I had to post this because I think the truth is finally becoming light to all of us about the lawsuit, greedy lawyers and Gass,s sour grapes involvment in an ongoing cases that could decide the future of woodworking in this country,.., Popular Woodworking - Court Documents: Osorio Wasn't Using the Guard or Rip Fence,.,
Osario/Sawstop/ and the tablesaw lawsuit
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Joined
·
1,106 Posts
So this guy was using the table saw in using some of the most unsafe procedures I have EVER heard, but yet because he failed to read or understand the instructions this is not his fault. Using the fence alone would have probably saved him from injury. Every instruction manual I have ever read says to not use the saw free hand. I hope One World appeals and wins, this was clearly not their fault.
Joined
·
3,007 Posts
This is clearly a case of someone performing a stupid action that anybody with any common sense should have known better than to do. It seems that people now think it is somebody elses responsibility for their own actions. A prime example of the "Nanny State" we are becoming. I blame the court system and jury's as much as the Lawyers for this travesty of justice. If any justice remains, let us hope that a higher court will overturn this farce.
How did he ever win this case ? Something is very wrong here.
He would have probably cut his fingers off even if that saw had the sawstop technology. He would have bypassed it the first time he encountered some wet wood(something sawstop suggests on their website), and most likely never turned it back on.
There is no safeguard for idiots.
In Croatia, you do an IQ test to obtain a drivers license. Maybe there should be a similar test for tool ownership ?
He would have probably cut his fingers off even if that saw had the sawstop technology. He would have bypassed it the first time he encountered some wet wood(something sawstop suggests on their website), and most likely never turned it back on.
There is no safeguard for idiots.
In Croatia, you do an IQ test to obtain a drivers license. Maybe there should be a similar test for tool ownership ?
Joined
·
2,584 Posts
If that is true, it's a bad way for him to do business.
I still don't see how they won the case.
Now we just need someone who took sawstops published advice to over ride the mechanism to have an accident and sue sawtop for including an over ride.
Joined
·
1,468 Posts
What better way to create a new rule or law than to search out people who've been damaged by whatever.
What do you think the process was for seat belts?
Safety locks for rifles or hand guns?
Child safety seats?
Frankly there are just too many examples of resistance to new regulations to protect one from themselves. Likely most would never occur if it weren't for insurance companies and law firms. None of them want to pay for damages all want to make money from damages.
Lastly how many here, would make it at all today without assistance from a loss of limbs or back? Lose your home? job? Friends? In many cases even with assistance that can and does happen anyway.
Famous last words, that can't happen to me, it only happens to stupid people or someone looking for a hand out.
What do you think the process was for seat belts?
Safety locks for rifles or hand guns?
Child safety seats?
Frankly there are just too many examples of resistance to new regulations to protect one from themselves. Likely most would never occur if it weren't for insurance companies and law firms. None of them want to pay for damages all want to make money from damages.
Lastly how many here, would make it at all today without assistance from a loss of limbs or back? Lose your home? job? Friends? In many cases even with assistance that can and does happen anyway.
Famous last words, that can't happen to me, it only happens to stupid people or someone looking for a hand out.
I think that reason might prevail in an appeal, but it is going to come at a price. The damage award will be lowered, but saws will be built in such a way that the guards cannot be removed, or something like that in the future.
If the employer had deep pockets, he would have been sued, especially if he taught this gentleman how to use the tool, or if he encouraged using it without the guard. Since he obviously doesn't have enough assets, Ryobi was next in line.
This kind of ruling makes me ill, and I could not look myself in the eye if I knowingly misused a tool against manufacturer's instructions, warnings, etc, hurt myself and blamed them for it. I feel for the guy, but I cannot agree with his actions.
If the employer had deep pockets, he would have been sued, especially if he taught this gentleman how to use the tool, or if he encouraged using it without the guard. Since he obviously doesn't have enough assets, Ryobi was next in line.
This kind of ruling makes me ill, and I could not look myself in the eye if I knowingly misused a tool against manufacturer's instructions, warnings, etc, hurt myself and blamed them for it. I feel for the guy, but I cannot agree with his actions.
Joined
·
10,671 Posts
As having been on the receiving end of such stupidity, may I say that guy was really stupid!!! I wonder what ever happened to "taking responsibility for one's actions". When I went into the emergency room that morning the Doctor told me that she thought that table saws should be outlawed, and she was serious. I asked her about cars? Should these be outlawed also?--no response. There are many things that could be said but perhaps not here. Maybe we could use a forum for members only where we could air our frustrations and the like, just a thought.
I have read a couple of varying reasons for the origin of the lawsuit. 1 The insurance company went after the money they spent. 2 The guy injured went after it. 2b he was turned down, but then the lawyer saw or was told about SawStop being on CNN. 3 that the inventor is out searching for people to sue.
I do think the royalties the inventor was asking of 8% if the whole industry picked up on the invention were outrageously high. I think even the 3% he asked for the companies at the start was too much. I also think if he had asked lower royalties and that most, if not all table saws were sold with it, that the cost per saw would be no where near the $150 or so I see mentioned for the increased cost after a couple of years of manufacturing.
I do think the royalties the inventor was asking of 8% if the whole industry picked up on the invention were outrageously high. I think even the 3% he asked for the companies at the start was too much. I also think if he had asked lower royalties and that most, if not all table saws were sold with it, that the cost per saw would be no where near the $150 or so I see mentioned for the increased cost after a couple of years of manufacturing.
The information I read quoted him saying something to point of we only use the fence for straight cuts so it must have been a company wide thing.
I just hope we don't end up like european saws with no blind cuts (if the blade guard is made unmovable. Hopefully there will be an option for an overarm blade guard such as some of the aftermarket ones now.
I also heard that he was working for flooring company and had to use what he was given to use. So, why was the flooring company owner not responsible. Osario was just trying to make a living, the flooring company was the one who failed to provide safe equipment that was available. Since I have no personal knowledge of this case I cannot comment further and could very possibly be wrong about this.
Joined
·
367 Posts
I'm sure the flooring company's insurance paid what the workman's comp. law allowed for the amputations, which should have been a considerable sum. I believe also other than that one cannot sue their employer, therefore the suit against Ryobi.It just goes to show, you can be as dumb as a box of rocks and with the right attorney you can get almost anything.
Not deep enough pockets is probably the reason. The court case files should be available to read at some sites...just can't remember the name right now. The link to popular woodworking at the start of this thread had comments from the court case papers.
Joined
·
3,506 Posts
"had to use what he was given to use"
First and foremost, let's leave the issue where it belongs: on personal responsibility.
No one stood behind him with a gun to his head to make him do it, so let's start out by rewording that to "chose to use what he was given to use". There have been several instances in my work life where I was tasked with doing something that would be dangerous (like one driving an F850 flatbed truck loaded with anti-freeze 100 miles between towns on slick winter roads with bald tires). I refused pending new rubber. Yes, they could have fired me but in no case did the employer refuse my reasonable request. Being unemployed would be better than dead or injured. America has places for the unemployed to eat and sleep. It was my personal responsibility to refuse or accept the consequences.
Second, under oath, he testified he removed the rip fence and safety guard before the cut. This is pure stupidity. Again, personal responsibility says you don't operate a dangerous piece of equipment without knowing how to use it safely. No one with an eighth of a brain can remove the blade guard from a table saw, see the dozens of sharp carbide teeth, turn on the saw and watch them spin very fast and not think "Oooooh... this is dangerous."
Third, you do not defeat any safety device unless you're *damned* sure what you're about to do is safe and not the reason for the device's placement to begin with. If you do, you assume the "personal responsibility" for your personal action.
Hmm... is there a common thread here?
The mentality of blaming others for ones stupid actions may be the norm in many places on the globe but it's contra to how America was formed and what has made it what it is.
For my sources I refer you to Popular Woodworking - Court Documents: Osorio Wasn't Using the Guard or Rip Fence
Should you wish to get closer to the source, go to
Osorio v. One World Technologies, Inc. et al 1:06-cv-10725 Massachusetts Federal District Court Docket Page 3
and dig through the hundreds of documents there.
First and foremost, let's leave the issue where it belongs: on personal responsibility.
No one stood behind him with a gun to his head to make him do it, so let's start out by rewording that to "chose to use what he was given to use". There have been several instances in my work life where I was tasked with doing something that would be dangerous (like one driving an F850 flatbed truck loaded with anti-freeze 100 miles between towns on slick winter roads with bald tires). I refused pending new rubber. Yes, they could have fired me but in no case did the employer refuse my reasonable request. Being unemployed would be better than dead or injured. America has places for the unemployed to eat and sleep. It was my personal responsibility to refuse or accept the consequences.
Second, under oath, he testified he removed the rip fence and safety guard before the cut. This is pure stupidity. Again, personal responsibility says you don't operate a dangerous piece of equipment without knowing how to use it safely. No one with an eighth of a brain can remove the blade guard from a table saw, see the dozens of sharp carbide teeth, turn on the saw and watch them spin very fast and not think "Oooooh... this is dangerous."
Third, you do not defeat any safety device unless you're *damned* sure what you're about to do is safe and not the reason for the device's placement to begin with. If you do, you assume the "personal responsibility" for your personal action.
Hmm... is there a common thread here?
The mentality of blaming others for ones stupid actions may be the norm in many places on the globe but it's contra to how America was formed and what has made it what it is.
For my sources I refer you to Popular Woodworking - Court Documents: Osorio Wasn't Using the Guard or Rip Fence
Should you wish to get closer to the source, go to
Osorio v. One World Technologies, Inc. et al 1:06-cv-10725 Massachusetts Federal District Court Docket Page 3
and dig through the hundreds of documents there.
I believe that the really sad thing is we will all pay for this while Gass and Osario make a profit, Yes he did loose his fingers but not due to the technology but his own ignorance, but Gass is just a jerk imo, wonder why he didn,t get sued for this,http://www.hanford.gov/rl/uploadfiles/LL-2007-RL-HNF-0043.pdf
Joined
·
3,506 Posts
I'm with you, Tommy... and I'm not against lawyers working "on contingency" in these cases since provides some protection of the little guy from being overrun by an obnoxious deep-pocketed organization. What I *would* like to see is, for lawsuits that either fail or lose on appeal *and* are deemed "frivolous" by the courts, the defendant *and* council to be held in "joint liability", where the any costs required to defend against the case (including appeals) go back to the defendant and council. Then its up to the defendants to determine who is going to pay and if the defendant runs out of funds, council must make up the difference. This will "encourage" the "ambulance chasers" to verify non-frivolity in a suit before accepting it rather than an attitude of "it's a long-shot but the payback would be great. If council is going to receive a large reward for winning, they should accept part of the risk, should it be deemed "frivolous".
Quick update,Heres an updated article from Popular Woodworking some might like to read.,.., Popular Woodworking
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
