1. Manufacturers- ”Besides that, his injury would also have been prevented by properly following existing safety procedures that are well documented and clearly were violated in this instance. You can’t cut off your fingers if they don’t get near the blade.” I would consider this quote to be an evaluation claim. The saw company gives a clearly stated handbook or instruction manual that outlines how and how not to use their saw. In the handbook they state safety precautions in which were violated by the user, making the user, not the company, at fault.
2. Customers- “Society will save money if safer saws are required.” I would consider this statement to be a casual claim. I believe this to be a casual claim because the customer is saying that we as a society will save more money if all saws were safer without any factual information to back it up. This statement is referencing how all the medical costs from a typical saw injury would be saved but does not touch on how high the costs would then be because of the highly priced safe saws.
3. Industry Spokespeople- “A low percentage of the 30,000 annual (U.S.) table saw injuries are due to contact with the blade – most are from kickback.” This claim is a consequential one. The spokespeople of the saw industry are arguing that most saw related injuries occur from kickback from the saw and not from a straight cut to a limb. They are trying to make the consequential claim that most often, injuries from saws do not occur in the way that a “safe saw” would prevent.
4. Consumer Safety Advocates- “Consumer advocates are asking the Consumer Products Safety Commission, the federal agency responsible for protecting Americans from dangerous products, to require manufacturers to include the new safety mechanism.” I think that this is a proposal claim because of how those representing the consumers are proposing that the Consumer Products Safety Commission make it a law that all saws must be made with sawstop in order to keep the consumers safe.
5. Injured Plaintiffs- “The court found that the table saw’s manufacturer, One World Technologies, was liable for Osorio’s injuries for failing to include the SawStop safety mechanism in the Ryobi table saw.” Because the ruling is clearly stated that One World Technologies is liable for the injuries brought on by their saw that did not have sawstop, this is a definitive claim.
6. Personal Injury Lawyers- “The Schmidt Firm, LLP is currently accepting Table Saw induced injury cases in all 50 states.” I believe this to be a proposal claim because of how this law firm is now accepting clients with table saw related injuries because of their interest in defending theses unfortunate people.
7. Government Officials- “California legislators are trying to pass a law that would require all table saws sold after January 1, 2015 to have flesh-sensing safety technology. Proponents say the law would prevent thousands of injuries and billions in costs to society.“ I believe this is a proposal claim, because the California government is attempting to make a solution to the currently problematic safety issues of table saws.
8. News Reporters- “The plaintiff is demanding more than $30,000 from Bosch for negligence, breach of warranty and product liability.” For people like myself who does not understand the ways of the courtroom, this is a confusing quote, but I think that it is an evaluation claim because of how it is explaining the details of the court case.