Safer Saws — Jon Gonzoph

Posted on January 30, 2012 by Blueitem (Jon G.)

Edited: Completely changed answers to questions 2, 3, and 4, as well as fixing a few typos

  1. In regards to table saws, from a lawsuit filed in Chicago:   “By agreeing not [to] employ such safer alternatives, defendant and its competitors attempted to assure that those alternatives would not become ‘state of the art,’ thereby attempting to insulate themselves from liability for placing a defective product on the market,” Ryszard Wec claims in Cook County Court. — Injured Man Says Bosch Tool Lobbied Feds to Keep Safer Power Saws off the Market
  2. There are a multitude of claims in this paragraph.  One claim is that the products on the market are defective because they are unsafe. This also contains a nested claim on the definition of defective (going by the Merriam-Webster definition of “imperfect is form or function,” everything is defective in some way, even the alternatives). Another claim is that the “safer alternatives” referred to are truly more effective at preventing injury. Finally, a claim is made that the defendant and it’s competitors declined to purchase the safer alternatives to protect themselves from being sued for putting defective products in the marketplace.
  3. Respectively: categorical, definitional, categorical, consequential
  4. There are safer alternatives known to exist, such as Steve Gass’ SawStop, and it is also recorded that he tried to offer Bosch the technology. The claim that the company didn’t purchase the alternatives to protect themselves from the liability of having put products not using these alternatives onto the market has no supporting claims, and thus is not very persuasive.
  5. I agree to an extent. While it is important that products have appropriate safeguards, going too far will make those products unfeasible to produce. I’m not sure where SawStop and other saw safety ideas fall on that scale.
This entry was posted in X Stop Saw. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Safer Saws — Jon Gonzoph

  1. davidbdale's avatar davidbdale says:
    January 30, 2012 at 3:59 pm

    Thanks for posting early, Jon. It gives me a chance to engage in some arguing with you before your post is due.

    I disagree with your analysis of the quote. It doesn’t appear to blame Bosch for Wec’s injury at all. In fact, it doesn’t mention Wec or any injury. Instead, it’s a pure business claim, that manufacturers conspired to keep a competitor out of the market. The further claim that they did so to avoid liability carries with it the claims that SawStop is safer “state-of-the-art” technology, and that the manufacturers recognized this and feared it. There’s yet another claim about the liability claims they wanted to avoid. Yet another is that a product that does not include “state-of-the-art” safety equipment is therefore “defective.” That’s a real beauty!

    Now, to be sure, Wec may blame Bosch for his injury, but this paragraph doesn’t. It is, however, rich with other very specific claims worth investigating.

    You lose me completely with: “There is a logic jump that purchasing that protection implies the saw companies are trying to keep it out of mainstream circulation,” Jon. They’ve declined to “purchase that protection,” so I don’t follow your reasoning.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment