Saws Part 1- Anthony Matias

1. “Injured Man Says Bosch Tool Lobbied Feds to Keep Safer Power Saws off the Market,” explains Ryszard Wec’s claims in Cook County Court. Wec says that, “his permanent and traumatic injury could have been prevented if Bosch and its competitors had not rejected and fought against the safety technology.”

2.  This claim is saying that Wec believes that his injury could have been prevented if Bosch would have used the safer technology that they knew existed, in their saws.  He also claims that Bosch and other companies banned together to push the idea of safer saws away to protect their businesses rather than to use the idea to protect the well being of those who use the saws.

3.  Wec’s claim is categorical claim. SawStop belongs to the category of safe saws  Bosch falls under the category of manufactures that reject SawStop.  Wec is a victim of Bosch’s unsafe saws.

4.  His claim, speaks for everyone that has been injured using saws that don’t have SawStop because he, himself was a vitcim.  He is very persuasive, and makes a good point.  If safer technology is available to these big named companies why don’t they use it.  He has the right to sue the company that provided him with the unsafe saw because it was their failure to adopt new methods that got him injured.

5.  Even though he makes a valid point in blaming the company for his injury, I have to disagree with what he is doing.  If he wants to blame anyone it should be himself, it was his carelessness that his finger got cut in the first place.  Companies cannot compensate for human error.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in A04: Safer Saws, Anthony Matias, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Saws Part 1- Anthony Matias

  1. davidbdale says:

    Anthony, your post is WAY too similar to Chris DiSarcina’s post. I first noticed the similarity when you both incorrectly said Bosch and other companies had “banned” together to resist the technology when you both meant that they had banded together.

    1] Bridget Freeland’s article, “Injured Man Says Bosch Tool Lobbied Feds to Keep Safer Power Saws off the Market,” explains Ryszard Wec’s claims in Cook County Court. Wec says that, “his permanent and ‘traumatic injury’ could have been prevented if Bosch and its competitors had not rejected and fought against the safety technology.”

    2] Wec claims that since Bosch’s saw was not provided to his company, the failure to make of use it makes Bosch responsible for his injuries. He also claims that the Robert Bosch Tool Corporation banned together with its competitors to keep his technology from being the standard safety precaution for all saws.

    3] Ryszard Wec is making a categorical claim. Bosch’s saw belongs to the category of safe saws. All other saws belong to the category of unsafe saws. Wec belongs to the category of victims of unsafe saws.

    4] Wec’s claim is very persuasive. He has firsthand, pardon the expression, experience of what happens with unsafe saws. It does not seem fair to blame the company that makes the saw. However, it would be prudent of him to sue the company that actually provided the saw he was injured with.

    5] I do disagree with Wec’s claims because, to me, it seems that he is just trying to get more money. It’s not Bosch’s fault that his tools were not readily available to the public.

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