Saws part 1 – Rory O’Connell

“By his own admission he knew the technology was available (for table saws) but what he doesn’t admit is that even the originator of the technology (SawStop) failed to ever place it into a miter saw – which was the tool used during the unfortunate accident. If the patent-owner hadn’t come up with a reason, method, or incentive to develop a SawStop-enabled Miter saw, then it is unreasonable to assert that Bosch should have done so.” – Bosch Tools Dragged Into SawStop-centric Lawsuit

The injured man had sued Bosch because they failed to include a safety device on the miter saw he was using. By bringing this case to court he admits that he know this technology was available but still failed to purchase the SawStop to prevent the accident he is suing Bosch over.

This is a consequential claim because the injured man believes he was harmed due to the lack of safety equipment on his saw.

By using this claim the victim puts the blame of not including a safety device onto the manufacturer. Even though he felt like the company should have included the SawStop it’s up to the customer if they want the extra safety device that can cost them $150-$200.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in A04: Safer Saws, Rory O'Connell. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Saws part 1 – Rory O’Connell

  1. davidbdale says:

    You say he admits the “technology was available” but failed to notice that the technology wasn’t in fact available for the type of saw he was using.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s