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.