

Man wins $1.5m in first of its kind saw case - absconditus
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/malden/articles/2010/03/06/man_wins_15m_in_first_of_its_kind_saw_case/

======
dlytle
This is absolutely ridiculous. If he wanted a saw with Sawstop, he should have
paid the money to buy one with it!

For a comparison, a Sawstop cabinet saw intended for home woodworkers was (as
of July 09) $2900. Ryobi's MOST expensive table saw that I've seen was listed
at $299.

So, the guy sued a budget tool maker for not including patented technology
that's included in models 10 times more expensive than the one he (probably)
purchased.

And he won.

If Ryobi loses on appeal, it's going to be a crying shame.

For a (possibly terrible) analogy, it's like someone buying a small cheap car,
getting in a wreck, and then suing the car manufacturer because their car
isn't as safe as the highest-end luxury cars. I wish I could say it was
unbelievable, but it's clearly occured.

~~~
wheaties
No, the real question is why did he get money for being careless. If I put on
my skates wrong as a kid, fell down and bumped by head, know what happened? My
mother yelled at me for not being careful. Now, we sue the skate manufacturer.

~~~
anigbrowl
That's a big assumption. We don't know the circumstances of the accident.

------
carterschonwald
Since it seems that those who have commented on this thus far are focusing on
the wrong aspects (or at least it seems so to me), heres some important
context.

1) The reason why most table saw manufacturers did not adopt the "sawstop"
skin contact detection technology when it first came out (easily more than 5
years ago i believe, possibly even earlier) has to do with that change being
possibly legally considered an admission of liability which was previously not
there, which would open the avenue for many more lawsuits

2) Accordingly, the reason why this case is a big deal is not because it opens
up the window more for old injuries, but because now the manufacturers will be
in the situation of needing to consider the tradeoff between cost of liability
for past injuries since the introduction of sawstop, and the cost of liability
for all new injuries (presumably by having all new saws have the option of the
sawstop style tech, they would have no more future liability).

in otherwords, this legal ruling broke a shitty nash equilibrium

~~~
jasonlotito
I also heard the problem with the technology was it was very finicky. For
example, wet wood would cause it to discharge, which would ruin the blade and
I believe damage the machine. Could be wrong though.

~~~
weaksauce
I don't know about damaging the machine but wet wood has a similar capacitance
to our fingers and that is why it stops the blade like that.

I wonder if the system can evolve the way airbags did for cars? In the
beginning airbags would go off with little provocation; now they are smart
enough to realize that they should not go off at all even in a mild crash.

~~~
moe
Here's a good video of the mechanism:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3mzhvMgrLE>

I'm not sure there's much wiggle room in terms of "finger detection" (as
others have said, conductivity of wet wood is just very similar), but perhaps
the brake could be designed in a way that doesn't trash the machine every time
it goes off.

------
anigbrowl
There is considerably more to this story than first meets the eye. I, too,
first thought 'reverse patent troll' but now I am considerably less sure.

[http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2010/03/sawstop...](http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2010/03/sawstop_saw_brake_safety_devic.html)

 _In 2002, Ryobi, which initially signed a contract with SawStop, pulled out.
Manufacturers, interested at first, refused to license their device. Gass
remembered they told him, "Safety doesn't sell." [...] Saws currently on the
market can not be retrofitted with SawStop's device. Manufacturers would have
to redesign saws, which could cause a price increase of about $150. [...]_

This puts quite a different cast on things, and when you look at the whole
article it's hard not to wonder if the industry colluded to put up barriers to
a new entrant. I can't make up my mind, and am going to read the court
transcript before I form a conclusion. As with the lady who got a big award
from McDonalds for spilling coffee on herself, what seemed on the surface to
be a junk lawsuit was actually much more complex, with the defendants having
extensive foreknowledge and choosing not to address the issue for economic
reasons.

Edit: court's opinion is not online yet, and the original complaint is too
brief to warrant forming a conclusion.

~~~
dantheman
This is different though, in the case of McDonalds she was not aware of the
risk, whereas this guy obviously was. If people actually wanted this device
then it would be for sale. When working with machinery a level of caution is
required and a lot of safety devices can cause problems -- what can be cut
without tripping the device, or slow work down.

~~~
anigbrowl
But the device _is_ for sale. I agree that power tools are dangerous, but we
don't yet know the exact circumstances of the accident. The question is not so
much whether the customer was aware of the risk, but whether the manufacturer
was aware and chose to do nothing to mitigate it. Ryobi was at the point of
signing a contract to license the technology 8 years ago and suddenly pulled
out. Saying that 'safety doesn't sell', if verifiable, suggests their
misgivings were economic rather than technical. Past similar cases, such as
the Ford Pinto, usually go very poorly for the defendants.

This could result in an awfully big class-action lawsuit if the ruling is
upheld. From the same link: _According to the Journal of Trauma, an estimated
565,670 table-saw-related injuries were treated from 1990 to 2007 in U.S.
emergency rooms. The vast majority involved a hand coming in contact with the
blade, and about 10 percent ended in amputation._

If we estimate the average cost of an amputation in medical bills and lost
future productivity at $100,000, then this would represent a $5.6 billion loss
to the economy. This case is going to be fought tooth and nail, perhaps all
the way to the Supreme Court.

~~~
dantheman
The dangers with the ford pinto problem was faulty design; they gas tank was
in the wrong place. Whereas with a table saw the dangers are well known. Now
if something went wrong and the safety device on the machine failed due to a
defect then you might have a point. As it is, it's a saw -- it cuts things you
put into it, if you put your finger in it will get cut. I don't believe it is
at all comparable to the ford pinto.

------
brk
Wow, this sounds like a massive underground patent-licensing play for SawStop.
<http://www.sawstop.com/>

Another bullshit lawsuit that leads us towards a world covered in Nerf.

~~~
forinti
Why didn't he buy a saw with SawStop??

Also, I wonder if he is a professional carpenter. If he is, he would know
about SawStop. If he is not, he shouldn't be using this equipment.

~~~
dlytle
From what I've found checking online, saws with SawStop are multiple thousands
of dollars. ($2900 for their home-carpenter, table saw version.)

Ryobi is a budget toolmaker. I'd bet that the reason he didn't buy one was
Sawstop is because he decided that his chances of getting hurt were low enough
to justify saving the $1-2k extra that a Sawstop saw would cost him.

~~~
Frazzydee
Well, that was his decision. Sorry to be so cold.

If they want to force manufacturers to include this technology, legislate it.

------
duck
This proves what we already know - people are idiots. The dude with missing
fingers is an idiot for sticking his hand in a spinning blade. The judge is an
idiot for not throwing this case out and the jury is 12 idiots that found the
table saw maker guilty.

My grandfather cut all four of his finger tips off in a planer and I know the
only thing he thought was - "that was an idiot thing to do". If I cut my leg
half-off with my chainsaw that is the first and only thing I would think of
too... but so many people don't want to take any share of the responsibility
and we end up with this. I will step off the box now.

------
raganwald
American rock climber Tommy Caldwell cut off part of his index finger with a
table saw in 2001. Since then, he has pulled off such notable ascents as Flex
Luthor (5.14d/5.15a), climbing El Capitan all free twice in one day (VI 5.13),
and the Dihedral Wall (VI 5.14a).

I guess it would be difficult for him to go back and sue everyone in sight for
the lack of SawStop ruining his career as a professional climber.

~~~
weaksauce
I thought el cap took a week to ascend? If he did that twice in one day free
that is just absurdly amazing.

~~~
raganwald
It does take most people a week to ascend with aid. That being said, the less
gear you carry, the faster you climb. So the moment you try to ascend
something in a day, you get to leave your poop tube, portaledge, sleeping
bags, food, satellite hookup to HN, and other baggage behind. This makes you
considerably faster.

All that being said, climbing the nose free is astounding. Toomy and his wife
at the time Beth Rodden were the third and fourth people to climb it free.
Lynn Hill was the first to do it in 1993, and the first to do it in a day in
1994. In the next sixteen years only one other person pulled it off.

Her line "It goes, boys" is one of the all-time greatest statements about the
ability of a woman to equal or best a man in athletic competition. Here's some
footage, including her entrance into the near-mythical "changing corners" at
around 0:50 or so:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KlA77j6xAc>

Anyhoo, Tommy doing it twice in one day is ridiculous, once on the nose and
once on another route. Sick. And he did it with just nine fingertips! Maybe
the guy suing should actually pay Ryobi, it might be that fingers hold you
back...

------
noonespecial
Yeah. Next stop, super expensive table saws that don't cut. Three cheers for
tort.

