Tablesaw User Sues (and wins big) for Lack of Flesh-Detection Technology
Wednesday, March 17, 2010 at 8:14AM A Massachusetts man has finally received a judgement against toolmaker Ryobi after a devastating accident involving one of the company's table saws.
Richard Sullivan, a Boston lawyer hired by insurance companies to handle workers' compensation cases, was the first to take on the manufacturers. He watched a CNN video of SawStop's demonstration, and in 2006 filed a complaint on behalf of Carlos Osorio, who mutilated his hand on a Ryobi saw while laying hardwood floors, requiring five surgeries and $384,000 in medical bills.
Last week, Osorio's legal team, which includes national firm Boies, Schiller and Flexner, pointed to SawStop's sales as evidence that the technology is not only mechanically feasible but financially viable. They asked for $250,000 in damages, but the jury awarded Osorio, now 30, $1.5 million.
The case revolves around the apparent negligence demonstrated by toolmakers choosing not to adopt the SawStop flesh-detection technology.
Carpinello likens flesh-detection technology to airbags, which fueled a similar slew of litigation when they were first installed in cars. Automakers without airbags got sued for not adopting the better safety design. Now, all cars have airbags.
The real winner in this case appears, however, to be SawStop. SawStop approached all of the major tablesaw manufacturers with their technology asking for a licensing fee... a fairly typical practice. When met with no-doubt surprising animosity toward the technology by manufacturers, SawStop opted to build their own saws.
I submit to you, though, that if you want a safe car you should buy one with airbags and take defensive driving lessons. I can't fault the car-maker unless some defect in their design or manufacturing was to blame for an accident. Likewise, if you want to make sure your fingers are safe, buy a SawStop.
I struggle to see how toolmakers who have essentially used an unmodified design of tablesaw for decades can be blamed for this.
Source articles listed below under "References."
Feel free to opine in the comments.
Reader Comments (3)
I think the airbag analogy is a flawed one - airbags are only mandated for vehicles using PUBLIC ROADS. They are dangerous tools operated in a public area that affect other people (driver, passengers and pedestrians). In that way it seems reasonable to have The State force automakers to include feasible safety measures.In the case of a tablesaw, it's a private good, operated on private property by a private individual. Why does The State feel they are justified in punishing manufacturers in this case? I guess one could maintain that the "reasonable" metric should be used (which, according to the article, is what they used by saying, "evidence that the technology is not only mechanically feasible but financially viable."), but I'm unconvinced that this is an acceptable use of the police powers of The State.
Greetings and Salutations.
I think this is a terrible judgement, and hopefully will be overturned on appeal. While I have great sympathy for the fellow that ran his fingers through the sawblade, I agree that if it was that big a concern he (or his company) should have purchased a saw from SawStop and used it.
Now, one problem I have with the SawStop company is that, just after they failed to get any enthusiasm for their technology from the saw manufacturers, they moved on to the federal government, to try and get legislation passed to make their technology MANDATORY! That was such a scummy move that it really damaged the company's reputation and slowed enthusiasm for their product
regards
Dave Mundt
In my opinion, this is bad law, and will be overturned on appeal. Given that the typical power tool 'instruction manual' is filled with page after page of safety warnings, Ryobi is in good shape legally.
In my experience, 'accidents' are rarely ever the result of random chance; most accidents are the result of a combination of human actions, any of which, done differently (or not at all) would have 'prevented' the accident. If I wear safety goggles, I'm reducing the chance of eye injury. If maintain and use my saw correctly, it reduces the chance of kickback. If I keep my work area clean and free of cables or debris, it reduces the chance of falling or tripping. If I have a work ethic of always working carefully and not rushing (and only work with others who have the same ethic), almost all 'accidents' can be eliminated.
There are lots of things that Carlos Osorio could have done that would have prevented his injury -- using a SawStop saw would have been one of them. Suing Ryobi after the fact is just tort abuse on the part of an opportunistic lawyer.