Saws Part 1- Joseph Passalacqua

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.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in A04: Safer Saws, Joe Passalacqua. Bookmark the permalink.

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