Safer Saws Part II – Kevin Buttari

Manufactures: “If consumers want to pay extra for safety, they can buy the safe table saw that is now on the market.”  This is a consequential claim made by the Power Tool Industry.  While it does make a descent point, they made a crucial error in telling people to buy a different brand of saw.  They are also losing a great opportunity to make money buy entering the safe saw business.

Customers: “Wec says his permanent and “traumatic injury” could have been prevented if Bosch and its competitors had not rejected and fought against the safety technology.” This consequential claim presented by Wec very simply explains how his injury could’ve been prevented, and I agree with what he says.

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 would be an evaluation claim because they are trying to reevaluate the issue of safety and why saw stop wouldn’t solve everyones problems.  They do make a valid point about the vagueness of the injury statistics

Consumer Safety Advocates: “table saw safety standards have proven ineffective in protecting consumers.”  This is a proposal claim.  Almost all of its credibility is reliant on previously stated facts and statistics from  the article.

Injured Plaintiffs: “(The Plaintiff’s) injury would also have been prevented by properly following existing safety procedures that are well documented and clearly were violated in this instance.” This is a consequential claim because it shows how the plaintiff could be at fault.

Personal Injury Lawyers: “Table saws cause more injuries than any other woodworking tool.”  This is a very black and white categorical claim.  It gets right down to the point and makes its claim

Government Officials: “When the Commission first considered this issue in 2006, the injury statistics and disturbing natures of these life-altering, yet preventable injuries were unacceptable.” This claim is categorical because it bluntly the nature of the situation. I like how the government realized that these are very preventable injuries.

News Reporters: “The plaintiff is demanding more than $30,000 from Bosch for negligence, breach of warranty and product liability.”  This is an evaluation claim because it lets everyone know what is happening during a lawsuit.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in A04: Safer Saws, Kevin Buttari. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Safer Saws Part II – Kevin Buttari

  1. davidbdale says:

    I disagree with almost all your characterizations, Kevin, but it’s mostly irrelevant now. Would you make the same determinations now, I wonder? For example, that last one merely states the situation: Wec is suing for $30,000. That’s barely a claim at all. It states a fact. If it said, he’s suing because he feels Bosch neglected his safety by selling an unsafe saw, THAT would be an evaluation claim, not because Wec made an evaluation, but because the AUTHOR made an evaluation of Wec’s position. Do you see the difference?

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