Safer Saws Pt. 2- Steve LeBano

 

  1. Manufacturers: “The saw brake technology adds around $100 to the cost of a saw. For expensive saws, that may not be a big deal. But for cheap $100 saws at Home Depot, it could double the price. The industry has said that’s unreasonable.” This is an example of a consequential claim because it states that a consequence of requiring this technology would make all saws about $100 more expensive. Another consequence stated is that bargain saw prices could reach unreasonable levels.
  2. Customers: “A man who was cut by a miter saw says Robert Bosch Tool Corp. “colluded with its competitors” and lobbied the Consumer Protection Safety Commission to keep “flesh detection and braking technology” from being required on table saws.” This is a proposal claim because the plaintiff is suggesting that the power tool companies have organized to block this new technology.”
  3. Industry Spokespeople: “The Power Tool Institute (made up of many of the major tool manufacturers) takes strong offense to the concept of making safety devices like this mandatory on products like table saws. They cite both technical and practical/financial problems with mandating SawStop technology.” This is an evaluation claim because The PTI has evaluated SawStop technology as technically and financially unfeasible.
  4. Consumer Safety Advocates: Inez Tenenbaum, the chairwoman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission stated that “she would prefer for the industry to work out a way to license this safety brake technology and adopt it voluntarily.” This is a proposal claim because she is proposing finding an alternative way to mandate safer saw technology.
  5. 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 an example of a consequential claim because the author is claiming the plaintiff’s injury was a result of his/her negligence.
  6. Personal Injury Lawyers: The Schmidt Law Firm, LLP made the following statement regarding the Osorio vs. Ryobi case: “If this safety mechanism had been included in the table saw, Osorio’s injuries would have been limited to a 1/8-inch cut on only one finger, instead of two unusable fingers and three fingers with no feeling, requiring five surgeries and $384,000 in medical expenses. The court awarded Osorio $1.5 million in damages.” This is a consequential statement because they are stating that Osorio’s injuries were the direct result of Ryobi’s negligence.
  7. Government Officials: “If the Consumer Protection Safety Commission issued a mandatory rule it would be extremely difficult for the industry to comply because of patent restrictions on sensor technology.” This is an example of an evaluation claim because the CPSC is evaluating how saw companies would be able to obtain flesh sensor technology.
  8. News Reporters:  “The horrific track record of injury conclusively demonstrates that guards are not a sufficient solution to preventing injuries on table saws.” This claim is definitional because it defines blade guards as an insufficient solution to table saw injuries.
Advertisements
This entry was posted in A04: Safer Saws, Steve LeBano. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Safer Saws Pt. 2- Steve LeBano

  1. davidbdale says:

    Very fine work, Steve.

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