“By agreeing not [to] employ such safer alternatives, the 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. Ryszard Wec claims that because Bosh Tool attempted to assure that the “alternatives” would not become state of the art, they are trying to deny their liability to any person who is injured while using their products. Previously in the article, it was stated that there were alternate, current, state of the art technologies that would prevent saw users from severely injuring themselves. This technology is called the saw stop, which is able to detect the electromagnetic difference between a person’s fingers and a piece of wood; if a finger or another body part were to come into contact with the saw it would immediately stop. So, by refusing to install the saw stop technology that could potentially save many people hospital trips due to detached limbs, Ryszard Wec asserts that Bosh Tool has every right to be sued for their refusal to install this technology and any injuries that come as a result of their neglect. Bosh Tool’s claim against this is that if nobody offered the saw stop technology, than there would be no reason to sue for unsafe saws. However, the technology is offered and available to consumers who wish to purchase it.
3. It is an evaluation claim.
4. Wec’s claim does not weight out the costs and benefits of the saw stop technology but it can be assumed that Bosh Tool and other saw producing companies did when they decided not to instate the new advancement. And, that the costs and benefits were also weighed by Bosh Tool when the company denied its liabilities for accidents that occurred as a result of their saws: the cost-the law suit; the benefit; denying plausible liability.