Man wins $1.5 million in Ryobi table saw lawsuit

[Ed62]

It would be really scary if this went the way it calls for. Any company that makes anything would have to worry about lawsuits.

I'm sitting here with no shoes on, and the chair just rolled over one of my toes when I shifted my weight around. But here's the kicker..........the chair has no toe guard, and doesn't even have a warning attached that would suggest it might not be a good idea to use it without wearing shoes. These companies just have to make things a little more user friendly.

Ed

[Alex Franke]

...the chair has no toe guard, and doesn't even have a warning attached that would suggest it might not be a good idea to use it without wearing shoes.

No kidding. At some point our society needs to demand that consumers have a little more common sense and be a little more responsible -- not be better protected or warned.*

* Not intended to be a political statement or promote any political discussion. I am not a licensed attorney. Void where prohibited. May cause sudden death. Experienced driver, closed course. Not suitable for human consumption. This is not a toy. No warranty, express or implied. Contact a doctor immediately if you experience an erection for more than four hours. Harmful or fatal if swallowed. Non transferable. Do not leave child in trunk unattended. Handle with care. This end up. May contain dark matter. Slippery when wet. Keep away from open flames and black holes. Use only approved replacement parts. Known in the State of California to cause birth defects. I'm Alex Franke and I approved this message.

[woodturner]

When we make a simple, yet fundamental change to American jurisprudence - loser pays.

The problem with that approach is that it discourages legitimate lawsuits as well. Under the present system, in many cases, a litigant with limited funded can file a legitimate claim and win, recovering his court costs from the loser.

Put another way, "loser pays" discriminates against the individual and favors businesses and other entities with "deep pockets". It penalizes the victim. It doesn't work well in a democracy. If European countries ever decide to become democratic, I think this practice will end.

[cabinetman]

Whether the guy actually collects will be interesting to see. A defective product is one thing, stupidity is another. To ultimately be able to collect for being stupid is stupid.

As a business owner, and manufacturer of products used by the public, I am up to my ears in insurance. Those costs have to be add ons. Add to that the costs for Workman's Comp, which by the way pays for those "accidental" injuries to employees that stick their fingers in the blade.

The statements made above are not political, religious, or sexual in nature, or intended to be. Any affiliation with persons alive or dead, or who never existed, even in comic books is purely coincidental.
.

[leehljp]

No kidding. At some point our society needs to demand that consumers have a little more common sense and be a little more responsible -- not be better protected or warned.*
[SIZE="1"]

I think common sense died! I see his obitS in the Darwin awards almost daily!

[tommyt654]

Good read,.., http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/...blesaw-lawsuit and more from that Leech,.., http://www.oregonlive.com/business/i...ety_devic.html

[Old Lurker]

As a business owner, and manufacturer of products used by the public, I am up to my ears in insurance. Those costs have to be add ons. Add to that the costs for Workman's Comp, which by the way pays for those "accidental" injuries to employees that stick their fingers in the blade.

The statements made above are not political, religious, or sexual in nature, or intended to be. Any affiliation with persons alive or dead, or who never existed, even in comic books is purely coincidental.
.

Apparently workman's comp wasn't enough for the plaintiff because he sued the makers of Ryobi. This accident didn't happen at home, it happened at his job. In the OP I posted the link to Scribd which has the complaint. Osario was cutting flooring for PT Hardwood floor when that happened.

pthardwoodflooring.com

I guess it doesn't matter if they weren't using a commercial/industrial grade saw instead of a DIYer saw for a place of business. Then again, Powermatics and other ones aren't using the Sawstop technology either.

[Shep]

Those were some good reads. I still think it's funny that some people feel that table saw manufactures should incorporate this technology no mater what the price. I'm sure if the price for the license were less, more companies would adopt the technology. For 8% of the wholesale cost, I can see why they turned saw stop down.

[docrowan]

The problem with that approach is that it discourages legitimate lawsuits as well. Under the present system, in many cases, a litigant with limited funded can file a legitimate claim and win, recovering his court costs from the loser.

Put another way, "loser pays" discriminates against the individual and favors businesses and other entities with "deep pockets". It penalizes the victim. It doesn't work well in a democracy. If European countries ever decide to become democratic, I think this practice will end.

I strongly disagree. The litigant in this case was almost certainly not able to fund this lawsuit (no deep pockets). So how did he proceed with the lawsuit? Naturally his attorney arranged to be paid on contingency, usually about 40% of any judgement received. If no judgement was received, the attorney would be paid nothing for his time.

If the attorney knew that he would not only have to donate his time, but also pay for the defendant's attorney's fees, he would be much more selective about his cases. The main issue is that most frivolous lawsuits are settled before they go to court. Had it not been such a critical case, Ryobi would likely have settled out of court for $100,000 or so - cheap at twice the price compared to going to court. Businesses are all about risk reduction.

Not sure how democracy figures into this. Most European countries are democratic in the sense that the people vote for their elected officials. Switzerland in fact practices direct democracy rather than representative democracy. The "English rule" has been in place since far before the majority of European government policies became left-leaning.

[woodturner]

I strongly disagree. The litigant in this case was almost certainly not able to fund this lawsuit (no deep pockets). So how did he proceed with the lawsuit?

The attorney is only permitted to advance his fees - the filing fees must still be paid by the litigant, and these fees are often significant.

If the attorney knew that he would not only have to donate his time, but also pay for the defendant's attorney's fees, he would be much more selective about his cases.

Even in a "loser pays" system, the attorney would not be liable for the loss, but rather the litigant.

Not sure how democracy figures into this. Most European countries are democratic in the sense that the people vote for their elected officials.

European countries are not democracies in the sense that word is used in the US. England, for example, is technically a monarchy, as are several European countries.

In the US, we strive to preserve the rights of the individual. We are nearly unique in the world in that goal. The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is an example of this. In many countries, it's "guilty until proven innocent" and in some countries, it's essentially impossible to prove that one is innocent.

Were it not for the absence of a "loser pays" system in the US, we would likely not have the consumer and industrial protections and safety we have today. For example, the asbestos lawsuits would likely have not happened in such a system, and the population would continue to be exposed to very dangerous materials.

[docrowan]

Even in a "loser pays" system, the attorney would not be liable for the loss, but rather the litigant.

Not so. An attorney could agree to absorb all court costs and defendant's attorney's fees as part of the contingency agreement. In fact, the attorney would have to do so in order to attract most clients. However, he (or she) would have to be pretty certain of winning the case to risk it.

European countries are not democracies in the sense that word is used in the US. England, for example, is technically a monarchy, as are several European countries.

Since we're splitting hairs here, the US is a republic or representative democracy. The UK is a constitutional monarchy, as is Spain, Denmark, and several others. The monarch of each is head of state, but with virtually no power or say in how the country is run. The citizens ultimately elect the heads of their government. The two largest European countries, France and Germany, are both republics. How citizens go about electing their officials really has nothing to do with their civil laws, however.

In the US, we strive to preserve the rights of the individual. We are nearly unique in the world in that goal. The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is an example of this. In many countries, it's "guilty until proven innocent" and in some countries, it's essentially impossible to prove that one is innocent.

Hmm, not sure which countries you're referring to especially if you're referring to any Western European countries, but remember we are talking about civil courts, not criminal courts. There is no guilty or innocent in civil court and the level of proof is much lower.

Were it not for the absence of a "loser pays" system in the US, we would likely not have the consumer and industrial protections and safety we have today. For example, the asbestos lawsuits would likely have not happened in such a system, and the population would continue to be exposed to very dangerous materials.

The EU in most cases has equal or more strict consumer safety protection than we enjoy in the US. The EU has outright banned all asbestos, the US has not. The UK was the first to recognize asbestos health concerns, back in the 20's, and began (slowly) to take steps. They did not (to the best of my knowledge) bankrupt the companies that produced it, then bankrupt the companies that were unfortunate enough to have even the most tenuous connection to asbestos.

[herb fellows]

How could this guy win this lawsuit based upon a technology that is protect by US patent laws?

I'm assuming because the technology was offered to them, and they turned it down. I guess the plaintiffs lawyer convinced the jury that they had an obligation to buy the licensing to this technology.
Please note the words 'assuming' and 'guess'. That's all anybody here is doing, because nobody has read the transcript of the trial.
For all we know, the plaintiff might have produced an internal memo from the CEO that said 'screw woodworkers, who cares if they lose their fingers'.
My point is, nobody knows for sure just what happened here.

[woodturner]

Not so. An attorney could agree to absorb all court costs and defendant's attorney's fees as part of the contingency agreement.

Not in many or most states in the US - it is illegal for an attorney to pay the client's court costs. Some attorneys do "finagle" the law to advance court costs, but it's risky, and the consequences can be severe if they are caught.

disclaimer - I'm not sure if this is state or federal law, so it could be different in your state.

Here is a link from Florida
http://www.floridabar.org/tfb/TFBCon...1?OpenDocument
"In a contingency fee contract, you and your lawyer agree that the lawyer will not get paid any fees unless you win your case. However, you will be charged for costs such as court filing fees or expenses paid to witnesses. If you win, these expenses may be deducted from your share of the recovery. You will have to pay these costs, even if you lose your case."

[dkerfoot]

A little more gray...

As a business owner, I am surely no friend of excessive litigation. There are lots of good points that have been raised and I really don't have a strong opinion one way or another yet. I do think this is a more nuanced situation than generally described here.

Very large companies made a business decision to pass this technology by. I think they knew there was danger of litigation no matter what they did. Their options were, as I see it:
1. Immediately add it to all saws
2. Have it as an option on some saws
3. Ignore the technology and hope Sawstop quickly goes out of business.

The biggest problem for the other manufacturers is that Sawstop appears to be a viable ongoing concern. Had he run out of cash and gone out of business, they could easily claim that it wasn't practicable. Having Sawstop remain on the market is very bad news for the other manufacturers.

One possible issue, even if they had added it to all saws is liability for other products. If you can do that for tablesaws, why not bandsaws? Routers? Obviously the mechanisms would have to be different, but the flesh-detection could be arguably included in some way, shape or form.

I personally would like to see option two employed and I expect at some point, other manufacturers will provide it as an optional upgrade. At this point, my opinion shifts squarely in favor of the manufacturer, unless they aggressively run up the price far beyond their own cost. The consumer should have a choice and be informed of the option. At that point it is their decision to make.

Interestingly, Workman's Comp is the very best reason for an employer to buy Sawstop saws. A single accident would pay for many of the more expensive saws. I have a 14 year old who is just starting woodshop in school. I personally hope they have Sawstop saws and think they are foolish if they do not.

It is worth noting that the choice is not between paying for the Sawstop technology or ignoring it. There are many options for creating a device that performs the same basic function, while not running afoul of the Sawstop patent. My guess is that most of you have an MP3 player that is not an Eiger Labs MPMan! (the 1st MP3 Player on the market). My guess is that the large manufacturers are exploring those options right now.

Finally, if you really think the situation is bad here, Google: health and safety uk abuse


.

[cgallery]

My thoughts:

(1) 75% chance this award will go away on motion or appeal.

(2) Manufacturers are going to go after SawStop patents w/ a vengeance. The design couples a lot of off-the-shelf technology. They are going to pick it apart bit by bit.

(2a) We will see similar technology (albeit w/ a different brake design) on lots of saws starting in 2-3 years.