Tablesaw lawsuit

Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
jkeithrussell said:
But is it reasonably foreseeable that scalding hot coffee, intentionally prepared to be far in excess of the temperature that humans can tolerate, might burn someone who is driving with a cup of it in their car (purchased from a drive-in window)?

Ok, I'm off my soap box.
Click to expand...

Some things wrong with this statement.
1) Coffee does not brew below 170 degrees. It is brewed at over 180 but less than boiling. Because of thermal loss the temp may be at 185, but thermal loss will have the water at only 170.
2) If the scalding issue is so, then we should not be able to boil water at home either. Most people can get scalded a little above 135 degrees. This is why "scald-proof" shower faucets and valves are made for 135 degrees
3) If we have to take in every foreseeable item, then almost all of us should be banned from driving, because we have either had accidents, close calls, road rage, or some other form of "foreseeable" intervention.

This is not meant as a personal attack, but being a lawyer, one is typically schooled or trained to have reactionary impulses to help further the organization you belong to. Found this out taking a couple of small law classes a few years back, and decided that if I became a lawyer, I would be the one going to jail for ripping the heads off stupid people and quite a few other lawyers. Many do not use good common sense judgement, and look mostly at the monetary aspect.

Can I argue good? Absolutely, either or even both sides of a point.
Could I be a good lawyer? No, because if I had to follow a system like most of them do, I would have had a heart attack with the "ethics" they show.

Jerry
 
I hope this is appealed.
I'm sure most consumers don't read the safety instructions that come with equipment and even if they read them often don't follow them. I for one have never installed the blade guard on my saw nor do I plan to. This is my decision and I take responsibility for my decision. It doesn't look like anyone that has posted has direct knowledge of this case so all of our discussion is based on opinion. We all know what an opinion is - you get what you pay for. No one has to pay me for my opinion - But I think this lawsuit is a great example of stupidity in America's court system and the lawsuits that clog our system.
 
In the spirit of a friendly exchange of ideas, here are some responses to Jerry's post:

1) Coffee does not brew below 170 degrees. It is brewed at over 180 but less than boiling. Because of thermal loss the temp may be at 185, but thermal loss will have the water at only 170.

The case was not about the temperature at which the coffee is brewed, it was about the temperature at which the coffee was served. We can debate it, but you have to read the facts in the case which are available on the internet. It was not a case of McDonalds simply brewing coffee, serving it at normal temperature, and some idiot dumping it in her lap. Again, you have to read the facts that were developed in the case to be informed about it.

2) If the scalding issue is so, then we should not be able to boil water at home either. Most people can get scalded a little above 135 degrees. This is why "scald-proof" shower faucets and valves are made for 135 degrees

The case was not about what you can do at home. If you want to boil water at home and pour it over your head, you are free to do so. The case is about a consumer going to a restaurant, being served a product, and being injured. Those of you who believe that the consumer should be entirely at his own risk in all instances are entitled to your belief, I suppose, but that's not the law in any state in this country.

3) If we have to take in every foreseeable item, then almost all of us should be banned from driving, because we have either had accidents, close calls, road rage, or some other form of "foreseeable" intervention.

Sorry, but this doesn't make a lick of sense to me. You driving your car has nothing to do with a manufacturer of a product taking reasonable precautions to make those products safe for the intended user.

This is not meant as a personal attack, but being a lawyer, one is typically schooled or trained to have reactionary impulses to help further the organization you belong to.

It's actually exactly the opposite. Lawyers are not trained to have emotional, reactionary impulses. They are trained to look at the circumstances from every possible angle, gather facts, and then present the facts in a coherent manner to support a legal position. A non-lawyer (or a poor lawyer) hears that a lady spilled coffee in her own lap and sued McDonalds and then jumps to conclusions about who is right or wrong. Again, the facts of that particular case are widely available on the internet. You can read the facts and still conclude that the lady was wrong to sue McDonalds, but you should first know and understand the facts that the jury and appellate court considered in making their decisions.

The McDonalds case is a good "law and society" type of case because it highlights a lot of conflicting interests that we have (or at least that some of us have). Some of you guys write as if you don't care a whit if someone is injured, but by and large our society does care about protecting consumers. In the real world, most lawsuits are not about someone trying to grab the brass ring or hit the jackpot. Some are, but not most. There are entire treatises and law school courses devoted to trying to figure out fair standards for awarding damages to people who are injured through the fault of others and it is often very complicated. But I suppose it is simpler to just bash lawyers and pretend like anyone who brings a lawsuit is just doing it to get rich off of some company.
 
Ha ha!! In the coffee case, here's the whole problem right here:

Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

Hot or not, if you put a styrofoam cup full of anything between your knees, chances are, it's going to spill!!!
 
I am entering the last line of your original post again, and lets look at how it is subsequently being aswered to the challenges made to it:

"But is it reasonably foreseeable that scalding hot coffee, intentionally prepared to be far in excess of the temperature that humans can tolerate, might burn someone who is driving with a cup of it in their car (purchased from a drive-in window)? "

jkeithrussell said:
In the spirit of a friendly exchange of ideas, here are some responses to Jerry's post:

1) Coffee does not brew below 170 degrees. It is brewed at over 180 but less than boiling. Because of thermal loss the temp may be at 185, but thermal loss will have the water at only 170.

The case was not about the temperature at which the coffee is brewed, it was about the temperature at which the coffee was served. We can debate it, but you have to read the facts in the case which are available on the internet. It was not a case of McDonalds simply brewing coffee, serving it at normal temperature, and some idiot dumping it in her lap. Again, you have to read the facts that were developed in the case to be informed about it.

The original comment was about coffee preparation, not the susequent storage before being consumed. This reply to my comment is a twist to the original statement

2) If the scalding issue is so, then we should not be able to boil water at home either. Most people can get scalded a little above 135 degrees. This is why "scald-proof" shower faucets and valves are made for 135 degrees

The case was not about what you can do at home. If you want to boil water at home and pour it over your head, you are free to do so. The case is about a consumer going to a restaurant, being served a product, and being injured. Those of you who believe that the consumer should be entirely at his own risk in all instances are entitled to your belief, I suppose, but that's not the law in any state in this country.

Again, the initial post made comment about things that the human can or cannot normally tolerate. The reply to my rebuff is once again twisting what was originally said into a statement to fit what was later meant to be said

3) If we have to take in every foreseeable item, then almost all of us should be banned from driving, because we have either had accidents, close calls, road rage, or some other form of "foreseeable" intervention.

Sorry, but this doesn't make a lick of sense to me. You driving your car has nothing to do with a manufacturer of a product taking reasonable precautions to make those products safe for the intended user.

The original post made reference to something "reasonably forseeable", and when cars and steam buggys, etc were first created, this was a foreseeable item way back then, what makes it not forseeable now. The only way to cure this is to ban everything that can forseeably happen, or be a cause or effect, or side effect of everything foreseeable.

Putting coffee between ones legs in a collapsable cup with a removable lid should not be considered reasonable, because it is not a reasonable action.

This is not meant as a personal attack, but being a lawyer, one is typically schooled or trained to have reactionary impulses to help further the organization you belong to.

It's actually exactly the opposite. Lawyers are not trained to have emotional, reactionary impulses. They are trained to look at the circumstances from every possible angle, gather facts, and then present the facts in a coherent manner to support a legal position. A non-lawyer (or a poor lawyer) hears that a lady spilled coffee in her own lap and sued McDonalds and then jumps to conclusions about who is right or wrong. Again, the facts of that particular case are widely available on the internet. You can read the facts and still conclude that the lady was wrong to sue McDonalds, but you should first know and understand the facts that the jury and appellate court considered in making their decisions.

The McDonalds case is a good "law and society" type of case because it highlights a lot of conflicting interests that we have (or at least that some of us have). Some of you guys write as if you don't care a whit if someone is injured, but by and large our society does care about protecting consumers. In the real world, most lawsuits are not about someone trying to grab the brass ring or hit the jackpot. Some are, but not most. There are entire treatises and law school courses devoted to trying to figure out fair standards for awarding damages to people who are injured through the fault of others and it is often very complicated. But I suppose it is simpler to just bash lawyers and pretend like anyone who brings a lawsuit is just doing it to get rich off of some company.
Click to expand...

As far as the Macdonalds case, the original judge actually called it back into case, because he heard one of the jurors on the radio tell a radio host that "the jury thought the lady was negligent for putting the coffee between her legs. However, big business has the money, and we need to show big business we can keep them in control, so they cannot run over ethe little people". The words may not be verbatim, but the idea I am trying to get across should be enough in this case. If not, we can discuss it further through other channels.

As far as bashing all lawyers, that was not my intent, as there are some that are "good". However, if you are ever up here in the Northeast, you will get to see and hear all kinds of "stupid" things brought on by people that are pursued by lawyers. No, not all are ambulance chasers. However, there are more than enough of them to make most of us have a bad taste in our mouths.

Lastly, a great number of lawsuits are brought as money making schemes, ways to enact legislation, or to cause finacial or name ruination. Do they all deserve this labelling, no, but many do. Maybe it is only the ones that we get to see on the many tv networks and shows that popularize and highlight this aspect.
And this is being written by someone who's mother was a legal secratary, two aunts still are, a cousin is a lawyer, and en ex-girlfriend is a legal assistant. Do I know everything about lawyers, no, but have seen enough to get a decent opinion of them around here

Jerry
 
Last edited:
glycerine said:
Ha ha!! In the coffee case, here's the whole problem right here:

Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

Hot or not, if you put a styrofoam cup full of anything between your knees, chances are, it's going to spill!!!
Click to expand...

Glycerine, this isn't aimed at you personally, it's just that this is a good reference point. Not to belabor the McDonalds topic, but SHE DIDN'T SUE BECAUSE SHE SPILLED COFFEE ON HERSELF!!!! She sued because the coffee was so hot it caused THIRD DEGREE BURNS!!! She didn't get scalded by the coffee. The coffee was so hot, it destroyed the skin and muscle that it came in contact with.

Try this: Brew a fresh pot of coffee. As soon as it's done, take the entire pot and pour it in your lap. Will it hurt? Sure. Will it cause third degree burns? No. Third degree burns are about as bad as it gets, folks. Even if she's not too bright for putting a styrofoam cup between her knees, coffee shouldn't cause third degree burns. If the coffee had been served at an appropriate temperature, she could have poured the cup in her lap intentionally and the worst that would have happened is she would have had a sensitive lap for a few days. The "whole problem" is that McDonalds knew that it's coffee shouldn't be served at a temperature that causes third degree burns to human flesh, but still served it at that temperature anyway. That's negligence, pure and simple. Scalding is one thing, third degree burns are quite a bit more severe.

As this applies to the topic of this thread: I think we can all agree that it wasn't the manufacturer's fault the guy cut himself. But, for the sake of argument, manufacturers are responsible to ensure operator safety if their saws are used properly. No doubt it was likely the guy's own fault, but the fact remains that even if a table saw is used properly, serious injury can occur. Saw manufacturers will adamantly deny that fact. Nevertheless, they are responsible to address those safety concerns. If the saw is not being used properly, ie operator stupidity, than of course they shouldn't be held liable.

In my not-even-close-to-professional opinion, that's probably not the case with this...um...case, but from that article, we know next to nothing as far as the details go so it's all speculation anyway.
 
Last edited:
Jason,
Please go back and read the whole post again, and the highlighted areas.

My reposts and repudiations are only to show that we need to be more responsible for our own actions. If not, then we as a society should not be allowed to have anything, or do anything
Thanks
Jerry

p.s. You coming down to Bad Dog next wekend?
 
Last edited:
There is much law that is not grounded in good common sense. Consequently many (not all) lawyers view the world with a skewed sense of reality. Many (not all) lawyers believe that "Truth" is what they can convince a jury to believe. It is ridiculous to slam an entire profession over the actions of a percentage of the profession's members. I have interacted with many lawyers over the years. Most of them have a high ethical standards and truly try to work towards a common good. Some are just greedy, egotistical individuals out to shake up the system and make some good money in the process. It seems that those are the ones we read about.

There may be a lot of facts about the Ryobi case that are not presented here. What we do know is that a guy had an accident and cut his fingers while using a table saw. There is no mention of the saw being defective, only that it could have had some design features built into it that were not. Saws are dangerous. They are designed to cut things. I am going to make an assumption now, that many people have used saws identical or similar to the one being used by this guy, both before and after this accident and have not injured themselves. Another assumption, there has been a small percentage of people who have injured themselves using a like saw. Another assumption, this guy knew that there was a risk of injury to himself when he turned the saw on and started using it.

I don't necessarily believe that this guy is a moron, idiot, or even stupid. I believe he was just a normal guy who had an accident. But, like so many people we read about on a regular basis, he chose not to take responsibility for his own misfortune and he either found a lawyer, or a lawyer sought him out to profit from his accident. That is what is wrong with this whole story. Now several posters here have expressed confidence that the $1.5 Million award will be reduced or overturned on appeal. Don't be so sure. There are many people who probably would have predicted that this issue would have never gotten to court in the first place.

With increasing frequency there are news stories about such things as smokers suing cigarette companies, fat people suing fast food restaurants, parents who were too lazy to be parents suing record companies, video game manufacturers, television stations and movie producers for corrupting their kids, and on, and on and on. Oliver Wendall Holmes Jr. once said, "Lawyers spend a great deal of time shoveling smoke". Maybe if they would stick to "smoke" we wouldn't be stuck with such ridiculous case law. Maybe if the newspapers wouldn't sensationalize these massive awards people wouldn't look at every unfortunate incident as an opportunity to get rich quick.

Sigh..............I think I will go turn a pen:neutral:
 
JerrySambrook said:
Jason,
Please go back and read the whole post again, and the highlighted areas.

My reposts and repudiations are only to show that we need to be more responsible for our own actions. If not, then we as a society should not be allowed to have anything, or do anything
Thanks
Jerry

p.s. You coming down to Bad Dog next wekend?
Click to expand...

OK, I see it now. I can see your point.

Sadly, no. I just missed the cutoff. I think I was number 23 or something like that, lol. If anyone has cancelled and there's room, I'd love to go though.
 
babyblues said:
Glycerine, this isn't aimed at you personally, it's just that this is a good reference point. Not to belabor the McDonalds topic, but SHE DIDN'T SUE BECAUSE SHE SPILLED COFFEE ON HERSELF!!!! She sued because the coffee was so hot it caused THIRD DEGREE BURNS!!! She didn't get scalded by the coffee. The coffee was so hot, it destroyed the skin and muscle that it came in contact with.

Try this: Brew a fresh pot of coffee. As soon as it's done, take the entire pot and pour it in your lap. Will it hurt? Sure. Will it cause third degree burns? No. Third degree burns are about as bad as it gets, folks. Even if she's not too bright for putting a styrofoam cup between her knees, coffee shouldn't cause third degree burns. If the coffee had been served at an appropriate temperature, she could have poured the cup in her lap intentionally and the worst that would have happened is she would have had a sensitive lap for a few days. The "whole problem" is that McDonalds knew that it's coffee shouldn't be served at a temperature that causes third degree burns to human flesh, but still served it at that temperature anyway. That's negligence, pure and simple. Scalding is one thing, third degree burns are quite a bit more severe.

As this applies to the topic of this thread: I think we can all agree that it wasn't the manufacturer's fault the guy cut himself. But, for the sake of argument, manufacturers are responsible to ensure operator safety if their saws are used properly. No doubt it was likely the guy's own fault, but the fact remains that even if a table saw is used properly, serious injury can occur. Saw manufacturers will adamantly deny that fact. Nevertheless, they are responsible to address those safety concerns. If the saw is not being used properly, ie operator stupidity, than of course they shouldn't be held liable.

In my not-even-close-to-professional opinion, that's probably not the case with this...um...case, but from that article, we know next to nothing as far as the details go so it's all speculation anyway.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand your point and understand the lawsuit, but my point was that it could have all been prevented by her not trying to take the lid off with it being between her legs. I agree that the coffee was tooooooo hot.
But on the other hand, that's almost like saying the guy who cut his fungers on the table saw did not sue because he cut himself, but instead because the blade was too sharp.
Hot it hot, sharp is sharp. In both cases, it was the action by the person who sued that caused the accident. I agree in the coffee situation, the accident was a whole lot worse because of the temperature of the coffee, but the spilling was still her fault.
 
glycerine said:
Yes, I understand your point and understand the lawsuit, but my point was that it could have all been prevented by her not trying to take the lid off with it being between her legs. I agree that the coffee was tooooooo hot.
But on the other hand, that's almost like saying the guy who cut his fungers on the table saw did not sue because he cut himself, but instead because the blade was too sharp.
Hot it hot, sharp is sharp. In both cases, it was the action by the person who sued that caused the accident. I agree in the coffee situation, the accident was a whole lot worse because of the temperature of the coffee, but the spilling was still her fault.
Click to expand...

Point taken. What are fungers? :tongue:

I would say that these two cases differ in that table saw blades are meant to be sharp in order to function properly, however, coffee is not normally or safely served at 180 degrees. In fact, if a table saw's blade is dull, it's significantly more dangerous than a sharp blade. There is nothing wrong with a sharp blade, but there is something wrong with coffee hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns. The fact that McDonalds knew the coffee was dangerously hot and ignored it is also important.

I think we all can agree that it certainly was entirely her fault that the coffee spilled in her lap and that was certainly stupid. What if she had been holding the cup in her hand and the car hit a bump spilling the coffee on her hand or arm, wouldn't she still have been seriously burned? Better yet, what if she had simply taken a sip and suffered 3rd degree burns to her lips or mouth? At some point in our lives, everyone who drinks coffee has spilled it on themselves. Is it reasonable for us to expect 3rd degree burns!? To me it's not reasonable to expect we should take that risk drinking coffee, for goodness sake, lol. How she suffered the burns really isn't relevant. This would never have been an issue if not for the 3rd degree burns. That's what it all hinges on. If she had just been scalded, I doubt the case would have seen the light of day.

The difference with the table saw accident is there really wasn't anything wrong with the saw. Could the manufacturer have incorporated existing technology to virtually eliminate the risk of serious injury? Sure. But I can agree that the blame for the accident rests on the operator.
 
Last edited:
I just checked two hair dryers. Both of them had a warning not to use the hair dryer while bathing. I have to wonder, has this ever been the subject of a lawsuit? If so, how can the "professional" who filed such a suit have mirrors in their house?
 
babyblues said:
Point taken. What are fungers? :tongue:

I would say that these two cases differ in that table saw blades are meant to be sharp in order to function properly, however, coffee is not normally or safely served at 180 degrees. In fact, if a table saw's blade is dull, it's significantly more dangerous than a sharp blade. There is nothing wrong with a sharp blade, but there is something wrong with coffee hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns. The fact that McDonalds knew the coffee was dangerously hot and ignored it is also important.

I think we all can agree that it certainly was entirely her fault that the coffee spilled in her lap and that was certainly stupid. What if she had been holding the cup in her hand and the car hit a bump spilling the coffee on her hand or arm, wouldn't she still have been seriously burned? Better yet, what if she had simply taken a sip and suffered 3rd degree burns to her lips or mouth? At some point in our lives, everyone who drinks coffee has spilled it on themselves. Is it reasonable for us to expect 3rd degree burns!? To me it's not reasonable to expect we should take that risk drinking coffee, for goodness sake, lol. How she suffered the burns really isn't relevant. This would never have been an issue if not for the 3rd degree burns. That's what it all hinges on. If she had just been scalded, I doubt the case would have seen the light of day.

The difference with the table saw accident is there really wasn't anything wrong with the saw. Could the manufacturer have incorporated existing technology to virtually eliminate the risk of serious injury? Sure. But I can agree that the blame for the accident rests on the operator.
Click to expand...

Fungers are fingers that can't type on a keyboard... which is what I have.
 
The "whole problem" is that McDonalds knew that it's coffee shouldn't be served at a temperature that causes third degree burns to human flesh, but still served it at that temperature anyway. That's negligence, pure and simple. Scalding is one thing, third degree burns are quite a bit more severe.

My take on this is that the "whole problem" is you really shouldn't be drinking anything while driving. People in general can't drive worth a hill of beans and darn sure can't talk on a phone and drive. You can spot them in a heartbeat. Yes I do both.
 
Like Roy mentioned, THE JURY is the ones I blame. Not the manufacturer or the ignorant USER. 12 idiots who allowed the suit to award any money at all. Sure we can sympothise with the operator for his pain, but not his ignorance. RTMD
 
jocat54 said:
My take on this is that the "whole problem" is you really shouldn't be drinking anything while driving. People in general can't drive worth a hill of beans and darn sure can't talk on a phone and drive. You can spot them in a heartbeat. Yes I do both.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what McDonalds is aiming at with a drive through? It's reasonably foreseeable that people are going to be drinking coffee while driving their cars, especially since part of their marketing plan was selling coffee to people in their cars. I'm just sayin'.
 
babyblues said:
Isn't that what McDonalds is aiming at with a drive through? It's reasonably foreseeable that people are going to be drinking coffee while driving their cars, especially since part of their marketing plan was selling coffee to people in their cars. I'm just sayin'.
Click to expand...

Drive throughs were created for the convenience of people, so they did not have to get out of the car to wait in a line. Or so they did not have to unload the car and go thrrough the store with a bunch of kids in tow. Typically, drive-up service is quicker, and lessens the need for a larger parking area. Lastly, drive up also lessens the need for a larger resteraunt as well, because those people will not be coming in to take up space while being served, or waiting for food.
If it was so the consumer could eat and drive, then there would be no drive-up licquor stores, because the hypothisis would be that it is ok to drink and drive. Yet, the drive-up licquor stores exist.
 
JerrySambrook said:
Drive throughs were created for the convenience of people, so they did not have to get out of the car to wait in a line. Or so they did not have to unload the car and go thrrough the store with a bunch of kids in tow. Typically, drive-up service is quicker, and lessens the need for a larger parking area. Lastly, drive up also lessens the need for a larger resteraunt as well, because those people will not be coming in to take up space while being served, or waiting for food.
If it was so the consumer could eat and drive, then there would be no drive-up licquor stores, because the hypothisis would be that it is ok to drink and drive. Yet, the drive-up licquor stores exist.
Click to expand...

Except it's illegal to drink liquor and drive. It's not illegal to drink coffee and drive. That particular detail is kind of hard to get around, lol.
 
It is illegal to do so, I agree, but then why are there drive-up licquor stores? We DO have them in Mass, You DO have them in Maine, and I was using it as a point against your hypothesis about why drive-thru was created, and what should be expected when using/having one.

If MacDonalds served the coffee at a temp that people would not get scalded, never mind burned, then we would all complain the coffee was too cold. Our mouths can handle typically handle a heat that is higher than what might scald us on the outside. Take a sip of hot tea or coffee sometime, and then stick you finger in the same cup, and you will find you pull your finger our of the coffee/tea much fast than you swallowed it.
As for the saw operator, HE is the one who bought the saw, and if he got his hands into a position to cut his fingers, then he probably also did not use the mechanical devices that make it very hard to cut yourself. Impossible, no, but the "safety devices" decrease the chance of it happenning.
As for SawStop, My OPINION is that they are the ones who helped bring this lawsuit to court. Is this fact, no, but once again, after having met the person who "invented" it, the personality might lead most people to the same conclusion. They also create a dangerous precedent, because their saw does retract when WET <not gree< wood hits the blade, and this causes a dangerous kickback.
It is real funny that the thing we are talking about is in reference to driving, when way back in the late 1800's and early 1900's the forefathers back then said that self-propelled vehicles were inherently dangerous, would be misused, and could cause all kinds of ruckus. They were not allowed in many places where people were going to congest, were only allowed top speeds less than walking speed, and had to have some sort of pre-entry warning, i.e. a man waving a red or yellow flag approx 100 ft in front of the vehicle as it was driven through town.
Lastly, when are WE going to be held accountable for our own actions ever again? No matter what happens in life, things can always be twisted around so that we are NOT responsible for our own actions. Just like the skier in Killington who sued because he was doing flips on the mogul trail, missed, and broke his neck. It is a semi-inherently dangerous sport, just like a rapidly spinning blade is an inherently dangerous object, and there fore should be conducted at ones own risk, under NORMAL cirumstances.
Hopefully I will leave this thread alone from here on because as far as I am concerned, people ought to be responsible for their actions in a case like this. If the saw had broke, and caused the blade to move in a way to cut the individual, then yes, I would say he has a case.

Jerry
 
jkeithrussell said:
...a manufacturer of a product taking reasonable precautions to make those products safe for the intended user.
Click to expand...
The biggest problem I have is imposing safety standards on manufacturers whose products meet standards they believe are reasonable, and who honestly EXPLAIN the dangers to potential users.
Let's look at the Table Saw as a decent example. I don't know of a single user who thinks the TS is a completely safe tool. There are inherent dangers in using one IF one does NOT pay attention and use best practices.
However, using said practices, it's a fairly safe tool.
I'd like to see the transcripts in this case 'cause I'd bet the user didn't adhere to best practices and got hurt through his own unsafe use.

Just because the tool may be made safer doesn't reasonably mean it shall be made safer.

jkeithrussell said:
...The McDonalds case is a good "law and society" type of case because it highlights a lot of conflicting interests that we have (or at least that some of us have). Some of you guys write as if you don't care a whit if someone is injured, but by and large our society does care about protecting consumers...
Click to expand...

I never paid any attention to the McD case; you're correct in suggesting many of us simply believe the woman got burned because she was careless and acting without being sensible.
You may believe she got what she deserved -- I'll leave it that we'll agree to disagree. She may have been due medical coverage but not the huge sum she got.

My personal belief is that so long as the manufacturer or vendor honestly and completely informs the buyer or user of the risks, then the risk belongs to the buyer or user. It's not that I don't care if someone is injured; it's that businesses should be free to provide the level of quality they want to provide and so long as they disclose the risks, the market will determine their success or failure.
 
Power Feeders...

Seems to me that a $200 Power Feeder will remedy the lost finger issue, as well as kick-backs. It's a one time purchase, as opposed to the expensive replacement of the SawStop cartridge and saw blades... but then you would eliminate one more need for trial lawyers...
 
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom