1. “…his injury would also have been prevented by properly following existing safety procedures that are well documented and clearly were violated in this instance”
2. The author is defending Bosch claiming that the man who is suing them for a finger injury with a non-Sawstop miter saw(because Sawstop was not implemented in his product, when the Sawstop company proposed, in 2000, the technology to Bosch for implementation to all future saws produced.) could have been prevented if the man with the injury was to follow existing safety procedures outlined with the saws original purchase.
3. This proposal is a Consequential
4. The claim is proposing that the man who is suing Bosch received his injury because he didn’t follow safety precautions when using the saw. The claim does not, however, state the way the man received his injury to begin with. With an injury caused by the mans negligence in regards to safety warnings, then the claim is accurate and precise.
5. Bosch is seen as innocent in the claim, yet if the man received his injury based off of a saw malfunction, then the claim is false.