What really happened to Osorio + Sawstop

[germdoc]

Yeah! No! You can't bundle the medical field with that of machinery. People expect to pay high costs for medical bills. Otherwise our doctors would be driving VW's instead of BMW's.
The saw being provided had no correlation to this guys injuries. He would have gotten injured, no matter the saw make. Consider he modified it tremendously from what the maker intended. Could a person that modifies a prescription sue the doctor? Yeah and even likely, but that still doesn't make it at all correct.
This is my whole point in this. They are suing the wrong entity. A suit for this should not even exist.

I expect the executives at OWT (Ryobi) and other tool companies drive BMW's or Lexuses at a higher rate than docs, at least this doc...

The similarity re' tort law is a contract. A doc contracts with a patient to provide a treatment that will be effective and hopefully not harm him when used as intended. A manufacturer contracts with a seller for exactly the same thing. If harm occurs, the question becomes was it preventable? It's very simple really.

Re' McD's coffee: the McDonald's coffee lawsuit has been debunked so many times it's not funny, but (having treated burn injuries) if I were offered "substantially less than $600K" to experience 3rd degree burns in my groin I'd decline. During discovery McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992, some involving third-degree burns substantially similar to the plaintiff's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck...'s_Restaurants

The money quote is here: "Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her medical costs, which were $11,000, but the company offered only $800." Stupid. As a result of this lawsuit, McD's along with every other food company changed their practices in favor of customer safety, which they should have done all along.

[vaking]

I am less optimistic about the case being overturned on appeal. I am not a lawyer but I believe we have a system with trial by jury for a reason. Jury finds the defendant guilty or not based on evidence presented. Appelate court has no jury. Judges in appelate court do not overturn the jury decision because they think the jury came to stupid or wrong decision. Their job is to review if the original trial had any procedural violations, if there were inappropriate actions by the judge, etc. If the process in the original trial was properly followed - then the jury decision will likely stand. I am not familiar enough with this case to decide if procedures were followed. I would think that there may have been violations. For instance I would have objected to Steve Gass being a witness in this case simply because he has conflicting interest. He as an owner of a patent will be a beneficiary if OWT is found guilty. He also probably had been in contact with OWT prior to the case when he offered them to license the technology and they rejected it. In my opinion his personal involvement in this technology disqualifies him from being a witness in this case. If lawyers for OWT raised objections to his participation and the judge allowed it anyway - that would be a procedural violation in my opinion. But if OWT did not raise such objections - no rule was broken. Again - appelate court is not likely to review evidence in the case or to consider any new evidence. Its decision will be based only on the grounds if the original trial broke any legal rules. The jury sometimes finds in favor of a person vs corporation for simpathy reasons rather than actual broken law. But the jury does have the right to come with its own decision whether defendant is guilty or not. Appelate court is not here to judge the jury.

[cgallery]

The money quote is here: "Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her medical costs, which were $11,000, but the company offered only $800." Stupid.

As a side-note, I think $11k to perform "those" skin grafts on a 79-YO woman is pretty darn reasonable.

That doctor DID earn his pay.

[tommyt654]

Hers a thought being bandied aout elsewhere. What if you lose the case intentionally because it will not set a precedent, which an appeals case would and now you bring your A team of lawyers for the appeal proving the plaintiff did nothing to furthur his safety on the saw and in fact removed safety features that could have prevented the injury, Now if you win you have set a precedent via the appeals court and all future cases will fall to the wayside. Sounds like a plan to me.

[Mr__Bill]

Hers a thought being bandied aout elsewhere. What if you lose the case intentionally because it will not set a pprecesent, which an appeals case would and now you bring your A team of lawyers for the appeal proving the plaintiff did nothing to furthur his safety on the saw and in fact removed safety features that could have prevented the injury, Now if you win you have set a precedent via the appeals court and all future cases will fall to the wayside. Sounds like a plan to me.

Don't think things work that way, VALING explains it well here.

Again - appelate court is not likely to review evidence in the case or to consider any new evidence. Its decision will be based only on the grounds if the original trial broke any legal rules. The jury sometimes finds in favor of a person vs corporation for simpathy reasons rather than actual broken law. But the jury does have the right to come with its own decision whether defendant is guilty or not. Appelate court is not here to judge the jury.

Bill
FYI Shakespeare's "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" (Henry VI) is about ending the rule of law and not about his distaste for lawyers.

[phi1l]

From the few cases I have seen, on most of these types of cases, the judge lets in just about everything presented. Appeals ask for irrelevant & inappropriate evidence to be excluded in a new trial. So I expect that OWT will ask for anything related to SAWStop to be declared irrelevant, & excluded from a new trial.

[Gator95]

Would be interesting to see the real legal arguments in the case. I'm guessing that the plaintiff lawyer brought forward previous cases that showed non-use of available safety equipment did not absolve defendant for not using best available technology, and the jury was instructed accordingly.

Could be the manner in which the defendant was (miss)using the saw was not admissible.

[LinuxRandal]

I am less optimistic about the case being overturned on appeal. I am not a lawyer but I believe we have a system with trial by jury for a reason. Jury finds the defendant guilty or not based on evidence presented. Appelate court has no jury. Judges in appelate court do not overturn the jury decision because they think the jury came to stupid or wrong decision. Their job is to review if the original trial had any procedural violations, if there were inappropriate actions by the judge, etc. If the process in the original trial was properly followed - then the jury decision will likely stand. I am not familiar enough with this case to decide if procedures were followed. I would think that there may have been violations. For instance I would have objected to Steve Gass being a witness in this case simply because he has conflicting interest. He as an owner of a patent will be a beneficiary if OWT is found guilty. He also probably had been in contact with OWT prior to the case when he offered them to license the technology and they rejected it. In my opinion his personal involvement in this technology disqualifies him from being a witness in this case. If lawyers for OWT raised objections to his participation and the judge allowed it anyway - that would be a procedural violation in my opinion. But if OWT did not raise such objections - no rule was broken. Again - appelate court is not likely to review evidence in the case or to consider any new evidence. Its decision will be based only on the grounds if the original trial broke any legal rules. The jury sometimes finds in favor of a person vs corporation for simpathy reasons rather than actual broken law. But the jury does have the right to come with its own decision whether defendant is guilty or not. Appelate court is not here to judge the jury.

After watching a case for seven years, it is a lot more convoluted then that.
The case I have been watching, if you want a headache, is the SCO, verses, Novell, RedHat, IBM, SUSE, etc.


EDIT: Also Expert witnesses, can have bias, in which case it is the other parties duty to show that.

[natausch]

Judges are often unwilling to allow the lawyers of one side to point out the absurdity of the case too strongly to avoid appearing biased in front of the Jury.

The problem is with juries in general and specifically in this case because of the ruling. From the article it appears that Osario and/or the company he may or may not have been working for intentionally removed all safety features then claimed that another safety feature (which can also be disabled) was required to make the saw "not defective." Simple absurdity.

Your car is not defective because it doesn't have the auto crash detecting technology available in a BMW that is five times the cost. Cheap is not defective, it's just cheap.

[germdoc]

You might want to read recent update at PWW blog:

http://blogs.popularwoodworking.com/editorsblog/

Re' the facts of the case, I find it incredible as the complaint alleges that the plaintiff operated the saw "with all due care". He took off the guards and made a cut without the rip guide! Obviously OWT was in negotiations with Gass and decided to stiff him and go their own way--doesn't make them look good, but is it negligent? Good question--depends a lot on the timeline.

Re' impact of lawsuit--it's clear that saw manufacturers will have to come up with similar technology to make their laws safer. They should be able to do something for direct drive saws as well. In that sense the threat of lawsuits is a good thing, as I said before.

[BigguyZ]

I found this part of the article very interesting:
"During the meeting, it was established that 700,000 to 800,000 table saws are sold each year. Of that number, 89 percent are lower-cost saws, or saws selling at $150 or less. In that case around 625,000 small table saws are sold each year."

They also pointed out that there is nothing that incorporates the flesh detecting device into a direct drive saw like this. So they expect to enact a sweeping change that wouldn't be do-able in almost 90% of all saws sold? That means that saw sales would likely drop by half to 3/4 of today's sales, due to the higher price point. That would end the industry, it seems to me. There would be saw makers, but only in the mid-to-upper end. So you'd have a handful of established makers- PM, Delta, Craftsman, (sawstop), and maybe a few more. Ryobi would be out of the market, as well as a LOT of other makers.

[vaking]

It is an interesting article although many things we have already figured out here.
We already knew that majority saws sold are low cost units (they say 89%). Combine this with the fact that people who use high-end saws are more knowledgable than users of low-end saws and it becomes clear that low-end saws account for well over 90% of table saw accidents. Introducing sawstop technology to high-end saws only will not make a significant change in number of accidents.
We also knew that saw-stop technology at its current form is not compatible with low-end saws (direct drive blade mounting). If Saw-stop at its current form is forced in some way - low-end saws will dissappear. That means the return of home-made table saws (super low-end) and that will result in more accidents, not less. Home-made saws (circular saw mounted under the table) are less safe than BTS-15.

[phi1l]

Actually I think a new category will pop up: "The kit Table saw". They just sell you the parts & you are responsible for correct assembly & they have no liability...

[vaking]

I want to clarify something.
I agree with many things that have been said here. I believe that Ryobi is not really at fault for the accident. I think the blame for the accident is divided between incompetent operator and his employer. Among the things that I see:
a). Bench saw is supposed to be used with the workbench. Flooring contractor should be using saw with the stand - contractor or at least job-site saw. BTS-15 was a wrong saw - improperly used equipment.
b). Making a cut without any guide (rip fence or miter guide) is very unsafe. Any operator should have been trained on it. Ryobi manual says it and it says to read the manual before using saw. This operator obviously did not read the manual.
c). Operator had the blade extended 3" above the table. Clearly he was making a through cut - the thickest flooring plank is less than 1" thick. For that cut blade guard (and riving knife) supplied by Ryobi is adequate. Operator had no reasons to remove supplied safety equipment. Plaintiff's argument that saw had been inherently unsafe is not valid - operator made it unsafe with his own actions.

Having said that - I do believe in the system of trial by jury. It might not be perfect but it is better than trial by judges only. Being tried by a bunch of legal professionals is worse than being tried by normal people. It may very well be that OWT is at fault for the output of this specific legal case. The jury had heard the case already and concluded that OWT is guilty. That, in my opinion, means one of 3 things.

1). Lawyers for OWT did not take seriously the process of jury selection and allowed the jury with no common sense to make a decision. In this case - they got what they deserved.
2) Lawyers for OWT did not present their arguments clearly and did not convince the jury of all the violations the plaintiff committed. They also did not demonstrate to the jury that Saw-stop technology is not compatible with saws of that type. A more suitable and safer equipment was available to the contractor but he bought the cheapest saw on the market. Again - OWT legal team was negligent and negligence is a crime.
3). OWT lawyers attempted to demonstrate all those things to the jury but were prevented from it by actions of a judge. In this case - OWT may be able to convince appelate court that this was not a fair trial and then appelate court will send the case back to lower court for a new trial. If not that - the case is lost.

[LinuxRandal]

Actually I think a new category will pop up: "The kit Table saw". They just sell you the parts & you are responsible for correct assembly & they have no liability...

Or as currently sold, a Gil Built kit from St. Charles MO.