in place. So if anyone should get hammerd with a lawsuit it should be the company the guy worked for. Imay happen to me one day but I won,t be suing anyone because I know accidents happen especially table saws they are dangerous to the trained individuals,if you are not familiar with a tool read your owners manual . I
04-15-2010 12:47 PM
I did not read the entire transcripts but I believe the "defect" was in the fact that Ryobi did NOT employee the "Saw Stop" technology into their saw even tho it was available at the time of the manufacture of the saw.
04-15-2010 12:50 PM
Without actually sitting for the trial, it is hard to say what it was that caused the jury to rule as it did. There are so many intangibles that sway a jury of our peers that unless you are actually there, and can hear and see everything that went on, there is no way other than by speculation to determine the basis of the verdict. The attitude and demeanor of the witnesses, the personalities of the lawyers, the make-up of the jury itself, all play major parts in how a trial will develop and ultimately turn out.
The real culprit here is likely the employer, be it the failure to train, failure to provide the guard, etc. In most, if not all states, the employer cannot be sued by its employees, and its liability is limited to the provision of workers compensation benefits. So while medical bills and lost wages are paid, "pain and suffering" damages must come from somewhere else, if at all. Hence, the chase after the "deep pockets" Ryobi and Home Depot.
Many people will criticize this case much in the same way that the famous McDonald's coffee spill burn case was criticized, without knowing all the facts.
I am a trial attorney, and 95% of my work is on the defense side. One of the things that always bothers me, and I see it on a regular basis, is the amount of prospective jurors that spend more time trying to get out of service with the excuse of "well, I am unhappy with the system because of all the big verdicts you hear about, and I just can't be fair". Whenever I hear that one, I know the juror has something better to do than sit on a case, and "I can't be fair" are the magic words that gets them out of service. So who's left in the prospective jury panel? Here's a suggestion: instead of ducking jury service, sit through a case, deliberate with your fellow jurors, and see how the system really works.
Sorry for the civics lecture.