Official Luthiers Forum!

Is there another way to make beeni-weenies?

As for tort reform and single payer, there are more than the 2 alternatives listed......numerous other options would be an improvement. The pimps and whores now are in government ..........Louisianna purchase, Cornhusker kickback.........there is no end to the corruption.

_________________
Formerly known as Adaboy.......

Here in the litigious US, you can't sue your employer for a work related injury. Worker's Compensation (one of those socialist laws) prevents it.

_________________
Howard Klepper
http://www.klepperguitars.com

When all else fails, clean the shop.

Entertain me this hypothetical scenario...

Handyman Joe decides he needs to buy a tablesaw for a home improvement project he's working on. He budget's himself $500 for a basic saw. He goes to his local tablesaw-mart and is presented with a $500 Brand-X saw is that has exactly the features he needs/wants and a $700 Brand-X saw that is otherwise identical, but is equipped with the SawStop feature (increasing the cost by $200).

He decides not to bust his budget and buys the non- sawstop equipped saw and takes it home and mangles his hand with it.

Is the store responsible? The Manufacturer? His parents? Teachers? NO! He is!

If you are going to buy something as dangerous as a tablesaw and choose NOT to buy a SawStop brand saw, that is your choice... live with it.

If I get in a wreck in my $6k Hyundai and get seriously injured, can I sue Hyundai because they don't have all of the safety features of a Volvo or Mercedes that costs 3x as much?

_________________
Jim Hansen

I don't personally know anyone who has injured themselves on a table saw. But i have witnessed a few have accidents with band saws. When it comes down to it there are some people in this world who shouldn't touch a screwdriver let alone a table saw.

A lot of interesting opinions here.

Here's a little more to the story.

When Gass invented the technology, he was not looking to start making table saws. He simply wanted to enter into licensing agreements with existing manufacturers so that they could give customers the OPTION of having SawStop technology. Ryobi was very interested, and even entered into a license, but then backed out. NONE of the existing manufacturers even wanted to give their customers the OPTION of buying a saw with the technology in place.

Why not? Well, it boils down to the state of the law regarding product liability. A manufacturer is strictly liable if it sells an "unreasonably dangerous" product. Period. What constitutes "unreasonably dangerous" depends on a lot of facts and circumstances, including (a) whether safer alternatives are available, (b) whether the benefits of the safer alternative outweigh the additional cost, and (c) what other manufacturers in the marketplace are doing. If, on balance, this test is met, then the manufacturer is strictly liable for all damages caused by the product.

Ryobi and the other manufacturers undoubtedly had their legal departments saying "whoa, Nellie -- if you start providing this safety feature as an OPTION, then you will establish that it is economically feasible to include the feature, and the competition will show that the marketplace is providing them, which means that a jury would probably find you liable if a saw without the SawStop option hurts someone. The best way to avoid getting sued is not even to allow people to buy this thing, so that you can keep telling juries that the feature is economically not feasible." And Ryobi listened.

So, even though the MARKET may have wanted this option (shucks, I would have paid an extra $150 to have it on mine), the lawyers kept it from happening.

What the lawyers failed to anticipate was that Gass would start a company that makes saws with the feature, and that the company would be successful, proving that the feature is economically feasible.

I always believed Ryobi and the other manufacturers got bad legal advice. I've always felt that, given the standards for product liability, the manufacturers would get killed with lawsuits and exorbitant jury verdicts once Gass got saws into the marketplace with the SawStop feature. Unfortunately for the manufacturers, though, they didn't hire me to get a legal opinion.
'

For all the gloom and doom, the SawStop feature or its equivalent will be in every table saw made ten or fifteen years from now. Mass produced in that quantity, it won't cost that much. And our kids will look back and wonder what in the heck we were thinking working with those incredibly dangerous tablesaws of days gone by.

Howard has it right. If hurt on the job there is no such thing as contributory negligence. When they came up with workers comp. they decided that employee's could not sue for damages and gave up tort rights. One can file a 3d party suit and if prevail, then the comp carrier has first rights (after atty) for subrogation and payment of what comp carrier paid. That is usually negotiated in final settlements with the 3d party carrier, and comp carrier.

Jim it could be any or all of them. Just kidding. But there is a thing called vicarious liability.

I was the instructor at the Police Academy for awhile and also did range office duty for monthly qulification. I was sued or named in suits twice in officer involved shootings. I had trained them in the academy, qualified them at the range and 1 case was the officers FTO (field training officer) These were both several years after my duty at academy and range. In fact at the time I was in LA working undercover with organized crime unit and DEA (temp assignment for several years). That
Heck now I am confused.

To finish example guess ran out of time. I was pissed because I guess didn't train the officer well enough. Neither was a fatal shooting, and I didn't train or instruct to wound but to hit the X ring twice. I know I am an ass to the core and a bad guy, but way it is. if involved in gunfights don't train to hit the guy in the arm or shoot the gun out of the hand. Both case were officers returning fire. One after an armed robbery. The other after a gang homocide. In my one shooting I trained myself well. It was a return fire after officer shot. Nuff said on that one.

One guy guy got a dollar and 20 yrs. to my knowledge still in. Other guy got life and still in with no judgement. So if Robbie and them showing students how to operate machines and student gets hurt, yes they could be named in the suit for vicarious liability. Not always work or done but possible and the waivers are just writing on paper meaning nothing.

My rant on single payer. It won't prevent injury, death, sickness, or law suits. It will just cost and we will be like every other nation with it and other leftist socialist ideas. It will suck wind. But I have my say and rants about that and other political crap in other sites and will leave it for there to respect the policy here.

Speaking of lawsuits - My guitar business insurance costs me more here in Canada because I sell guitars to people in the US ... there are folks who will potentially sue over anything down there (who knew ) ... with my order records, I have the ability to tell my insurer how many potential customers per year I will have in the US .. and my rates fluctuate accordingly - he could care less about Canada and the rest of the world BTW.

pretty soon we will all have to include along with our care and feeding instructions, a pair of safety glasses, or at least a warning, that a broken string may take your eye out, or cut your face ....

_________________
Tony Karol
www.karol-guitars.com
"let my passion .. fulfill yours"

Well - I guess I'll chime in here as well...

I lost my right index finger on a jointer about 15 years ago...not because of the machine, but because I had my head in my ass and was doing something on a jointer I should have been doing on a block plane. Everything I knew about woodworking at the time came from watching Norm on TV - and he never uses a block plane! So maybe I should have sued him?

A couple points here.

One, if some technology had been in place to prevent that finger from being shaved away, I would sure be grateful today, and a much better piano player.

Two, that being said, it was my own education, or lack thereof, that caused this accident. Should these things be sold with a requirement to get training or some sort of certification before you operate it? Like a car for example? that might be an alternative to just forcing the technology on everyone and could keep the cost of the hardware lower.

As for this ruling...I can see someone going for a two-fer and pouring hot coffee on themselves while running their hand through a saw...or a perfect trifecta doing the coffee, the saw, and accidently shooting themselves in the foot while cleaning the gun at the same time...

Its a helluva time to be a manufacturer in America....

_________________
Mitch

It's not just the US but we do seem to have more of it than the rest of the world.

A maintenance man at a school in England fell off a 6' ladder while attempting to change a light bulb. He was 50+ years old and had been working in the trades since he was a young man. Sued for disability (broken ankle) and won since the school he was working for had not specifically trained him as to how to use a ladder. Sounds kinda like the US to me.

Having been an employer and and employee I actually see the benefit of Workmans Comp from both sides.

As an employee I knew that in the event I was injured I had a way to get "fixed" whether my boss felt the need to help out or not. Let's face it, there are a lot of employers who won't take care of you if injured. "If you fall off that scaffold you are fired before you hit the ground" thinking still exists. If I chose to work for someone who does not carry WC as required I am still covered. The guy who did carry WC covers me and that is not fair to him, but blame the guy who won't participate in the system not the system itself. No system should put the employee at the mercy of each employer to "do the right thing". See below.

As an employer I resent having to pay that insurance every month and especially resent those who are supposed to and don't. I also resent having to pay for a back problem of a guy I just hired (hypothetical) whether his work history included working for people who carried WC or not. "Pre-existing" comes to mind, but on the other hand I have young strong guys who won't listen to me about how to lift properly. They will move on to other jobs and those injuries will eventually catch up to them and become a WC claim down the road. I get hit for someone else's problem today and the next guy gets hit with something that happened under my watch tomorrow. It balances out. I move on.

We wouldn't need these kinds of rules and regulations if everybody just "did the right thing". But what does that mean? Tell that young man that you will pay him an extra .25 and hour so that he can save it for his eventual back problem and he will do that, right? Well, after it get's spent on wine, women and song who is to pay for the back surgery when time takes it's toll? Without WC the employee (with no money and forced into a financial bind he could have avoided) must sue the guy who tried to to right by him because he is now desperate. Lawyers make out. Both sides lose and energy is wasted on angry arguments back and forth. Mandate that insurance is carried and now you have a process where the injury is handled without undue stress on all. I prefer this to the other even though it is abused. No doubt about that, but much better than just saying "every man for himself".

I call that conservative thinking and not socialist. Every dyed in the wool conservative that I know who has anything worth conserving has his assets insured to the hilt voluntarily. This is just another insurance against all those pesky lawsuits that could come their way when stupid employees to stupid things like cut fingers off when they know dang well they shouldn't.

Greg N

The other thing that folks tend to forget here is "Joint and Several Liability".... Which is a Key part in our legal system.... It means that no matter who is really at fault -- The Plaintiffs can legally claim the entire settlement from whoever they can get it from so long as a jury found that defendant had some minuscule % responsibility ...

So... It works out like this...

Case goes to court.... Jury finds the following:
Plaintiff: 97% Responsible
Contractor: 2.9% Responsible
Saw Manufacturer: 0.1% Responsible
Judgement: $1,000,000....

Contractor is a 1-man shop... who declares bankruptcy.... Good luck getting anything out of him....

Saw manufacturer is part of a Multi-Billion $$ Conglomerate.... so they end up getting stuck with the entire settlement.... Not 0.1% of the entire settlement.

Same thing could happen to a Luthier if a client's Girlfriend went "El Kabong" and bashed some fellow over the head with one of your Guitars during a bar fight.... You could end up in court... just because you made the Guitar and some other fellow ended up in the Hospital with a bridge pin in his eye...

Thanks

John

Wrong. In 13 states, the plaintiff could get $30K from the saw manufacturer. In the rest, the plaintiff gets nothing/zero/nada under your scenario.

As I said, there has been a relentless 40 year propaganda campaign aimed at disseminating disinformation about how the tort system actually works.

This is really not the place to discuss a complex issue such as this meaningfully. But it seems that most people have been led to hold false beliefs such as John's.

_________________
Howard Klepper
http://www.klepperguitars.com

When all else fails, clean the shop.

John under the cover all "knew or should have known guitar was going to be a weapon." But example of vicarious liability. Normally that is not really in the mix much though, unless work for business or government.

Most if not all States are set up so if hurt on job no tort rights against the employer. If hurt on job and employer didn't have coverage, lose defenses and gives up tort rights. Most who don't have coverage are not worth going after anyway. No money. Can get a judgement and paid out over time. But usually not worth it. That is why the lawyer in those cases will look at the product or environment of the injury. Say the table saw with contractor. Hurt no wc, lawyer goes after table saw folks. Same with fall off the bad ladder, or slip and fall on the bad asphalt in winter ice of parking lot. So can go from wc to product liability case.

Like Nelson said, pre existing conditions not apply. If claim hurt back and once settled, can go to another job and hurt back again. It comes out in court much of the time and can be a defense, but also more times than not a new claim.

I have to say though. a vast, vast majority of claims are proper and legitimate. I got about 30 a month to investigate out of 100's filed. By time got to me adjusters and SIU had feeling things not right. I found fraud in about 98% of those I investigated. I actually did them like other criminal cases although these were both civil and criminal. I assumed it was a rightgoues and legitimate case unless I proved it fraud.

Here in the UK due to the amount of injuries caused to people, before you can buy/hire a chainsaw over a certain size or HP you have to show a "chainsaw license" which to get is a 2-3 day course. I think that was put in place to prevent more court cases than anything.

What a funny world we live in.

I have been bitten by every tool I`ve ever used.
Only thrice have I gone to the ER for a 3 hour fix-up.
The only one that was needed was from a 3/16" table saw gouge.
That`s just the cost of learning a decent respect and awareness of what you`re trying to do.
Did I try to suit?
No way.
Why make other people care for my own disregard for safety?
We know what we are getting into when we pick up the first "Implement of destruction".

Rod, I have a tattoo under my thunbnail the shape of Texas. It`ll grow out.
Reckon I might be able to sell it on ebay?
I better stop now...
Coe Franklin

_________________
Give me 50 cents worth of regular.
Check my oil too, if you don`t mind,,,

We do see a lot of silly seeming lawsuits in the news, as news needs to be sensational to make a profit. But consider a few things:
-many of these are appealed
-regarding employers, every time I have seen an employer get sued, there were 100 times when they should have been and the person just moved on
-it is a myth that it is easy to sue. I watched my wife successfully sue her employer. They were very negligent and practically handed her the judgment, but it still took lots of documentation and corroboration. It was a lot of work and was not an easy endeavor.
-a company I worked for snuck a little clause into their contract with customers, claiming rights to customer IP. They got away with it left and right in the US, but got into big trouble in Europe and Japan. The US system gives companies a very wide latitude and depends on the lawsuit as the corrective mechanism. I don't like it but it is the way the US system is set up. So we shouldn't be surprised at the number of lawsuits, it is the design of our system.

If you are not self employed I highly encourage you to check out some of the books on employment law and at-will employment. And keep a work diary at home. It is most important to try to do your best and help your co-workers succeed but inevitably most companies will turn on themselves, get morally sick, then you need to protect yourself.

What is IP?

_________________
Howard Klepper
http://www.klepperguitars.com

When all else fails, clean the shop.

Intellectual Property

_________________
Mitch

Sorry for the abbreviation. They basically said we have rights to designs (intellectual property) you create with our program. This was despicable and should have resulted in prison sentences, but was viewed as perfectly fine in the strange business climate we have here in the US.

Absolutely.

Sooner or later, we will all do something stupid. It doesn't make us stupid people -- even highly intelligent, careful people sometimes make stupid mistakes.

I don't think it is unreasonable to ask tool makers to take that into account as they make tools. There is no reason they should not ask themselves whether reasonably economical safety features can be integrated into the system to increase the odds that our inevitable mistakes will not result in loss of life or limb. I'm not saying that it's the toolmaker's fault if things go wrong -- I am saying that mistakes happen, and as much as it is our responsibility to be as careful as we can, it is also the toolmaker's responsibility, within reason, to make the tool as safe as economically feasible.

The wholesale refusal of the tablesaw industry to provide customers with the OPTION of SawStop technology (or some other equivalent) was, in my book, inexcusable. Particularly when you delve into the reasons why they refused.

I have to ask...whey did the tablesaw industry wholly reject it?

_________________
There is no difference between the man that thinks he can....and the man that thinks he cannot.

With all due respect. That's a terribly foolish comment Glen.

SawStop has an electronic systems check. If there is anything malfunctioning with the braking system the saw won't fire.

Richard

Sorry, but foolishness is someone operating a dangerous tool when careless, stupid, tired or hurried. BTW, you know what you call the first company that adopts this technology across it's product line, when it's competitors do not? Bankrupt. On the other hand, if there was a market for it, the company that invented this would drive its competition to use it.