“Richard Sullivan, a Boston lawyer hired by insurance companies to handle workers’ compensation cases, was the first to take on the manufacturers. He watched a CNN video of SawStop’s demonstration, and in 2006 filed a complaint on behalf of Carlos Osorio, who mutilated his hand on a Ryobi saw while laying hardwood floors, requiring five surgeries and $384,000 in medical bills.
Last week, Osorio’s legal team, which includes national firm Boies, Schiller and Flexner, pointed to SawStop’s sales as evidence that the technology is not only mechanically feasible but financially viable. They asked for $250,000 in damages, but the jury awarded Osorio, now 30, $1.5 million.”
-Amy Hsuan, The Oregonian
The claim here is one that is entirely reasonable. Osorio’s legal team pointed (claimed that) Sawstop’s sales as evidence that the technology is not only mechanically feasible but financially viable. You can buy a new saw blade if you make a mistake, but its significantly harder, if not almost impossible to resow a finger on and use it effectively. The claim that Sullivan and his team are trying to make is a casual claim. If the technology exists and its and its affordable, why not just do it and save themselves the lawsuits?