On 25 Oct 2006 17:35:47 -0700, wrote:


Frank Boettcher wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 12:07:37 -0700, wrote:


Frank Boettcher wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 07:25:59 -0700, wrote:


Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:02:05 GMT, "CW" wrote:

I don't believe it.

Nor do I. But at least it is more believable than the guy who was
posting on the Saw Stop thread that his wife was a surgeon that does a
thousand a year.

Keep in mind that some injuries require multiple operations to repair.

My neighbor, who lost two fingers to a table saw had one restored,
but after two years had it re-amputated as the previous operation(s)
were not adequately successful.


It doesn't correlate statistically with my experience as a maker of
saws in defense of personal injury claims and providing individuals as
technical experts in depositions.

E.g. a home-user who removed his guard
is not likely to even consider suing.

Not accurate.

How is that not accurate?

Cases are filed, just not necessarily won.

I didn't deny that cases are filed or won. I speculated that
a home-user who removed his guard is not likely to even
consider suing. That implies that such suits would be rare,
not nonexistant, although no one in thid thread has presented
an example of such a suit--yet, despite the fact that we have
had examples of accidents presented.


And I would contend that your speculation is in error.

But you actually discuss a matter not dispositive as to
the question of what proportion of the injured sues or
seriously considers suing.

It is not that your comments are wrong or even questionable,
they just don't address that particular question.


Manufacturer has the obligation to "Guard and Warn" failure to do
either puts them in a bad position in an action.

Yes, that is one reason why I expect that most people who injure
themselves after removing their guards never consider suing.
They may not have been smart enough to avoid injury
but maybe they are smart or honest enough to realize that
if they ignored the manufacturer's warnings and removed the
manufacturer's safety device, they don't have a case.

Another reason may be that most of the injuries that do require
professional treatment are (hopefully) relatively trivial--mere
stitches
required.

Keep in mind that there is a reason why you see news items about
people winning seemingly trivial suits--they are rare. If they were
commonplace, they wouldn't be newsworthy.

And I would contend that you are in error with this statement also.
I've served on the liability committee of a fortune 100 company (not
the woodworking machinery company) and can assure you that the vast
majority of cases are settled without going to court simply because it
cost the defendant less to do so, win or lose.
The vast majority of those potential cases were without merit.

I didn't argue that meritless (dare I say fraudulent) suits are
not an expensive problem, only that it is rare for a plaintiff
to win one that actually DOES go to trial.

OK please tell me how that matters. If most are trivial or without
merit and most are settled by paying off the those intitiating the
suit, how does that matter whether it goes to trial other than
semantics.

I prepared a point by point response to your post, but then thought
about those papers I signed about conflict of interest, release of
sensitive or damaging information, etc. etc. Since it is a gray area
and this is Usenet and not worthy of taking a chance, I deleted it
all. However, my opinion, formed as an individual who ran an
operation that made a high volume of table saws, remains the same. And
your opinion is based on.......


That the vast majority of cases are settled out-of-court
does not address the question of what proportion of the
injured has (seriously) contemplated suing. For every
meritless suit there may be ten or more equally injured
people who lack the chutzpah to sue.




Despite having Usenet access I still think that decent
(even if careless) people are the majority.