On 08 Oct 2011 14:42:57 GMT, Han wrote:

The ridiculously frivolous suit of an ignorant laborer injured because of
stupidity has been upheld at the Appellate Court:
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opin...-1824P-01A.pdf

As Mark Twain and others have said, "First, we shoot all the lawyers"

Guilty parties he
1. Whoever removed the blade guard - I can rip boards with the blade
guard in place. The things that requre removal of the guard (rabbet
on a flooring transition piece) are so infrequent tha I have to stop
and think about how the guard is removed.
2. The injured employee for being stupid (using a saw without a blade
guard). Unfortunately, our society makes "stupidity" a suitable trait
for litigation: blame anyone but me.
3. The employer for not buying a SawStop shop saw for use on a job
site - physically impractical if not impossible. The contractor
version of the SawStop is a recent addition to the line.
4. The "expert witness" who obviously has a monetary interest in this
case (publicly faulting the competition). His connection with a
competing product automatically makes him a biased witness and his
testimon should not have been allowed. That would have forced the
blame back to parties 1 or 3, none of whom have pockets as deep as
Ryobi and the lawyers would have gotten their cut of a much smaller
pie. If the injured employee removed the guard, he has no case.

I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.

John