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



--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 10/8/2011 10:42 AM, 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


I expect this will eventually wind up in the Supreme Court, where it
will be overturned.

On 10/8/2011 9:42 AM, 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 I said on another forum this morning with regard to the Osario case,
lawyers routinely abuse the judicial system as a part of their business
model.


--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

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

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 12:31:13 -0400, news wrote:

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).

Wasn't this the one where the plaintiff was not only ripping without the
guard, he was ripping without a rip fence?

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Oct 8, 12:31*pm, wrote:

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

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.

R

On 10/8/2011 12:58 PM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, wrote:

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

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.

R

The problem with this seems to be that Sawstop has the technology very
thoroughly patented, and is not willing to license for anything
reasonable, then they start a suit to result in their tech being required.

My understanding is that the principal in Sawstop is actually a patent
lawyer.

Stuart

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 13:28:30 -0400, Stuart Wheaton
wrote:

On 10/8/2011 12:58 PM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, wrote:

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

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.

R

The problem with this seems to be that Sawstop has the technology very
thoroughly patented, and is not willing to license for anything
reasonable, then they start a suit to result in their tech being required.

My understanding is that the principal in Sawstop is actually a patent
lawyer.

You're three for three.

On 10/8/2011 12:28 PM, Stuart Wheaton wrote:
On 10/8/2011 12:58 PM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, wrote:

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

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.

R

The problem with this seems to be that Sawstop has the technology very
thoroughly patented, and is not willing to license for anything
reasonable, then they start a suit to result in their tech being required.

Might be a problem now however Sawstop approached most every
manufacturer about acquiring a license to use the product. They had
their change and thumbed their noses at it.


My understanding is that the principal in Sawstop is actually a patent
lawyer.

Yup!

Stuart Wheaton wrote:


The problem with this seems to be that Sawstop has the technology very
thoroughly patented, and is not willing to license for anything
reasonable, then they start a suit to result in their tech being
required.

A lot of people are saying this, but I'm not so sure it's completely true.
The only things that I have seen that related to licensing fees were the
fees that Gass attempted to get in his conversations with the manufacturers.
I have not heard anyone here state that they have any real information on
the negotiations that were attempted between Gass and any of the
manufacturers. For him to come in high, and be negotiated down, would be
normal business.

On the other hand, the other side of that whole thing is that the lawyers
for the manufacturers tried to avoid any liabilities that would potentially
arise if the manufacturers "admitted" safety issues by adopting this new
technology. While Gass may have been guilty of trying to charge too much
for his product, he's not the one responsible for this line of thinking by
the manufacturers.


My understanding is that the principal in Sawstop is actually a patent
lawyer.


Yes, he is as well as two of his partners in the venture. And that means...
what?

--

-Mike-

On 10/9/2011 5:45 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Stuart Wheaton wrote:



My understanding is that the principal in Sawstop is actually a patent
lawyer.


Yes, he is as well as two of his partners in the venture. And that means...
what?

Well actually it means that Gass and his investors had the knowledge of
how to successfully bring a good idea to market despite the competitions
avoidance to participate.
It is unbelievable how many good ideas get bought and **** caned to keep
it becoming available.

On 10/8/2011 11:58 AM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, wrote:

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

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.

R

Totally agree! I am not too happy about SawStop pushing their product
through government intervention however I am equally unhappy about all
the other other manufacturers that have decided that more safety is too
high a price to pay.

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:02:40 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/8/2011 11:58 AM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, wrote:

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

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.

R

Totally agree! I am not too happy about SawStop pushing their product
through government intervention however I am equally unhappy about all
the other other manufacturers that have decided that more safety is too
high a price to pay.

Do you know what that "price" was?

On 10/8/2011 3:26 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:02:40 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/8/2011 11:58 AM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, wrote:

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

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.

R

Totally agree! I am not too happy about SawStop pushing their product
through government intervention however I am equally unhappy about all
the other other manufacturers that have decided that more safety is too
high a price to pay.

Do you know what that "price" was?

Furthermore, all the people I know who have one in their shops have had
triggers. Some of them were on wet wood, stray metal or other nuisance
reasons, some were for no known reason. None were for human/blade
contact. Each trigger costs at least $100, often more depending on the
value of the blade. This is a solution looking for a problem,
especially when you consider that a standard guard, or any after market
guard would solve the problem just as well.

Stuart

On 10/8/2011 2:26 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:02:40 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/8/2011 11:58 AM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, wrote:

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

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.

R

Totally agree! I am not too happy about SawStop pushing their product
through government intervention however I am equally unhappy about all
the other other manufacturers that have decided that more safety is too
high a price to pay.

Do you know what that "price" was?

I did have a good idea but no longer recall. Right now Bosch has
indicated that the cost would be $55 for their bench top saws.

On Oct 8, 3:02*pm, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 10/8/2011 11:58 AM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, wrote:

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

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. *I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. *They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.


Totally agree! *I am not too happy about SawStop pushing their product
through government intervention however I am equally unhappy about all
the other other manufacturers that have decided that more safety is too
high a price to pay.

In a nutshell. The SawStop guy came out swinging from the get go, the
manufacturer's balked, and it's moved on to the next round. Too early
to tell who the winner will be, but I wouldn't bet against the guy
with the deepest pockets.

R

In article ffec27d9-9389-43f6-a48c-deda65a00827
@i14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com, says...

On Oct 8, 3:02*pm, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 10/8/2011 11:58 AM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, wrote:

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

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. *I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. *They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.


Totally agree! *I am not too happy about SawStop pushing their product
through government intervention however I am equally unhappy about all
the other other manufacturers that have decided that more safety is too
high a price to pay.

In a nutshell. The SawStop guy came out swinging from the get go, the
manufacturer's balked, and it's moved on to the next round. Too early
to tell who the winner will be, but I wouldn't bet against the guy
with the deepest pockets.

Merceces-Benz licenses their antiskid braking patents at no charge (or
did while they were still in force, they may be expired now). If Mr.
Sawstop was really all that interested in preventing injury instead of
lining his own pockets he'd do the same.

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:02:40 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/8/2011 11:58 AM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, wrote:

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

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.

R

Totally agree! I am not too happy about SawStop pushing their product
through government intervention however I am equally unhappy about all
the other other manufacturers that have decided that more safety is too
high a price to pay.
Ever try to cut dampish wood on a saw-stop equipped saw???
Gets real expensive and real difficult real fast.

You can't beat stupid. Make something idiotproof and they just come up
with a better idiot, and another dozen lawyers.

On 10/9/11 12:22 AM, wrote:
Ever try to cut dampish wood on a saw-stop equipped saw???
Gets real expensive and real difficult real fast.


Everything I've read says it's not a problem.
Even so, here's the real issue. Who's cutting soaking wet wood with a
table saw anyway? There are too many other concerns for me to be using
wet wood before I would even approach a table saw with it. If you're
using wood that's wet enough to set off the sawstop, then you deserve to
pay the stupid tax.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Oct 9, 1:22*am, wrote:

* Ever try to cut dampish wood on a saw-stop equipped saw???
Gets real expensive and real difficult real fast.

You can't beat stupid. Make something idiotproof and they just come up
with a better idiot, and another dozen lawyers.

This has been gone over before and you're still spreading
disinformation.

From SawStop's FAQ:

6. Will cutting green or “wet” wood activate the SawStop safety
system?
SawStop saws cut most wet wood without a problem. However, if the wood
is very green or wet (for example, wet enough to spray a mist when
cutting), or if the wood is both wet and pressure treated, then the
wood may be sufficiently conductive to trigger the brake. Accordingly,
the best practice is to dry wet or green wood before cutting by
standing it inside and apart from other wood for about one day. You
can also cut wet pressure treated wood and other conductive material
by placing the saw in bypass mode to deactivate the safety system.

That really doesn't sound too expensive or difficult. Well, other
than that someone would be doing their tablesaw a nasty turn by
cutting wood that was wet enough to spray. If someone is used to
cutting wood that's that wet with their tablesaw, maybe they should
invest in a beater saw and not ruin the good one.

Waiting a day (or ten) for wood to dry doesn't seem like a lot to ask,
especially when nearly every one on this newsgroup has concurred that
you let green wood dry in a stickered pile for a year per inch of
thickness. Peter Follansbee might disagree, but he doesn't use any
power tools at all so his opinion doesn't count.

R

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:02:40 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/8/2011 11:58 AM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, wrote:

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

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.

R

Totally agree! I am not too happy about SawStop pushing their product
through government intervention however I am equally unhappy about all
the other other manufacturers that have decided that more safety is too
high a price to pay.
Ever try to cut dampish wood on a saw-stop equipped saw???
Gets real expensive and real difficult real fast.

There's a button for that you know.

You can't beat stupid. Make something idiotproof and they just come up
with a better idiot, and another dozen lawyers.

On 10/9/2011 12:22 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:02:40 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/8/2011 11:58 AM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, wrote:

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

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.

R

Totally agree! I am not too happy about SawStop pushing their product
through government intervention however I am equally unhappy about all
the other other manufacturers that have decided that more safety is too
high a price to pay.
Ever try to cut dampish wood on a saw-stop equipped saw???
Gets real expensive and real difficult real fast.

You can't beat stupid. Make something idiotproof and they just come up
with a better idiot, and another dozen lawyers.

With this apparently being common knowledge and it most likely coming
with a warning to override the system...... Don't run you car into
telephone poles if you don't want it to have dents. Don't cut damp wood
on your TS it will make the top rust.

Leon wrote:


Totally agree! I am not too happy about SawStop pushing their product
through government intervention however I am equally unhappy about all
the other other manufacturers that have decided that more safety is
too high a price to pay.

My thoughts exactly. I'm not fond of his approach with the CPSC, but that's
just what makes me the loveable fellow that I am. That said - I see nothing
unethical about what he's doing. I see it as more unethical that the
manufacturers chose the route they did.

--

-Mike-

On Oct 8, 3:02*pm, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

"manufacturers that have decided that more safety is too high a price
to pay."

No, it's us. We have decided so with purchase after purchase of low-
cost saws from HFT, etc. When better quality, safer alternatives were
available for twice the price and maybe more.

It is the proverbial Free Market - or is it the fickle fingers of
fate?

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 21:30:12 -0700 (PDT), Hoosierpopi
No, it's us. We have decided so with purchase after purchase of low-
cost saws from HFT, etc. When better quality, safer alternatives were
available for twice the price and maybe more.

And *that* is the story of the entire North American market with the
bulk of it's manufacturing and services contracted somewhere overseas
or out of country. Good for the lifestyle of current generations, not
so good for soon to be future generations.

On 10/9/2011 11:30 PM, Hoosierpopi wrote:
On Oct 8, 3:02 pm, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

"manufacturers that have decided that more safety is too high a price
to pay."

No, it's us. We have decided so with purchase after purchase of low-
cost saws from HFT, etc. When better quality, safer alternatives were
available for twice the price and maybe more.


Cant agree with that statement. The SawStop is not low cost and it is
being well supported by the public. The other manufacturers are
reluctantly adding safety devices only as a result of the popularity and
success of the SawStop. Other manufacturers have had at least 10 years
to come up with their own safety devices since the introduction of the
SawStop. I bet they were thinking that SawStop would fail and then it
would be business as usual. Surprise!

We paid low prices for saws because most of the time a lower price saw
from Taiwan was equal to or better than domestic. In a world market you
have to be competitive, labor unions and over paid salaries are not your
friends.

On 10/8/2011 3:02 PM, Leon wrote:
On 10/8/2011 11:58 AM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, wrote:

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

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.

R

Totally agree! I am not too happy about SawStop pushing their product
through government intervention however I am equally unhappy about all
the other other manufacturers that have decided that more safety is too
high a price to pay.


The manufacturer already provides guards and splitters that provide a
margin of safety that, If used by the operator, would eliminate 99%+ of
all injuries, and has no false triggers that cost hundreds of dollars in
one-shot parts and blades each time they occur.

These are the saws that the consumer is buying.

Maybe each new saw sold by anybody should have a Sawstop Brochure and
price list attached to it, so it will be plain that the purchaser knew
they had an option and they chose otherwise.

Stuart

On 10/10/2011 6:56 AM, Stuart Wheaton wrote:
On 10/8/2011 3:02 PM, Leon wrote:
On 10/8/2011 11:58 AM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, wrote:

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

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.

R

Totally agree! I am not too happy about SawStop pushing their product
through government intervention however I am equally unhappy about all
the other other manufacturers that have decided that more safety is too
high a price to pay.


The manufacturer already provides guards and splitters that provide a
margin of safety that, If used by the operator, would eliminate 99%+ of
all injuries, and has no false triggers that cost hundreds of dollars in
one-shot parts and blades each time they occur.

These are the saws that the consumer is buying.

Maybe each new saw sold by anybody should have a Sawstop Brochure and
price list attached to it, so it will be plain that the purchaser knew
they had an option and they chose otherwise.

Stuart



I think the guards suck, they simply prevent many procedures from being
done on a TS with them installed. Kinda tough to cut a board to length
that needs to be say 60" long with a guard attached, or cut dado's, cove
moldings, 1/4" wide rips, etc.

BUT I think you are spot on with the notion that the manufacturer offers
the SawStop option and there can no longer be any law suits against
manufacturers in this regard.

On 10/8/2011 11:31 AM, wrote:
....

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

_EXTREMELY_ unlikely US Supreme Court would even agree to hear such a
case imo...

--

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 12:49:26 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 10/8/2011 11:31 AM, wrote:
...

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

_EXTREMELY_ unlikely US Supreme Court would even agree to hear such a
case imo...

The ACLU should be all over Gass for attempting to take away the civil
liberties of people and companies.

--
I merely took the energy it takes to pout and wrote some blues.
--Duke Ellington

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 11:17:25 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 12:49:26 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 10/8/2011 11:31 AM, wrote:
...

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

_EXTREMELY_ unlikely US Supreme Court would even agree to hear such a
case imo...

The ACLU should be all over Gass for attempting to take away the civil
liberties of people and companies.

ACLU Companies? Shirley, you jest.

On 10/8/2011 11:31 AM, wrote:
On 08 Oct 2011 14:42:57 GMT, 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"

I believe Mark swiped that thought from Shakespear...

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".
(2 Henry VI, 4.2.59), Butcher to Jack Cade



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

On Oct 8, 2:40*pm, Richard wrote:

Good catch!

I believe Mark swiped that thought from Shakespear...

On Oct 8, 12:31*pm, wrote:
On 08 Oct 2011 14:42:57 GMT, Han wrote:


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

Hard for that to happen as the issue was not raised in the appeal. The
Court cannot rule on aspects of the rial not raisd in the appeals
themselves. (I think, not a lawyer spokesperson)

Hoosierpopi wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, wrote:
On 08 Oct 2011 14:42:57 GMT, Han wrote:


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

Hard for that to happen as the issue was not raised in the appeal. The
Court cannot rule on aspects of the rial not raisd in the appeals
themselves. (I think, not a lawyer spokesperson)

Right. Appellate courts only rule on matters of law. The trial-court jury
determines matters of fact.

On 10/8/2011 11:31 AM, wrote:
On 08 Oct 2011 14:42:57 GMT, 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

Just a minor aside. We bought one of the SawStop machines for another
shop . It is underpowered when compared to the same horsepower Delta
cabinet saw. By underpowered, I mean that you can easily push material
too fast and force the motor to bog and slow - reminiscent of cutting on
the typical contractor type saw. I have only used the thing 2 or 3
times and really don't care for the low power. I have suggested to that
shop manager that he contact them about the power situation as it
seriously compromises the saw's usability in my opinion, he has not seen
fit to do so.

They are on stop block number 7 or 8. Yes, there is a switch to prevent
this happening in wet wood, etc. Once a hidden nail, once a tin foil
backing on some 1/4" MDF, once a fella using an aluminum piece as a push
stick (he swears he didn't touch the blade). once cutting pressure
treated material (too much moisture). This is right at $100 per block.
Yes it does stop the blade and machine RIGHT NOW - it will scare the
tar out of ya they tell me.

At this point I am happy with my old Delta.

On 10/10/2011 5:50 AM, DanG wrote:

Just a minor aside. We bought one of the SawStop machines for another
shop . It is underpowered when compared to the same horsepower Delta
cabinet saw. By underpowered, I mean that you can easily push material
too fast and force the motor to bog and slow - reminiscent of cutting on
the typical contractor type saw. I have only used the thing 2 or 3 times
and really don't care for the low power. I have suggested to that shop
manager that he contact them about the power situation as it seriously
compromises the saw's usability in my opinion, he has not seen fit to do
so.

They are on stop block number 7 or 8. Yes, there is a switch to prevent
this happening in wet wood, etc. Once a hidden nail, once a tin foil
backing on some 1/4" MDF, once a fella using an aluminum piece as a push
stick (he swears he didn't touch the blade). once cutting pressure
treated material (too much moisture). This is right at $100 per block.
Yes it does stop the blade and machine RIGHT NOW - it will scare the tar
out of ya they tell me.

At this point I am happy with my old Delta.


No fair, Dude ... interjecting real experience into an argument based on
hypothetical bickering.

For shame ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

So, it doesn't work on moisture as some pretend it to be. I believe they
claim it to be a capacitive sensing.

It would trigger on wood that is too wet and many other situations until it
is desensitized so much, to make it reliable against false triggers, that is
will not trigger on human flesh in a real situation anyway.


---------
"DanG" wrote in message ...
They are on stop block number 7 or 8. Yes, there is a switch to prevent
this happening in wet wood, etc. Once a hidden nail, once a tin foil
backing on some 1/4" MDF, once a fella using an aluminum piece as a push
stick (he swears he didn't touch the blade). once cutting pressure
treated material (too much moisture). This is right at $100 per block.
Yes it does stop the blade and machine RIGHT NOW - it will scare the
tar out of ya they tell me.

At this point I am happy with my old Delta.

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



This may be the beginning of the end of reasonably priced table saws for
occasional users like me. I still have my hand saws.

--
Gerald Ross

What's a nice girl like you doing in a
dirty mind like mine?

On Oct 8, 1:50*pm, Gerald Ross wrote:

This may be the beginning of the end of reasonably priced table saws for
occasional users like me. *I still have my hand saws.

They're dangerous, too. A common injury back in the day was
"carpenter's thumb". That's where the saw jumped the kerf and bit
into the back of the thumb and cut the tendon. That left the poor sod
with a thumb that could be flexed but not straightened.

There simply will not be an overnight change in the entire saw
market. If and when the new regs roll out it will mean that only new
tools would be required to conform to the new and improved safety
regulations. Used tools will still be available, though the prices of
those will probably rise a bit as well. The regulations would have a
date of compliance set at some point in the future, which will allow
people to start hoarding existing saws, new and used.

Take a gamble - buy a dozen hobbiest tablesaws from Harbor Freight.
Shouldn't cost more than a few hundred and the potential payback might
be double that...if you live that long.

R